The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning [1 edition] 9781118955888, 1118955889, 9781118955895, 1118955897, 9781118955901, 1118955900

Citation preview

Table of Contents Cover Introduction Purpose About the Authors Organization of Chapters Part 1: The Context of Schooling 1 The Complexity of American Teacher Education 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Aggressive Policy Environment 1.3 Deprofessionalization of Teachers 1.4 Changes in Pedagogy 1.5 Demographic Changes 1.6 A Proliferation of Providers 1.7 Conclusion References 2 School Reform—A NeverEnding Story 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Policy Development: A New Style and Approach 2.3 Policy Development and Policy Actions 2.4 Policy Development and Policy Actions: Some Reflections 2.5 Exploring the Implementation Process 2.6 The SenseMaking Process: Two Illustrations 2.7 Pitfalls and Promising Perspectives: Four Important Conclusions References 3 The Culture and Teaching Gap 3.1 Introduction 3.2 What Issues Are Important to Consider in Addressing the Culture and Teaching Gap? 3.3 How Can Teacher Education Programs Help to Close the Culture and Teaching Gap? 3.4 How Should We Restructure Teacher Education Programs? 3.5 Conclusions

References 4 The Role of the Community in Learning and Development 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Collaboration with Community Institutions 4.3 Collaboration with Community Members and Families 4.4 Challenges to Developing Partnerships with Families and Communities 4.5 What’s Next for School, Community, and Family Collaboration References 5 Building Capacity in Order to Strengthen Teaching and Learning 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Capacity and CapacityBuilding 5.3 CapacityBuilding in Teaching and Learning 5.4 Build Learning Capacity to Increase Learning and Achievement 5.5 A Multidimensional Approach to CapacityBuilding: The MDA 5.6 Next Steps: CapacityBuilding Schools and Districts References 6 Implementing and Sustaining Language Curriculum Reform in Singapore Primary Schools 6.1 Introduction 6.2 English Language Education in Singapore 6.3 EL Syllabi in Singapore (1959–2010) 6.4 The STELLAR® Program: A National Literacy Reform 6.5 National Implementation Approach 6.6 Current State of Affairs 6.7 Challenges Facing the Program 6.8 Future Plans References Part 2: Learners and Learning 7 Educational Neuroscience 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Why Neuroscience? The Allure of the Sexy Brain 7.3 LevelsofAnalysis 7.4 Analogies, Not Data 7.5 Do Teachers Need to Know about the Brain?

7.6 EvidenceBased or Evidence Demonstrated: Hypotheses for Practice 7.7 What Do Teachers Need to Know about the Brain? 7.8 The Yellow Belt Problem 7.9 How Do We Get There Responsibly? References 8 Turning Toward Students 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Adopting a StudentCentered Stance 8.3 Defining the Challenge: Standards, Standardized Tests, and Curricular Mandates 8.4 Rising to the Challenge: Adopting a StudentCentered Approach 8.5 Imagining the Possibilities References 9 Learning Anytime, Anywhere through Technology 9.1 Introduction 9.2 The iMaker Generation 9.3 The iMaker Generation Profile 9.4 The iMaker Generation in the Making 9.5 Moving Beyond Learning with Technology: Learning Anytime, Anywhere through Technology 9.6 Conclusion References 10 The Place of Learning in the Systematization and Standardization of Early Childhood Education 10.1 Introduction 10.2 The Systematization and Standardization of Early Childhood Education 10.3 Play, Learning, and the Systematization and Standardization of ECE 10.4 Teacher Learning and the Systematization and Standardization of ECE 10.5 Future Directions 10.6 Conclusion References 11 Exceptional Education is Special 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Contributing Factors to Special Education Policies and Practices 11.3 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

11.4 No Child Left Behind 11.5 Every Student Succeeds Act 11.6 Meeting Rigorous Performance Expectations 11.7 Discussion 11.8 Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations References 12 CASE STUDY Nevada’s English Language Learner Strategy 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Policy Implementation Research: Translating Policy into Implementation 12.3 Changing Demographics: Implications for Urban Areas and Public Education 12.4 A Contextualized Examination of Nevada 12.5 Implementation of Nevada’s ELL Policy: Challenges and Lessons Learned References Part 3: Teachers and Teaching 13 Next Generation Research in Dialogic Learning 13.1 Introduction 13.2 Language and Learning 13.3 Focusing Research on TalkBased Learning 13.4 Evidence for Improved Learning via Accountable Talk 13.5 Why Might Dialogue Produce These Results? 13.6 Dialogic Learning in Practice: Why the Resistance? 13.7 Next Steps References 14 Guiding and Promoting Student Learning 14.1 Introduction 14.2 School Reform Initiatives 14.3 Theoretical Foundations of the Charter School 14.4 Setting of the Charter School 14.5 Participants in Our Journey 14.6 Individualizing the Collective Charter School Mission 14.7 Guiding Student Learning in the Classroom 14.8 Applications and Implications 14.9 Promoting Learning by Integrating Theory with Practice References

15 A Smile is Universal 15.1 Introduction 15.2 Defining Cultural Responsiveness 15.3 Level of Demand for Preservice Teachers to Acquire an Opportunity to Teach Abroad: Current Demographic Mismatch 15.4 International Field Experiences 15.5 Experiencing an International Field Experience: Costa Rica 15.6 Conclusion References 16 Envisioning Alternative Futures 16.1 Introduction 16.2 Eisner in Context 16.3 The Arts as Core to Education 16.4 Educational Assessment and Evaluation 16.5 ArtsBased Educational Research 16.6 Extensions of Eisner’s Thinking References 17 CASE STUDY Trajectories in Developing Novice Teacher Leadership Potential 17.1 Introduction 17.2 Conceptual Framework 17.3 Modes of Inquiry, Data Sources, and Analysis 17.4 Practical Implications 17.5 Limitations and Future Research 17.6 Conclusion References 18 CRITIQUE What Effect Size Doesn’t Tell Us 18.1 Introduction 18.2 Concepts and Facts: Situating Instruction and Effect Size 18.3 Understanding the Interactive Nature of Instruction and Placing our Trust in EffectSize Research 18.4 Expert Behavior and the Misinterpretation of Lenses that Guide Action 18.5 Level of Use: The Level of Skill when Implementing Innovations References Part 4: Educators as Learners and Leaders

19 The Importance of Teacher Induction for Improving Teaching and Learning 19.1 Introduction 19.2 The Current State of Teacher Induction 19.3 The History of Induction 19.4 The Future of Teacher Induction References 20 Teacher Leadership 20.1 Introduction 20.2 The Slow Evolution of Teacher Leadership 20.3 Signs of Change 20.4 Reactions to a Hostile Climate 20.5 Why Teacher Leadership? 20.6 How Research Informs the Cultivation and Utilization of Teacher Leaders 20.7 The State of Teacher Leadership Today 20.8 Barriers to Teacher Leadership 20.9 The Future of Teacher Leadership References 21 Principal Instructional Leadership 21.1 Introduction 21.2 Leadership and Learning 21.3 Instructional Leadership: From Theory into Practice 21.4 Challenges for Research and Practice 21.5 Conclusion References 22 CASE STUDY Restorative Justice 22.1 Introduction 22.2 Theoretical Framework 22.3 Applied Behavior Analysis 22.4 Sociocultural Theory 22.5 Contrasting Approaches 22.6 Basic Principles of Restorative Justice in Schools 22.7 The Evidence 22.8 Restorative Activities in the Classroom 22.9 Conclusion

References Part 5: Evaluation and Assessment 23 Back to the Future 23.1 Introduction 23.2 The Growth of LargeScale Assessment and the Expansion of Assessment Based Accountability 23.3 The Assessment Revolution and a Focus on the Power of Classroom Assessment 23.4 Making Sense of Assessment: Creating a Common Vocabulary 23.5 Assessment of Learning (AOL) 23.6 Assessment for Learning (A4L) 23.7 Assessment as Learning: Linking Assessment of and for Learning 23.8 Conclusion References 24 Views of Classroom Assessment 24.1 Introduction 24.2 Defining Classroom Assessment 24.3 Educator Assessment Literacy 24.4 Assessment as a Bridge between Learning and Teaching: A Vignette 24.5 Future Directions for Classroom Assessment References 25 Rethinking Teacher Quality in the Age of Smart Machines 25.1 Introduction 25.2 Challenges to the Current Assumptions 25.3 Reconceptualizing Teaching 25.4 Rethinking Teacher Quality 25.5 Summary References 26 Rethinking the Intersection of Instruction, Change, and Systemic Change 26.1 Introduction 26.2 The Design of Instruction 26.3 Selecting and Integrating/Stacking Instructional Methods: Searching for Power (Effect Size) 26.4 Expertise in the Implementation of Instructional Innovations 26.5 Cooperative Learning—Not an Instructional Method

26.6 Shifting to Widespread Use of an Innovation 26.7 Conclusion References 27 CRITIQUE 27.1 Introduction 27.2 The Points of Departure 27.3 Deployments of EvidenceBased Learning in Educational Policy: The Australian Case 27.4 Uses of EvidenceBased Learning Research 27.5 Where Does This Leave Us? On the Limits of EvidenceBased Learning 27.6 Toward Socially Recognizable Evidence References Epilogue Index End User License Agreement

List of Tables Chapter 03 Table 3.1 Percent of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools by race: selected years, 1987–1988 through 2011–2012. Chapter 05 Table 5.1 Continuum of support. Table 5.2 Capacitybuilding continuum of support. Table 5.3 The alignment of the MDA5 foundation capacities and the concernsbased adoption model’s (CBAM) Levels of Use (LoU) and Stage of Concern (SoC). Chapter 06 Table 6.1 EL syllabi and key features (1959–2010). Chapter 07 Table 7.1 Neuromyths in the field of education. Chapter 09 Table 9.1 The critical attributes of Generation Next, the iGeneration, and the maker mindset. Table 9.2 Major technology and technologyrelated events from the 1950s to the

present. Chapter 11 Table 11.1 Provisions of IDEA. Table 11.2 Shifts from NCLB to ESSA. Table 11.3 Highleverage practices for all teachers. Chapter 12 Table 12.1 Fastestgrowing metropolitan areas, 2000–2010. Table 12.2 Top 10 states in which persons 5 and older speak a language other than English at home. Table 12.3 Demographic profile of Nevada students by ethnicity or race, Nevada, 2014–2015. Table 12.4 2015 Nevada grade 4, reading and math results. Table 12.5 Nevada legislation addressing ELLs, 1995–2015. Table 12.6 Clark County School District Zoom schools, implementation summary, 2013–2014 and 2014–2015. Table 12.7 English Mastery Council areas of work. Chapter 18 Table 18.1 Level of Use rubric – Venn diagrams (VDs). Chapter 19 Table 19.1 List of induction components (categorically organized). Table 19.2 Overview of the eras of induction history. Table 19.3 The opposing paradigms and their view of the three conceptualizations of induction. Chapter 22 Table 22.1 Comparison of traditional and alternative approaches to responding to wrongdoing and conflict in classrooms. Table 22.2 Contrast of traditional punishment and restorative justice approaches. Chapter 26 Table 26.1 Design of instructional concepts. Table 26.2 Connecting instructional methods to thinking. Table 26.3 Instructional classification. Table 26.4 Levels of Use and behavioral indicators for that level*.

Table 26.5 Rubric Think Pair Share implementation. Table 26.6 Implementation rubric (teacher): five basic elements of group work. Table 26.7 Implementation rubric for student selfassessment of group work. Table 26.8 Rubric on the factors affecting implementation.

List of Illustrations Chapter 03 Figure 3.1 Percentage distribution of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: fall 2002, fall 2012, and fall 2024. Chapter 05 Figure 5.1 The MDA5 capacities. Chapter 07 Figure 7.1 The presence of brain images leads to a greater acceptance of bad arguments or explanations. Figure 7.2 The progression of the levelsofanalysis in the study of human behavior with increasing levels of complexity. Chapter 08 Figure 8.1 Studentcentered teaching in action. Chapter 09 Figure 9.1 P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning. Figure 9.2 The TPACK Framework. Figure 9.3 The SAMR model. Chapter 15 Figure 15.1 Population shift of Whites in the United States (1980–2014). Figure 15.2 Population shift of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students in U.S. public schools (1991–2011). Figure 15.3 Projected percentage increase in the diversity of the U.S. student population (2011–2022). Figure 15.4 Number of students aged 5–17 speaking a language other than English at home (2009–2014). Figure 15.5 Ethnic and racial diversity of public school teachers (2011–2012). Chapter 17

Figure 17.1 Transformative discourse for developing leadership potential. Chapter 21 Figure 21.1 Model of leadership effects on learning. Figure 21.2 Principal instructional leadership framework. Chapter 24 Figure 24.1 Example ticketout form. Chapter 26 Figure 26.1 Organizer for the three dimensions of cooperative learning. Chapter 27 Figure 27.1 Pathways of evidence construction.

Wiley Handbooks in Education The Wiley Handbooks in Education offer a capacious and comprehensive overview of higher education in a global context. These stateoftheart volumes offer a magisterial overview of every sector, subfield and facet of the disciplinefrom reform and foundations to K12 learning and literacy. The Handbooks also engage with topics and themes dominating today’s educational agendamentoring, technology, adult and continuing education, college access, race and educational attainment. Showcasing the very best scholarship that the discipline has to offer, The Wiley Handbooks in Education will set the intellectual agenda for scholars, students, researchers for years to come. The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning by Gene E. Hall (Editor), Linda F. Quinn (Editor), and Donna M. Gollnick (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions by Harvey Shapiro (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform by Kenneth J. Saltman (Editor) and Alexander Means (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education by Dennis Beach (Editor), Carl Bagley (Editor), and Sofia Marques da Silva (Editor) The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning by Scott Alan Metzger (Editor) and Lauren McArthur Harris (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Christianity and Education by William Jeynes (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Diversity in Special Education by Marie Tejero Hughes (Editor) and Elizabeth Talbott (Editor) The Wiley International Handbook of Educational Leadership by Duncan Waite (Editor) and Ira Bogotch (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research by Meghan McGlinn Manfra (Editor) and Cheryl Mason Bolick (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of School Choice by Robert A. Fox (Editor) and Nina K. Buchanan (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Home Education by Milton Gaither (Editor) The Wiley Handbook of Cognition and Assessment: Frameworks, Methodologies, and Applications by Andre A. Rupp (Editor) and Jacqueline P. Leighton (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology by Nick Rushby (Editor) and Dan Surry (Editor)

The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning Edited by

Gene E. Hall Linda F. Quinn Donna M. Gollnick

This edition first published 2018 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of Gene E. Hall, Linda F. Quinn, and Donna M. Gollnick to be identified as the author(s) of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA Editorial Office 101 Station Landing, Medford, MA 02155, USA For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by printondemand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data Names: Hall, Gene E., 1941– editor. | Quinn, Linda F., editor. | Gollnick, Donna M., editor. Title: The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning / edited by Gene E. Hall, Linda F. Quinn, Donna M. Gollnick. Description: 1 edition. | Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2018. | Series: Wiley Handbooks in Education | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017056762 (print) | LCCN 2018008765 (ebook) | ISBN 9781118955888 (pdf) | ISBN 9781118955895 (epub) | ISBN 9781118955871 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: Teaching–Handbooks, manuals, etc. Classification: LCC LB1025.3 (ebook) | LCC LB1025.3 .W463 2018 (print) | DDC 371.102–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017056762 Cover Design: Wiley Cover Image: © Rpsycho / Getty Images

Notes on Contributors John T. Almarode is an Associate Professor in the Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading Education at James Madison University. John is also the CoDirector of the University’s Center for STEM Education and Outreach. He has authored multiple articles, reports, book chapters, and two books including Captivate, Activate, and Invigorate the Student Brain in Science and Math, Grades 6–12 (2013), From Snorkelers to Scuba Divers in the Elementary Science Classroom, and Visible Learning in Science. Stephen Anderson is a Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto and Director of OISE’s Comparative, International, and Development Education Program and Centre. His work focuses on school improvement, teacher development, and education leadership in Canada, the United States, East Africa, Pakistan, and Latin America. His scholarly publications appear in such journals as School Effectiveness and School Improvement, the International Journal of Educational Development, Curriculum Inquiry, the Canadian Journal of Education, the Journal of School Leadership, Leadership and Policy in Schools, and the Journal of Educational Change. Elliott Asp is Senior Partner, Colorado Education Initiative. Prior to this position he was Senior Fellow, Policy and Practice with Achieve, Inc. Before joining Achieve, he served as Interim Commissioner of the Colorado Department of Education. His career in education spans 40 years as a classroom teacher, building and central office administrator, curriculum developer, and university professor. He has consulted with school districts and educational agencies in a number of states on assessment and accountability. He has made numerous presentations to state and national audiences and has served on a variety of state advisory boards. Christa S. C. Asterhan is Senior Lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s School of Education, where she heads the Learning and Instruction program and directs the Learning in Interaction Lab. Her research focuses on the cognitive and social aspects of human interaction and how these drive (or inhibit) learning in various educational settings, such as peerto peer group work, online social networks, and teacher professional communities. She co edited the 2015 AERA publication, Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue. Barrie Bennett is Professor Emeritus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. He was previously an elementary, middle school, and secondary teacher. His research work focuses primarily on the design of powerful learning environments for students and teachers through the process of systemic change. He is currently working in school districts in Australia, Ireland, and Canada on longterm projects related to instructional intelligence and systemic change. He recently finished a book, Effective Group Work: Beyond Cooperative Learning, and is currently completing a manuscript focused on systemic change with the title “Who Will Bell the Cat: An Analysis of Systemic Shift.”

Barnett Berry is founder and CEO of the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ), whose focus is on an equitable and excellent public education for all students driven by the bold ideas and best practices of their educators. In 2003, CTQ launched the nation’s first virtual network of teacher leaders: the CTQ Collaboratory. Barnett has served as a high school social studies teacher, a social scientist at RAND, a professor of education at the University of South Carolina, and a senior executive for policy at the SC Department of Education. Prior to founding CTQ in the late 1990s, he directed the state partnership network for the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. He is the author of more than 100 peer review papers on teaching policy, teacher leadership, accountability, and school reform as well as two books, Teaching 2030 (Teachers College Press, 2011) and Teacherpreneurs (JosseyBass, 2013). Barnett serves on numerous national advisory boards and task forces, and consults with other organizations in the service of public education and the teaching profession. Roderick L. Carey is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Delaware. His research interests are in the schooling experiences and future ambitions of Black and Latino adolescent boys in urban school settings, the challenges facing families of color within urban communities, and teacher education for diversity and equity. Most recently, his articles have been published in the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, the Educational Forum, Education and Urban Society, Educatorional Administration Quartely, Independent School, The Urban Review, and Urban Education. Tom Cavanagh is Adjunct Professor at Colorado State University. He was the recipient of Fulbright and Erskine Fellowships in New Zealand. His research focuses on the areas of restorative justice and restorative practices in schools, exploring how we can create peaceful and caring relationships, and exploring what young people want to learn about peace. He also is engaged with how schools can use restorative principles and practices to respond to student wrongdoing and conflict in conjunction with a culturally appropriate pedagogy of relations in classrooms. He has worked on developing and putting into practice a theory of a culture of care based on the principles and practices of restorative justice. Sherice N. Clarke is an Assistant Professor in Education Studies University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on teaching and learning through talk and dialogue. She examines the barriers and enablers to student learning through classroom dialogue, and how to support teachers creating opportunities for learning through talk. She coedited the 2015 AERA publication, Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue. Sarah Crosby served as a fifthgrade literacy instructor at Innovations International Charter School of Nevada and works to develop reading and writing skills with students. She previously served as the fifthgrade chairperson, mentoring and advising teachers on instructional practices. She also served as the 504 Plan Coordinator at the school. Sarah has a Masters of Education in Curriculum and Instruction from Concordia University, Portland, OR. David B. Daniel is professor of psychology at James Madison University. He is an award winning teacher and Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science. He served for over a decade as the founding managing editor of the journal Mind, Brain and Education. David has

been honored numerous times for his teaching and translational efforts, including the Society for the Transforming Education through Neuroscience Award, the Teaching of Psychology’s Teaching Excellence Award, and being recognized as one of the top 1% of educational researchers influencing public debate. Lori DelaleO’Connor is an Assistant Professor of Education at the Center for Urban Education in the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Education. Her research interests include the social and cultural contexts of education, family and community engagement, and youth development, all with a focus on urban schools and neighborhoods. A former high school teacher and program evaluator, DelaleO’Connor has recently published articles in Teachers College Record, Equity and Excellence in Education, and Education and Urban Society. Loretta C. Donovan is a Professor in the Department of Elementary and Bilingual Education at California State University, Fullerton. Her teaching responsibilities and research interests are around the areas of effective integration of technology in K12 and higher education environments with a particular focus on 1:1 initiatives. She consults with schools and school districts on Technology Plans, technologybased professional development and 1:1 innovation adoption. Alison G. Dover is an Associate Professor in the Department of Secondary Education at California State University, Fullerton. A former assistant professor at Northeastern Illinois University and urban secondary English Language Arts teacher, her scholarship examines approaches to teaching for social justice within and despite accountabilitydriven P12 and teacher preparatory contexts. Her recent publications include Preparing to Teach Social Studies for Social Justice: Becoming a Renegade (2016) and articles in The Educational Forum, Teachers College Record, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, and Equity and Excellence in Education. Abiola FarindeWu is an Assistant Professor of Urban Education in the Department of Leadership in Education at the University of Massachusetts Boston. In her previous position, she was a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Center for Urban Education at the University of Pittsburgh. FarindeWu’s teaching and service focus on preparing urban preservice and in service teachers for diverse student populations. Her research interests are the educational experiences and outcomes of Black women and girls, teacher retention, and urban teacher education. She has coauthored numerous studies published in journals, including Teachers College Record, Urban Education, and Teaching and Teacher Education. In addition, she has a recently published coedited book entitled Black Female Teachers: Diversifying the United States’ Teacher Workforce. Ping Gao is Associate Professor at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of the University of Northern Iowa. She has over 30 years of teaching experience, first as a classroom teacher in China, then as a teacher educator in China, Singapore, and the United States. Her research interests include teacher learning, teacher education, technology integration, and comparative studies. Donna M. Gollnick is the Vice President for Quality Assurance at the TEACHNOW

Graduate School of Education in the District of Columbia. Previously, she was a Senior Consultant at the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and the Senior Vice President of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Her scholarship has focused on multicultural education and teacher education. She is a coauthor of Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society (2017), Introduction to the Foundations of American Education (2018), and An Introduction to Teaching: Making a Difference in Student Learning (2017). Raquel L. González is a Senior Researcher at the American Institutes for Research. Her research interests include home and school relationships in the primary grades, family literacy, and school readiness. In her research, she has explored the ways in which school outreach to families is related to student achievement, and also has explored the relationship between parent visits to school and student achievement. She currently leads randomized control trials in family–school partnership and home visiting. Timothy D. Green is a Professor in the Department of Elementary and Bilingual Education at California State University, Fullerton. His current research examines online teaching and learning in K12, instructional design, and the use of social media in education. He codirects the online Master’s in Educational Technology, a program that has received ISTECoach Seal of Alignment and serves local, national, and international educators who are seeking ways to enhance student learning through technology integration. He is currently a board member for CUE, an educational nonprofit that promotes effective uses of technology in K12 schools. Susan Grieshaber is Professor, Early Years in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests include early childhood curriculum, policy, pedagogies, families, and women in the academy. Her work has a focus on social justice and equity and uses a variety of research designs. Gene E. Hall is Professor Emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). His academic career began at the national R&D Center for Teacher Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Since then he has been a Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Florida, Northern Colorado, and most recently UNLV. He twice has served as the Dean of a College of Education. He is the lead architect of the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). This model and the related research and training programs have been tested and applied in many types of organizations including schools, business, government, and the military. He is a coauthor of Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes (2015), Introduction to the Foundations of American Education (2018), and An Introduction to Teaching: Making a Difference in Student Learning (2017). Philip Hallinger is the Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation Chair Professor of Leadership at Mahidol University (Thailand) and Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Management in the University of Johannesburg (South Africa). Professor Hallinger has held professorships in the USA, Thailand, mainland China, and Hong Kong. He is author of the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale, the most widely used leadership instrument in education. In 2014 he received the Excellence in Research on Educational Leadership Award from the American Educational Research

Association and the Roald F. Campbell Award for Distinguished Lifetime Achievement from the University Council for Educational Administration. His research focuses on principal instructional leadership, problembased learning, leadership development, and international studies in educational leadership and management. Sharon Harsh is an education consultant specializing in designing and sustaining change, implementing capacitybuilding technical assistance, and strengthening the cognitive elements of instruction. She served as director of the Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center (ARCC), providing technical assistance to five state education agencies. She authored numerous whitepapers on capacitybuilding and developed the MDA5, Learning Chain and Instruction and Learning Appraisal (ILA). She was a district assistant superintendent of schools in West Virginia for 24 years and served as adjunct instructor at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Loretta HolmbergMasden is a doctoral student at the University of Maryland and an adjunct faculty member at the Johns Hopkins University. Her research interests include urban education, teacher education, vocabulary, metacognition, and children’s literature. She has presented her research on metacognition and vocabulary at the International Literacy Research Association conferences. Her current doctoral research involves a qualitative study investigating effective vocabulary instruction for English learners in public schools and their selfefficacy in vocabulary learning. David Imig is a Professor of the Practice at the University of Maryland, College Park where he teaches courses on policy and practice and coleads the cohortbased EdD professional practice degree program for school leaders. He helped found the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate and continues to lead that 85member organization, which is transforming the EdD. Prior to joining the University of Maryland faculty, he was the president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education for 25 years. Scott Imig is Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle, Australia where he runs the Leadership and Management in Education program. Prior to arriving in Newcastle, Imig was Associate Professor and Associate Dean at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. He researchers and writes primarily in the areas of teacher and principal preparation and support. Imig also works extensively with schools, school districts and the military to develop coaching programs to improve the quality of teaching and learning in organisations. James G. Ladwig is an Associate Professor of Education at the University of Newcastle, Australia. He has designed and directed several largescale empirical studies of school reform and policy evaluations, alongside his more theoretically driven work in the sociology and philosophy of education in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. He is currently coeditor of the American Educational Research Journal. Amanda J. Laichak is the Vice President of Education for Junior Achievement of Western Pennsylvania. Laichak began her career as an English as a Second Language (ESL) instructor in Poland and Pittsburgh. She has worked extensively in refugee resettlement at the federal and local levels and published work on immigrant entrepreneurship in Poland and Ukraine. She is

currently a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh with a research focus on international field experiences as a tool to build preservice teachers’ capacity to develop relationships with refugee and immigrant students in the U.S. She was named Pittsburgh Magazine’s 40 Under 40 for 2016. Mary E. Little is Professor and Graduate Coordinator of Special Education and Inclusive Programs at the University of Central Florida. Her professional experiences in K12 schools include roles as a secondary teacher, coteacher, program coordinator, and principal. Her research interests include evidencebased instructional practices, interventions, teacher efficacy, and student learning related to teacher learning. She has written numerous books, chapters, and articles, as well as been awarded more than $20 million in external grants funding for innovative programs in instruction and interventions, specifically in mathematics, instruction, response to intervention, and action research. Jason Loh is a senior lecturer at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has taught across primary, secondary, and tertiary levels over the years. His research interests focus on teacher education and language curriculum implementation, and in recent years, he has been teaching language curriculum development courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He has obtained two research grants to study the enactment of the English language curriculum in two primary schools and implementation of the national literacy reform program across a large sample of schools in Singapore. Connie L. Malin serves as cofounder and CEO at IICSN, a K12 public community school serving highly diverse families in Las Vegas. She earned a Master’s in Elementary Education with Literacy Specialization, a second Master’s in Special Education with Learning Disabilities and Gifted Education as a specialization, a Doctorate in Special Education from UNLV, and an administrative credential at UNLV. Along with 40 years educational experience in district elementary schools, Connie has over 17 years of experience in charter schools in Nevada. Magdalena Martinez is Assistant Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, College of Urban Affairs, and Director of Education Programs with the Lincy Institute. Her areas of expertise include education policy, leadership, and the role of higher education in a diverse society. She is a New Leadership Academy Fellow through the National Center for Institutional Diversity at the University of Michigan and an Equity and Policy Fellow through the Ford Foundation. Teresa Miller serves as the Learning Strategist at Innovations International Charter School of Nevada where she mentors and works with teachers and students on literacy skills and developmental practices. She previously served as the primary grade level chairperson mentoring and advising teachers in literacy practices. Teresa has a Masters Degree in Early Childhood Education from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. H. Richard Milner IV is Helen Faison Professor of Urban Education as well as Director of the Center for Urban Education at the University of Pittsburgh. His research, teaching, and

policy interests concern urban education, teacher education, African American literature, and the sociology of education. His work has appeared in numerous journals, and he has published six books. His most recent books are: Start Where You Are But Don’t Stay There: Understanding Diversity, Opportunity Gaps, and Teaching in Today’s Classrooms (2010) and Rac(e)ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and Classrooms (2015). Michael Neel is a postdoctoral scholar in leadership policy and organizations at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. His scholarship focuses on teacher learning and teacher education policy and practice. Matthew C. Nishimoto is a high school guitar teacher at Coronado High School in Henderson, Nevada. His research interests include the topics of teacher education, new teacher induction, educational leadership, and music education. His recent dissertation approached the question of preservice teacher expectations regarding the roles of school principals in their future induction experience. David Osher is Vice President and Institute Fellow at the American Institutes for Research. He is an expert on violence prevention, school safety, supportive school discipline, conditions for learning and school climate, social and emotional learning, youth development, cultural competence, family engagement, collaboration, mental health services, and implementation science. He has led impact and qualitative evaluations of initiatives and programs, systematic reviews, and expert panels, as well as projects that have developed surveys, and supported schools, districts, and states to promote conditions for learning, including school safety, and to address disciplinary disparities. Julie OxenfordO’Brian is the Executive Director of Assessment and Program Improvement within the School of Education and Human Development directs the Center for Transforming Learning and Teaching (CTLT) at the University of Colorado Denver. She works with educators and educational leaders at both the K12 and postsecondary levels to catalyze and cocreate the transformation of learning environments through the use of assessment so that all are engaged in learning and empowered to positively contribute in a global society. She also teaches classroom assessment for master’slevel students and research methods at the doctoral level. Her research, technical assistance, and educator professional development focus on competency and standardsbased education, classroom and formative assessment, datadriven decisionmaking, educational accountability, program improvement, and education policy. Foong PohYi is Senior Curriculum Specialist in the Curriculum Planning and Development Division (English Language), Ministry of Education, Singapore. Before that, she taught at both primary and secondary levels, and was a Teaching Fellow (Research) at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests focus broadly on reading and language curriculum. In recent years, she has been conducting training for and mentoring teachers in the use of the national literacy reform program. LeAnn G. Putney is a full Professor in Educational Psychology at UNLV. Her ethnographic and action research projects have focused on how teachers and students construct responsible

communities for academic success in K12 schools. She has examined teacher and collective classroom efficacy from a Vygotskian perspective to illustrate how efficacy can be developed and enhanced. She also coauthored A Vision of Vygotsky, a book on Vygotskian theories related to pedagogical principles for teachers. LeAnn cofounded Innovations International Charter School of NV and serves as Director of Research and Governing Body President. Linda F. Quinn is Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She has had a rich and varied career in public and private schools in the United States, Iran, Italy, and Japan. Her research interests focus on all aspects of teacher professional development. She is an annual contributor to national meetings of the Association of Teacher Educators, and the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association. Reports of her research have been published in journals and as book chapters. She has co authored An Introduction to Teaching: Making a Difference in Student Learning (2017) for preservice teachers. Lauren B. Resnick is Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of Psychology, and also of Learning Sciences and Education Policy at the University of Pittsburgh. An internationally known scholar in the cognitive science of learning and instruction, she was founder of the journal Cognition and Instruction and has also published several volumes of invited research papers in the field. She has researched and written widely on the learning and teaching of literacy, mathematics, and science. Her recent work focuses on the nature and development of thinking abilities, and the role of talk and argumentation in learning. She served as Director of the Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC) at Pitt for over 30 years, beginning in 1977. In the 1990s she founded the Institute for Learning as a unit of LRDC which works in partnership with school districts across the country to develop practical ways of using research on learning to improve teaching. Sharon Ryan is Professor of Early Childhood Education at the Graduate School of Education and a Research Fellow at the National Institute of Early Education Research, at Rutgers University. Dr. Ryan uses a range of mixed methods designs to research early childhood curriculum and policy, teacher education, and professional development. Faith Schantz is a professional writer and editor in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brian D. Schultz is Professor and Chair of the Department of Teacher Education at Miami University. Prior to joining the faculty at Miami, he served as Bernard J. Brommel Distinguished Research Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. His most recent book, Teaching in the Cracks: Openings and Opportunities for StudentCentered, Action Focused Curriculum, was published in 2017. Richard Siegesmund is Professor of Art + Design Education at Northern Illinois University’s School of Art and Design. He has received individual fellowship awards from the Getty Education Institute for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Fulbright Scholar Program. The National Art Education Association has awarded him the Manuel Barkan Memorial Award for published scholarship and elected him as a Distinguished Fellow. He

also served as a Visiting Fellow to the Research Institute of the National College of Art and Design in Dublin, Ireland. His books include ArtsBased Research in Education: Foundations for Practice. Dena D. Slanda is a Preeminent Postdoctoral Associate in Exceptional Student Education at the University of Central Florida. She serves as a Project Coordinator for two federally funded personnel preparation projects from the Office of Special Education Programs. She has conducted numerous national, state, and local presentations focused on schoolwide reforms and intensive interventions. Her professional experiences in the K12 schools include serving as a secondary intensive reading teacher and as a general education teacher for science and technology. Elizabeth Spier is a principal researcher at American Institutes for Research. Her work focuses on child development, social and emotional learning, and conditions in learning environments. She has led multiple evaluations of interventions intended to improve school readiness, school climate, academic engagement, and children’s social and emotional learning. She has also provided technical assistance in social and emotional learning, and in the development of quality monitoring systems for education and child welfare systems. Her work has spanned 20 countries. Bobbie Stanley served as the Special Education Instructional Facilitator at Innovations International Charter School of Nevada where she works with teachers, students, and assistants on inclusive instructional practices for students having disabilities. Bobbie has her Bachelors of Science Degree as a Resource Generalist from Nova University. Kay P. Uchiyama is an instructor at the University of West Florida (UWF). Prior to entering higher education, she taught in the United States and with the Department of Defense Dependents Schools in Germany, and was a school principal, a district office coordinator, and a private consultant. She began her career in higher education at the University of Colorado followed by Colorado State University, Regis University, and currently at the University of West Florida. Her research has focused on preservice and inservice teachers’ classroom assessment literacy with her teaching aimed at developing preservice teachers’ understanding and application of assessment practices. Roland Vandenberghe is Professor Emeritus of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. His main research field concerns change and innovation in schools. At the University of Leuven, he was head of the Center for Educational Policy and Innovation. He was involved in the International School Improvement Project (ISIP) organized by the OECD (Paris). With the Council of Europe, he studied the renewal of primary schools in Europe. He was a member of the Belgian and the Dutch Council of Research. He also has studied the professional development of beginning principals. He was dean of the faculty of Psychology and Eucational Sciences from 1996 to 2002. Yong Zhao is a Foundation Distinguished Professor in the School of Education at the University of Kansas. He is also a professorial fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Health and Education Policy, Victoria University, Australia. His recent books include Counting What

Counts: Reframing Education Outcomes (2016), Never Send a Human to Do a Machine’s Job: Correcting Top 5 EdTech Mistakes (2015), Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China has the Best (and Worst) Education in the World (2014), and World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students (2012).

Introduction: Issues Affecting Teaching and Learning in Today’s Schools Gene E. Hall1, Linda F. Quinn1, and Donna M. Gollnick2 1 University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2 TEACH-NOW Graduate School of Education Today’s schools are experiencing a seemingly neverending and always increasing set of expectations. All of which are, in some way, intended to improve teaching and learning. Policy mandates in the United States, such as the recent No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top directives, and the current Every Student Succeeds Act, place new demands on schools, teachers, and students. Although represented as means for improving schooling through increased accountability, the consequences on the ground for schools, teachers, and students are pressures to change teaching and schooling. The overall aim most certainly is to have all students learning. However, as many point out, attaining the vision will not be easy. Setting in place higher accountability demands is a process. Responding by implementing new practices is a process. The resultant transformation in student, and educator, learning is a process. Obtaining and interpreting evidence that the new ways actually improve outcomes is another process. Common Core State Standards, standardized testing, and required educator evaluation systems represent other sets of new demands on teachers and principals. One important implication for teaching as the twentyfirst century unfolds is the need for deeper and more conceptual student learning. As if these factors were not enough, schools are experiencing increasing ethnic, language, and religious diversity as a result of worldwide migration and immigration. There are growing socioeconomic gaps within communities and among families. Findings from research about how students learn, including brain science, provide new resources for improving classroom curriculum and instruction. Along with increasing expectations that programs and practices will be “evidencebased,” new technologies are making it possible to personalize education for students and deliver it in new modalities. All together these forces provide a complex array of demands as well as increased expectations and opportunities for teachers, school leaders, scholars, and policy makers. Making sense out of the current context requires careful description and analysis of each of the many potential ways to improve teaching and learning. Given all of these and the other related processes, there is a very real risk of losing sight of the end goal—increasing student (and educator) learning. There is a need for a resource that can delve into different aspects of teaching and learning, bringing sense to each, and providing guidance about what to do (and not do). The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning is designed to be this resource. However, as well intended as the accountability paradigm may be, and as promising as the many current reform models and programs may be, all is not guaranteed to end well. The frequent standardized testing, the preoccupation with evidencebased programs, and the

unwillingness to consider unintended consequences must also be considered. Therefore, this Handbook also includes critiques and challenges, both explicit and implicit, to the current hegemony.

Purpose The Wiley Handbook of Teaching and Learning provides a comprehensive reference for scholars, educators, stakeholders, and interested members of the general public on matters influencing and directly affecting education in today’s schools. The Handbook offers current perspectives on the conditions in communities, contemporary practices in schooling, relevant research on teaching and learning, and implications for the future of education. The Handbook contains diverse conceptual frameworks for analyzing existing issues in education, including but not limited to characteristics of today’s students, assessment of student learning, evaluation of teachers, trends in teacher education programs, technological advances in content delivery, the important role of school leaders, and descriptions of innovative instructional practices that have been documented to increase student learning. Scholars from around the world provide a range of evidencebased ideas for improving and modifying current educational practices.

About the Authors The Handbook coeditors have engaged prominent scholars to be chapter authors. They represent different perspectives and ways of thinking about aspects of teaching and learning. Since similar demands, challenges, and issues are being addressed in different countries it was important in developing this Handbook to make sure it had an international context. Thus the chapter authors represent many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Thailand, and Singapore.

Organization of Chapters The Handbook is divided into sections focused on major topics common to teaching and learning. The flow across the sections presents a continuous thread from overarching topics of education policy, to promising practices, to the evaluation and assessment of teachers and learners. Each chapter is a newly commissioned (not previously published) essay that presents an individualized look at what has been, what is, and what could be. As can be seen in reviewing their biographies, each author is a wellestablished expert. They have the expertise to summarize and analyze what has been happening and then extrapolate to what should be. Each chapter is not just a report of the current state. The authors have developed scenarios of what teaching and learning can be like when their ideas are put into place. Part of their assignment was to “stretch” the thinking of readers.

In summary, we believe that this Handbook represents an important resource about contemporary topics, practices, and issues. Each chapter reviews the recent past, what is happening now, and promotes new approaches. Each chapter describes some aspect and approach to studying the process of education. Each recognizes and illustrates ways to take advantage of the diversity among the constituents of schooling. The chapters present a variety of approaches to teaching and learning and detail exemplary practices in education. Also, given that today most aspects of teaching and learning are debatable, the presentation of the current dominant perspectives is balanced with presentation of contrarian views. Some of these alternative paradigms and approaches are presented as the final chapter in each section. In brief the Handbook: Examines teaching, learners, and learning from a contemporary perspective. Provides a single reference source for teachers, education leaders, and agency administrators. Summarizes recent research and theory. Offers evidencebased recommendations for practice. Includes chapters from established and emerging U.S. and international scholars from other countries. Presents alternative views and approaches. Is a onestop resource to learn about recent history, current best practices, and promising new ways of thinking about and engaging with teaching and learning.

Part 1 The Context of Schooling Part 1 of this Handbook presents an overview and analysis of major contextual factors that direct, restrict, and, in some cases, empower teaching and learning. Each chapter is, in its way, an environmental scan that sets the external context for schools while illustrating an evolution from past to present conditions and providing an extrapolation of future possibilities. In “The Complexity of American Teacher Education,” Imig, Imig, Neel, and Holmberg Masden address themes and issues related to teacher education and the effect the knowledge and skills beginning teachers bring to the classroom have on their teaching and the learning of their students. Through a detailed discussion of teacher education practices and policies the authors paint a landscape that is both insightful and illuminating. In “School Reform, a NeverEnding Story: Avoiding Attractive Pitfalls and Exploring Promising Perspectives,” Vandenberghe discusses ways school reform is taking place globally as a result of external pressure and explains why resistance to such reforms may occur. He describes ways reform is commonly implemented and offers suggestions for ways reforms can be accomplished to the benefit of teachers and learners. In “The Culture and Teaching Gap: What Is It and How Can Teacher Educators Help to Close It?” Carey, FarindeWu, Milner, and DelaleO’Connor bring the reader back to the importance of culture and its place within teacher education. In defining the gap between teachers and the culture of their students, the authors emphasize the need for instructional practices that can help teachers become culturally responsive educators. The authors of “The Role of the Community in Learning and Development,” Spier, González, and Osher, take the reader outside the confines of the school to help us recognize the importance of family and community in supporting teaching and learning. The authors discuss ways institutions can develop meaningful school–community partnerships and offer ways schools can become more engaged with families and communities by creating relationships among all sectors responsible for student development. In Harsh’s “Building Capacity in Order to Strengthen Teaching and Learning,” the reader is introduced to the necessity for school improvement that is designed to enhance student learning. The author underscores the knowledge and skill necessary to improve ineffective instruction and confront the barriers to such reform. She recommends a multipledimension approach to capacitybuilding that recognizes the complexity of organizations and ensures that change initiatives are matched to the needs of the organization and purposefully designed to improve learning. Loh and Foong provide a global glimpse of the landscape of school reform in “Implementing and Sustaining Language Curriculum Reform in Singapore Primary Schools.” This detailed description of how the existing language curriculum in Singapore was conceived through a

series of programs and iterations, and implemented over a fouryear pilot, offers insights for educators involved in program reform. The authors illustrate factors that affected the implementation of STELLAR and point out that even with its present success any number of factors could negate its future achievement.

1 The Complexity of American Teacher Education David Imig1, Scott Imig2, Michael Neel3, and Loretta HolmbergMasden 1 University of Maryland 2 University of Newcastle, (Australia) 3 Vanderbilt University 4 Loyola University Maryland

4

1.1 Introduction To refer to teacher education in the United States is actually something of a misnomer. Teacher education is a loosely coupled system in enormous flux, with pressure for change weighing on almost every aspect of the enterprise (Wilson, 2014). The term system, in fact, is insufficient to describe teacher education, a patchwork of organizations governed by layers of institutional, state, and federal policies (GAO, 2015). The American teacher education patchwork is so disconnected, in fact, that no single narrative is sufficient to describe policy movement in teacher education. For purposes of this chapter, our focus is on university “situated” teacher preparation programs—programs located in public and private colleges and universities but that rely a great deal on K12 schools to provide clinical sites and opportunities for mentorship, observation, study, and practice. The education of teachers is provided by a mix of traditional and alternative providers and while the market share for college and university providers has eroded, they remain the dominant form of teacher education in the United States (Lincove, Osborne, Mills, & Bellows, 2015). Teacher education includes traditional baccalaureate degree programs and post baccalaureate programs (often leading to a master’s degree) offered at colleges and universities. But providers also include an array of school district providers, community colleges, online providers (e.g., TEACHNOW and Western Governors University), as well as notforprofit (e.g., Teach for America [TFA] or The New Teacher Project [TNTP]) and forprofit providers (e.g., University of Phoenix and Strayer University). Offerings span an array of subjects and school levels (elementary, middle, and secondary) and specializations often with a focus on particular student populations (English language learners or special needs). The U.S. Department of Education reported in 2015 that there were nearly 28,000 programs offered by more than 2,135 providers enrolling some 464,250 students (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Much teacher education is driven by the demand for teachers at local schools and the curricula priorities of those schools—with few graduates venturing far from their preparation programs. After two decades of emphasis on disciplinary focused instruction in particular subject areas, teacher education is moving to a greater focus on integrated subjects (arts, STEM, language arts, social studies) with more expansive clinical preparation in schools—relying on master teachers drawn from schools to provide mentoring

and supervision. There are major efforts today to extend the role of universitysituated teacher educators beyond the degree boundaries of colleges and universities and into the first few years of a teacher’s assignment in the local schools. The integration of preservice teacher preparation, student or clinical teaching, teacher induction and mentoring, and beginning teacher professional development is prompting a reconsideration of the role of universitysituated teacher educators. In order to create a more efficient and effective transition by candidates moving from university programs to beginning teaching assignments, initiatives have been designed to better integrate preservice preparation with initial practice (Stephenson & Ling, 2014). The focus is on the last two years of university training and the first three years of school teaching (or until a novice achieves tenured professional status—usually occurring in the third year of teaching). In such models, teacher educators “work” in both higher education and school settings—sometimes with joint appointments. In short, teacher education is growing, dying, expanding, and contracting.

1.1.1 An Environmental Scan Our characterization of today’s teacher education reflects forwardthinking environmental scans ordered in the 1990s and early 2000s by the leadership of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). Written quarterly, the original scans focused on political, social, policy, ideological, demographic, technological, and economic conditions and their impact or potential for impact on teacher education. The scans sought to identify the drivers for such conditions and to project the consequences of alternative actions or responses for colleges and schools of education in the United States. The documents repeatedly offered a “situational analysis … intended to provide leaders of education schools with lead time to deal with threats and opportunities by flagging emerging issues” (Imig, 2004). One of the last of these contextual scans concluded that “if education schools fail to respond to the political, social and economic demands of the public, the policy community is fully prepared to bypass them and invest in the array of alternative providers who are determined to meet the needs of local schools and their communities” (Imig, 2004, p. 23). The 2004 report cited above also promoted the use of evidence to better prepare teachers, partnerships with PK12 schools, attention to the needs of diverse candidates, a focus on teacher retention, and building ties with community colleges—which have a larger and larger “footprint” in teacher education. More than a decade later these matters remain largely unaddressed and education schools are increasingly challenged to demonstrate results and rationalize their efforts. Like the environmental scans described above, the present overview on the condition of teacher preparation describes major conditions that teacher education has faced for the past decade, conditions that have resulted, or will result, in fundamental changes for all teacher preparation programs. The five conditions highlighted here are (1) an increasingly aggressive policy environment, (2) threats to teacher professionalism, (3) pressures to make teacher education pedagogy practicebased , (4) the changing demographics of schoolaged children,

and (5) an everincreasing proliferation of providers. In what follows, we unpack these conditions, consider certain responses of teacher education programs, and make predictions and recommendations for the future.

1.2 Aggressive Policy Environment One condition that teacher education has faced in recent decades has been an increasingly aggressive policy environment (Earley, Imig, & Michelli, 2011). At the same time the nexus of teacher education policymaking moved to national organizations (e.g., National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], AACTE, National Education Association [NEA], Fordham Institute, American Enterprise Institute [AEI], National Council for Teacher Quality [NCTQ], and the federal government), teacher education came to be seen as a primary lever to affect school reform (Reed, 2014). In response to encroaching policy efforts and accountability demands, teacher education programs have dedicated more resources than ever before to data gathering, assessment, compliance, and accountability. As reformists drove an agenda that made teacher quality the centerpiece for the reform of American education, teacher preparation came to be viewed as an essential element in the transformation of schools. Nowhere was this more evident than in the framing and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the effort of governors, state school officials, and business leaders to create consistent national standards in mathematics and Englishlanguagearts for all K12 students at each grade level (National Governors Association, 2010; National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, 2013). The initiative brought particular pressure on preparation programs to transform the preparation of teachers for all subjects (Murray, 2014). Efforts were undertaken to align teaching standards to the Common Core, provide support for faculty development, and integrate Common Core into program approval and state teacher licensure protocols (Paliokas, 2014). In such efforts, long established alliances of liberal politicians and teacher unions and teacher advocates were shattered as politicians discarded historic loyalties and embraced a reformist agenda that demanded public accountability for preparation programs and teaching practices. The expectation that teacher education can serve as a primary lever for K12 school reform is reshaping teacher education by way of accountability measures and significant policy shifts that often hold teacher educators responsible for the success of teachers in K12 school classrooms across the country (Gastic, 2014). The increased interest in teachers that eventually brought teacher education under the microscope of a socalled reformer coalition occurred in the context of sea change in the nexus of teacher education policy from state to federal (Cross, 2014; McDonnell, 2005; Reed, 2014). Over the last 25 years, these shifts and resulting directives have provoked intense debates among teacher education faculties regarding the preparation of teachers for local schools. National organizations and federal agencies set ambitious goals and high standards for all programs. The increased central control of teacher preparation, particularly given the lack of researchbased evidence to support many of these initiatives and federal mandates or state program standards, made such efforts easy to dismiss (Bales, 2011). For the most part,

education faculties have railed against initiatives of both the Bush II and Obama administrations for education in the United States. Both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Race to the Top regulations supported a reformist agenda that called for high standards for teaching and highly qualified teachers for all students (McDonnell, 2005; McGuinn, 2006; Superfine, 2011). Reformers used neoliberal policies to promote competition between and among providers and relied on standardized test scores to measure and compare (Bullough, 2016). They used both “sticks” and “carrots” to promote that agenda with the threat of ranking and ordering programs across four levels of performance and limiting access to federal grant programs to only those in the upper tiers (Office of the Federal Register, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Federal legislation since the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act has promoted various forms of valueadded models to determine the quality of teacher preparation programs. A series of statistical calculations intended to determine the effects of individual teachers on student academic achievement, valueadded models are now used to backward map to preparation programs and to assign responsibility to those programs for the success of their graduates in K12 school settings (Noell & Burns, 2006; Subotnik, 2014). A number of states used RacetotheTop monies to build large longitudinal databases to determine the proficiency of graduates of teacher preparation programs. The success of program graduates in raising the scores of their K12 students as a means for assessing the quality of a preparation program is hotly contested. Calling for peer evaluations and principal assessments of beginning teacher readiness, the candidate’s own perception of readiness, success in getting a job upon completion of the program, and staying in teaching beyond the average length of service are measures to be used to judge the quality of a preparation program, with the U.S. Department of Education prepared to punish those who do not comply by excluding them from federal grant competitions. The enormous costs of implementing such an effort are to be borne by the preparation program and rewards and sanctions are to accompany the scores assigned to programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Alignment of these expectations with the standards of the new accrediting agency for teacher education, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), created an exceptional “outcry” from faculty and college and universities about the new federal mandates.1 If the Trump administration pursues forms of deregulation that sharply limit teacher and principal certification requirements and/or reshape hiring policies and practices (to permit more “alternatively prepared” school personnel), this could dramatically change educator personnel preparation. Taking the federal government out of rulemaking for teacher education is seen by some as a potential benefit that could allow greater flexibility in program design and conduct. Increased federalism might result in reassigning limited oversight and standards setting to the states, but states are already enacting new laws and regulations at the state level that would expand the array of providers and privilege entrepreneurs in the remaking of the enterprise (Zeichner, 2014). Conjecture at this time would suggest that a Trump administration will have interest in promoting the privatization of public schools and the expansion of parochial education using charter school designs. With private schools usually deferring on hiring graduates of teacher preparation programs and charter schools often allowed to by

pass traditional certification requirements, there is the need for education schools to carefully consider their own destinies. Over the course of the past 20 years, teacher education programs have responded to the increasingly aggressive policy environment by focusing more resources on accountability than ever before. Accountability in teacher education has moved from being a softform of on campus administrative and faculty oversight to a hard accountability performed by an array of external agencies and actors that have come to dominate the enterprise. Demands on teacher education now emanate from an array of entities and organizations, with sanctions to recast programs and rewards to serve as incentives for program change (Feuer, Floden, Chudowsky, & Ahn, 2013; National Research Council, 2010). Events that have created unprecedented demands on faculty include: The merger of NCATE and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) into a new and more challenging Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). The socalled “Title II” program reporting requirements of the U.S. Department of Education. The emergence of notforprofit entities such as the NCTQ that review and rank teacher preparation programs. The import of a British system of inspection (TPIUS) used by states and institutions. The efforts of various reform groups advancing standards for assessing programs (Deans for Impact). A dataanalytic approach to assessing high quality (DA) and the development of a performancebased assessment system by SCALE at Stanford and AACTE (edTPA), which is used by several hundred colleges and universities, have created unprecedented demands on faculty. These external agencies and organizations, all with information requests for faculty and programs, tax the capacities of programs to respond. With the Gates Foundation award of some $35 million to five Teacher Transformation Centers in 2015, we are likely to see additional efforts to promote and change teacher education from external agencies (i.e., those outside the university or traditional boundary for teacher education) with added expectations and new forms of regulation and accountability (Sawchuk, 2015). In addition, faculty are confronted with multiple data requests and course outcome reports, the queries of external reviewers and the requests of state program approval agents, requests for information from “inspectors” and “auditors” as well as the incidental requests of governmental agencies, the public, and the press. These requests for data and information regarding teacher preparation add to the accountability demands and further diminish the opportunity to transform teacher education.

1.2.1 Demands of Accountability Debates regarding accreditation standards and performance expectations are intense. Remaking

the teacher workforce to better reflect the student population in America’s schools (younger, more diverse, less White, and less female) has consequences for those not admitted to programs and for the recruitment of nontraditional populations. Using test scores and grade point averages to screen out the “bottom third” of candidates and to set ambitious outcomes or performance standards for those admitted add to the controversies. Attempting to assess candidate proficiencies and dispositions, values, and ethical behaviors creates even more complexity. Managing teacher education enrollments to meet school needs (with fewer elementary candidates and more prospective secondary teachers) is driven by demands to be more cost conscious and efficient (Allen, Coble, & Crowe, 2014). All of these changes are demanded by one or more external accountability agencies (Feuer et al., 2013; Greenberg, Walsh, & McKee, 2014). Teacher educators are the focal point for efforts to influence the way that students are taught to read, to do mathematics, or to engage in the social studies. Particularly challenging is the advocacy by special education groups for particular forms of reading instruction or ways of teaching English language learners (ELL) to comprehend and use English. Instructing future teachers in particular ways to teach diverse or special needs or “regular” students is certain to draw a reaction from other groups and further demands for alternative instructional practices.

1.2.2 What’s Next? In December 2015, President Obama signed into law legislation that replaced the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Praised for its repeal of many parts of the original law that mandated highstakes testing with significant consequences for schools that failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress goals, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016 attempts to reallocate responsibility for teacher education to states and end the intrusive regulatory burden placed on teacher preparation programs (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2016). Ironically, in the Every Student Succeeds Act, Congress and the White House project a new direction for teacher education calling for recentering the enterprise away from universities and colleges to local school districts where Academies would be established to prepare teachers and principals for local schools. The rejection of university preparation, described as “the dominant view … among many policy makers and the public” by Zeichner (2014), insisting “that the US needs to reduce greatly the role of universities in teacher education” with the Academy movement as the best way of doing so. Prohibitions on faculty research and limitations on faculty tenure for teacher educators in the Academies are included in the new law. The new law would also prohibit the use of professional accreditation to measure program accomplishments at these Academies and require the Academies to issue certificates equal to the degrees awarded by traditional providers. These Academies are to be accorded the status of academic post baccalaureate degreegranting institutions—permitting but not requiring university engagement. While they remain a “discretionary activity” for states to consider, their existence signals a profound disdain for traditional teacher preparation programs by policymakers. It also indicates that the federal government and states will continue to use accountability tools to shape and change teacher preparation. Somehow, teacher education programs have to find ways to demonstrate excellence in a policy

environment that increasingly wants to measure their success solely on the basis of graduates’ performance in schools. Rather than rejecting such demands, teacher preparation programs have to both improve the technology of valueadded measures and find an array of other indicators of high quality acceptable to policymakers and the public. Stakeholders must be engaged in these efforts and transparency and cost efficiency and responsiveness have to be considerations. Recentering the enterprise to the needs of local schools and determining the success of graduates in those schools using multiple measures is the only way that traditional programs can sustain their prominence. Accountability demands will dominant the discourse for the foreseeable future.

1.3 Deprofessionalization of Teachers A second condition that has confronted teacher education in recent decades is the deprofessionalization of teaching. A broad range of policy efforts and messaging, supposedly intended to improve schools, combined to exclude teachers from decisionmaking processes at both the policy and classroom levels. In a context of teacher deprofessionalization, the appeal of teacher professionalism is diminished, teaching degrees are increasingly passé, there is a resurgence of effort to promote teachercentered instruction , and an emphasis on the content to be “delivered” with scripted teaching the result. This characterizes the teacher as a technician, with narrow and testdriven goals (Dowling & KwokWing, 2003). Many newly formed teacher education programs that attract new investment place an emphasis on the preparation of these teacher technicians. Curricula requirements and mandated forms of instruction, assessmentdriven instruction, and a focus on standards for both students and teachers have limited teacher autonomy in schools and constrained teacher preparation programs in a variety of ways. Teachers have less autonomy in utilizing “professional judgment” and making professional decisions in the classroom (Boser & Hanna, 2014). As a result, teacher dissatisfaction is on the rise with measures of satisfaction declining 23 percentage points since 2008, from 62% to 39% of teachers being very satisfied, to the lowest level in 25 years (Markow, Marcia, & Lee, 2013). The same survey found that midcareer teachers are more dissatisfied than beginning teachers. The reformer’s reliance on teacher technicians seems also to be affecting prospective teachers with college students increasingly more reluctant to pursue careers in teaching or to stay in teaching very long. Teacher attrition rates are unacceptably high—particularly among beginning teachers—and enrollment declines in teacher education programs are precipitous— down 36% in the past five years (including enrollments in alternative programs) (Sawchuk, 2014). In the most striking deprofessionalization move, states are responding to shortages of available beginning teachers by reducing the requirements for teaching and allowing more candidates to enter teaching without formal preparation. The development and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was perhaps this generation’s greatest opportunity to support a teacher professionalism agenda. Teachers and teacher educators, however, were largely excluded from the writing teams for the CCSS, which were composed of representatives of testmakers, publishers (Pearson), and

quasigovernment agencies (Achieve, Inc.). Professional teacher organizations such as the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and National Council of Teachers of English helped with organizing teacher feedback, and teacher educators participated in work groups after the standards were drafted. Essentially, classroom teachers and teacher educators were largely marginalized and only involved in the review stage (National Governors Association, 2010). Endacott et al. (2015) found that teachers felt they were, again, marginalized in the implementation process of the CCSS. Many schools “robbed teachers of their professional agency” by having paid internal and external consultants in schools during the CCSS implementation and failing to provide appropriate materials that would help teachers and students meet the standards laid out in the CCSS. Schools also scripted curriculum, thus further watering down teachers’ professionalism. These factors and “the forced subordination” to paid external consultants contributed to many teachers feeling as though they were merely “robots teaching other little robots” (Endacott et al., 2015, p. 433). The tests developed to parallel the new standards were then used to measure teacher performance and to determine teacher compensation, creating further alienation on the part of many teachers. These factors prompted the teacher organizations to be increasingly skeptical and then outright hostile to the new standards. The promulgation of the Race to the Top regulations in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 2008, mandating that states incorporate CCSS standards in their school reform proposals and teacher evaluation protocols, seemed to confirm that CCSS was now a federal and not a national reform effort (Grunwald, 2012; Superfine, 2011). Opponents argued that noncore school subjects were being further marginalized and that students were being subjected to far too many tests. Reformers continued to support CCSS while opponents, including the teacher organizations (who saw it as a platform for more scrutiny of classroom teaching performance), decried its intrusive nature. In the leadup to the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, “Common Core” became the centerpiece for the continuing debate on “national visàvis local control of schooling” in the United States. Soon after the election, President Trump stated that “Common Core is a total disaster. We can’t let it continue.” How or whether CCSS will be pursued by the Trump administration is yet to be seen but individual states retain the right to use Common Core. With many states having adopted the CCSS, most teacher educators embraced Common Core (and modified preparation programs to accommodate the needs of local schools to have teachers ready to teach to the new standards) at a time when such practices situated teacher education in the middle of what became heated political debates over matters of local control and the right of the federal government to set curriculum standards. When it became unpalatable for policymakers and politicians to continue to support Common Core, in the run up to the presidential elections of 2016, teacher educators were left among a dwindling array of supporters for this national school standards’ effort. Compounding the challenges of CCSS were the constraints placed on teaching by state legislators and local school boards. Legal challenges to traditional teacher tenure practices

and “lastin firstout” hiring policies diminished the role of selfgovernance—a hallmark of teacher professionalism—and made teaching as a career more unattractive. Added to this was the realization that American teachers have more instructional hours and more hours spent in school than teachers in any other OECD country and they have starting salaries lower than the salaries of starting teachers in other OECD countries (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010). However, in an environment where the benefits, entitlements, compensation, and legal standing of teachers are undergoing change (with efforts to deny teachers collective bargaining rights and access to tenure in some states) and where twoyear graduates of community colleges and college graduates without training are now welcomed as fully certified teachers in communities experiencing teacher shortages across America, the concept of teacher professionalism is rapidly losing ground. High teacher attrition rates (nearly 50% in the first five years of teaching) are, in part, the result of evaluation protocols that put a premium on student score gains on standardized tests and onerous teaching assignments. While much of the developed world is focused on professionalizing teaching, in the United States there is debate about professionalism as an occupational goal or a form of managerialism, a means to strengthen democratic or community participation in schools or an antiquated and hegemonic device to be abandoned (Whitty, 2008). There are appeals to resist further deprofessionalization efforts and to recapture conditions that promise better teachers and teaching. Partly as a result of these many deprofessionalization moves and conditions, the ability to attract sufficient numbers of candidates to teaching and get them “profession ready” is now a tremendous challenge for teacher preparation programs. State agencies and university systems, teacher organizations and schools of education are responding with schemes to attract more candidates to teaching, to provide greater rigor (and relevance) to programs, to assign more responsibilities to local schools and systems, to strengthen the clinical aspects of initial preparation, to make the transition from teacher candidate to professional practitioner as seamless as possible, and to put a premium on practice. Professionalists, or activists on behalf of good teaching, are pressing an agenda that challenges these deprofessional tendencies. Teacher educators press for more preparation, more disciplinebased learning, more collegial engagement with school faculties, a greater investment in clinical preparation, and more understanding of ways to influence the social and emotional development of their eventual students. Professionalists reject standardized teaching and call for compelling ethical and moral standards of practice. They focus on all students and seek to improve the conditions for learning by students regardless of background and social condition. They call for social services to be incorporated into school settings to meet the needs of the whole child. They insist that teachers have but a small influence on the overall learning of children and seek greater parent and community engagement in schooling. These advocates would gladly revise every aspect of teaching—from instructional practices to the venues in which teaching takes place, from the conditions of practice to the career paths they pursue—but are often thwarted in their efforts (DarlingHammond, 2010; Noguera & Wells, 2011).

1.3.1 What’s Next? With the standards for professional accreditation subverted to (and entwined with) federal government regulations, teacher’s professional development is maligned by teachers and found to be unsuccessful in promoting school change. Further, professional learning communities are overwhelmed by resource and time constraints and incentives for professional certification are diminished in statebudget deliberations (and through legal actions). Schools of education fail to seek professional school status on campus (and have little outreach to professional teaching organizations in districts and states) and the reality of deprofessionalism continues. The Academy movement and diminished requirements for teaching demand a concerted response from teacher educators. Teacher educators (and their deans and chairs) have to move to form powerful new alliances with state teacher organizations and advocate for a professional agenda—particularly at a time when boundary crossing (and partnership building) between preparation programs and elementary and secondary schools is required and genuine professional development is demanded by teachers and their organizations.

1.4 Changes in Pedagogy A third condition that is facing teacher education has been pressure to change pedagogies used to prepare teachers. As research on adult learning and professional preparation in other fields has demonstrated an array of developments, teacher education pedagogy has responded with both continuity and change. In a comprehensive review of research on pedagogy in teacher education, Grossman (2005) demonstrated that preparation for teaching has long included a broad range of instructional approaches. Grossman organized these pedagogies into six categories comprising micro teaching and lab experiences, computer simulation, video technology and hypermedia, case methods, portfolios, and practitioner research. Although no one has undertaken a comprehensive study or review in the intervening decade, indications suggest that most of the pedagogies above remain in widespread use in colleges of education. Calls from both the scholarly and policy communities during this time, however, have invited “practicebased” changes in the ways that personnel in colleges of education deliver instruction (Darling Hammond, 2012; FeimanNemser, 2001; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Levine, 2006; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). Education researchers, teacher educators, and programs on the whole have since wrestled with the difficulties of defining target practices of teaching and designing “pedagogies of enactment” (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009, p. 273) to develop such target teaching practices in candidates. The resulting instructional practices in teacher education programs depend, in part, on how key stakeholders have answered a number of key questions. First teacher educators that take practicebased teacher education seriously have been forced to decide practices to prioritize. The assertion that teacher education should be practice based suggests that a consensus exists regarding the teaching practices that programs should prioritize, when no such consensus exists (Lampert, 2009). For example, some have argued for

fundamental practices of teaching that cross subject areas and are associated primarily with teachers’ classroom management moves (Lemov, 2011; Sawchuck, 2013). Others argue that complex, interpersonal, and often subjectspecific teaching practices should take priority in teacher preparation (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Levin, Hammer, & Coffey, 2009; McDonald et al., 2014). Teacher educators’ choices in which teaching practices to articulate and prioritize suggest inherent commitments about the nature of teaching, learning, and learning to teach (Grossman, 2005; Zeichner, 2012). These choices naturally impact not only what practices are prioritized but also how these practices are taught in preparation programs. How do we provide safe but complex space to practice the practices? In 2009, Grossman, Compton et al. suggested that teacher education had not yet developed the equivalent of “learning to kayak on calm waters” (p. 2076). Decades of research suggested that most iterations of microteaching—a long preferred pedagogy in the field—did not sufficiently mirror the challenges of classroom practice (Clift & Brady, 2005; Grossman, 2005). On the other hand, approaches to teacher preparation that allow amateurs to practice on children were neither advantageous nor ethical (FeimenNemser, 2001). In recent years, many programs have experimented with various forms of simulations and rehearsals that are designed for increasing levels of complexity in a context that is safe for mistakes and risk. Some examples are not entirely dissimilar from microteaching but include multiple cycles of enactment and feedback (e.g., Lampert et al., 2013). Others, however, demonstrate how simulation technologies have evolved dramatically since Grossman cited their potential in 2005. Interactive computer simulations now allow teacher candidates to step into a virtual world to practice classroom management (Dieker, Rodriguez, Lignugaris, Hynes, & Hughes, 2013). Other computer simulation models focus on subjectspecific instructional interactions and attending to student reasoning (Herbst & Chazan, 2011). Lowertech simulations have used a medical model that allows teacher candidates to practice highstakes scenarios with a trained actor (Dotger, Harris, Maher, & Hansel, 2011; Self, 2016). Second, teacher educators have grappled with how to support candidate enactments with real students. For many programs, practicebased has at least meant increasing the field experience opportunities for teacher candidates. Yet, programs rely on mechanisms originally designed for periodic field support rather than intime coaching and onthespot feedback. Some programs are experimenting with the development of mentor teachers as teacher educators, inclusions of multiple candidates in each classroom, instructional rounds, and regular video coaching (e.g., Hoffman et al., 2015; Hostetler, 2016; Reagan, Chen, Roegman, & Zuckerman, 2015). Such efforts are designed, in part, to facilitate pedagogies of teacher education that promote learning during teaching practice, from teaching practice, and for teaching practice (Lampert, 2009). Third, teacher educators have had to decide how to promote reflection and adaptation. Whether increased field experiences promote candidate learning likely depends on opportunities for principled reflection and adaptation (Lampert, 2009; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009). Like simulations, innovation in reflective pedagogies has included both low and hightech experiences. Advancements in recording, playback, and

data transfer have created new opportunities since Grossman (2005) described the use of videorelated pedagogies in teacher education. Teacher candidates can now review videos of themselves and their colleagues, tag video with specific notes, and easily edit and embed portions of their teaching to share with instructors or video clubs (Johnson & Cotterman, 2015; Van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014). Although not a pedagogy in the singular sense, one type of approach to practicebased teacher education emphasizes core practices of teaching and cycles of enactment and investigation (Forzani, 2014; Kazemi & Waege, 2015; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavenaugh, 2013). Rather than focusing on a primary pedagogy, core practice approaches fold many types of teacher education pedagogies into cycles of teacher learning that allow candidates to investigate specific teaching practices, practice those practices, and analyze their own attempts, along with the attempts of their peers. Advocates distinguish core practice approaches from other practicebased pedagogies by pointing to underlying goals for teaching, learning, and learning to teach. That is, advocates emphasize that core practice approaches frame teaching as a profession that requires improvisational interaction with student ideas, learning as the development of highlevel reasoning in specific subject matter, and learning to teach as a complex and iterative process (Forzani, 2014).

1.4.1 What’s Next? In summarizing pedagogies for teacher education, Grossman (2005) suggested that “no single pedagogical approach is ever likely to suffice” (p. 452) given the complexity of teaching practice. Although the same can be said today, recent innovations in teacher education have provided new pedagogies, new twists on longstanding pedagogies, and perhaps most importantly, new approaches to using pedagogies in comprehensive ways. Innovation, however, does not equal improvement. If teacher education is to find a path toward systematic improvement, it will require largescale commitments to research and development across programs. Absent comprehensive efforts, pedagogy in the field will remain siloed, with pockets of innovation that lack sufficient evidence to support improvement at scale.

1.5 Demographic Changes A fourth condition that demanded attention from teacher education in recent decades is the significant demographic shifts in America’s schoolaged population. As K12 schools have become more diverse with greater racial, linguistic, economic, and cultural differences, long standing calls to make changes in classrooms have become urgent (Putnam, 2015). In 2014, America’s schools reached a demographic milestone for the first time with the majority of students in K12 schools being Latino, African American, and Asian students (Maxwell, 2014). This collective majority of schoolchildren of color was realized as a result of both “the dramatic growth in the Latino population and a decline in the white population” (Maxwell, 2014). Trend lines project even greater diversity in the future. As the number of African Americans, Hispanic, and Asian populations increased, teacher educators recognized

that dramatic changes had to occur in both the preparation of teachers and the diversity of the teaching force. There were more students requiring English language instruction, more students with disabilities, more students living in poverty, and more students “whose life experiences … differed from those of their teachers.” Educators also acknowledged a substantial achievement gap between White–Black students and White–Hispanic students in fourth and eighth grade. Despite substantial policy efforts in recent decades, in 2015, a gap of more than 20 points for both reading and mathematics remained between White and Black students and White and Hispanic students for both fourth and eighth graders (U.S. Department of Education, NAEP, 2015). There is both the recognition that there has been no significant change in this achievement gap since 1992 and a determination by teacher educators to find new ways of overcoming these disparities. Until recently, policymakers and many teacher education programs have sought to address these disparities with contextblind solutions. Programs were initiated that focused on reducing the achievement gap between White students and students of color with strategies or practices the same for all students. That is, interventions focused on a nondifferentiated curriculum, based on the language, worldview, and experiences of White English speakers who comprised the majority of both teachers and teacher educators (Gutierrez, Asato, Santos, & Gotanda, 2002). In the last decade or so, many teacher educators have embraced culturally responsive teaching as an effective way of meeting the academic and social needs of the diverse student population (Gay, 2010; Howard, 2001; LadsonBillings, 1994) and sought to prepare culturally responsive teachers who are cognizant of the critical role that race and culture play in the way that students learn (Howard, 2003). Culturally responsive teaching is premised on a belief that schools and teachers who have adopted a culturally responsive pedagogy have the ability to act as change agents in their schools to help bridge the divide and encourage more equitable schooling experiences for racially, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students. Many teacher educators have embraced culturally responsive pedagogy as teaching “to and through [students’] personal and cultural strengths, their intellectual capabilities, and their prior accomplishments” (Gay, 2010, p. 26). LadsonBillings ( 1995) helped to frame the conversation by arguing that culturally responsive teachers develop student learning that is intellectual, social, emotional, and political and prompted a commitment to a teacher education that prepared teachers to have high academic expectations for all students, to reshape school curricula, to build on students’ funds of knowledge, to establish relationships with students and their homes, and to cultivate students’ critical consciousness to challenge the classed, raced, and gendered power structures of schools and communities. Most teacher preparation programs now attempt to emphasize culturally responsive teaching, as reflected in (1) the professional accreditation standards of the former teacher education accreditor, NCATE’s Standard IV that emphasized the building of capacity to guide the learning of students from diverse ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds, and (2) the certification standards of the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) in which Standard No. 2 emphasizes a teacher’s understanding of “individual differences and

diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.” For the most part, faculties have argued over the semantics but not the purposes of using culturally responsive teaching to build the capacities of prospective teachers to foster relationships with students, their families, and communities. They based their efforts on studies that seemed to confirm that students of teachers who learn to build relationships with students and their families tend to be more effective in raising student achievement than students of teachers who do not do so (e.g., Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh, & Teddy, 2009; Hawkins, Guo, Hill, BattinPearson, & Abbott, 2001). Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) found that culturally responsive teachers are an important part of urban school reform. Teachers’ cultural competency was essential in their abilities to engage with parents and the communities, in accessing students’ prior knowledge and using their funds of knowledge in their lessons and classrooms (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992), and in engaging students intellectually while tapping into students’ interests. Evidence suggests that teacher educators have increasingly focused on teacher candidates’ attitudes, beliefs, predispositions and dispositions, and prior experiences as they sought to develop greater capacity for candidates to teach diverse students (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Programs added new courses built on sociocultural knowledge, and researchers turned attention to preservice teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and levels of cultural awareness, and interventions intended to improve their cultural competence. Many programs accelerated placements in more diverse school settings and clinical experiences in highneeds schools with accompanying efforts to admit and prepare a more diverse candidate pool. Partners worked together to recruit and produce more African American, Asian American, and Hispanic teachers. Many teacher educators also focused efforts on supporting White preservice teachers in understandings of institutionalized racism and how the U.S. education system has perpetuated inequalities (Sleeter, 2008a). Such efforts led to the development of new courses to help preservice teachers examine their own tacit assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes to learn ways to identify injustices in schools and the wider society, and to build understanding of diverse cultural practices and perspectives (Villegas, 2007). In practice, the efforts of teacher education programs described above took the form of autobiographic writing, reflective journals, postexperience essays, and the preparation of individualized action plans for implementing multicultural education in specific classrooms (Sleeter & Owuor, 2011). Scholars and advocates debated the adequacy of such efforts and some studies found that preservice teachers who were only minimally engaged in classroom teaching during short duration field experiences did not benefit (Sleeter, 2008b). Findings such as these moved teacher preparation programs to increase time spent in schools as well as the types of schools in which teacher candidates observed and practiced. Teacher education faculties invested extraordinary amounts of time in fashioning new diversity courses, enriching the experiences of teacher candidates, and revisioning programs. Most education schools launched “minority and urban teacher education” programs. Teacher educators used research evidence to build new multicultural teacher education courses that

adopted a selfreflective approach and relied on structured field experiences with the expectation that selfreflection would enable preservice teachers to examine their beliefs and enhance their understanding of diverse students (Barnes, 2006; WalkerDalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). Although designers recognized that cultural competence did not equate to culturally responsive teaching, they expected teacher selfefficacy in diverse cultural understandings could improve abilities to develop relationships with parents and students, and design productive learning environments (Siwatu, Polydore, & Starker, 2009). Increasingly, beginning teachers from traditional programs had experienced multicultural preparation courses but alternatively prepared teachers and many senior teachers lacked preparation that emphasized cultural competence. This problematic reality offered opportunities for school districts and teacher preparation programs to cooperate on culturally responsive teaching professional development.

1.5.1 What’s Next? Of the conditions examined in the present article, the challenge of student diversity may provide universitybased teacher education the greatest opportunity to influence the future of teacher education. As alternative providers, such as Teach for America, have recently discovered, ignoring issues of race, poverty, and privilege can significantly debilitate novice teachers. At present, universities have the potential to offer expertise and direction on these matters that until recently were the domain of consultants and professional development experts. Teacher educators have to embrace this agenda fully and help to guide the framing of a more ambitious agenda for the future.

1.6 A Proliferation of Providers The fifth, and perhaps most dramatic, condition that traditional teacher education has faced in recent decades has been the loss of its teacher education franchise. Since the late 1980s, states increasingly allowed changes in teacher certification and licensing that invited new providers into the teacher education business (DarlingHammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). As recently as a decade ago, the major producers of beginning teachers were traditional universitybased programs; today no higher education institution is among the top ten producers of new teachers (Sawchuk, 2014). Universities are increasingly challenged today to make the case for higher educationbased teacher education on grounds other than high quality. While preparation for most other professions continues to take place in university based preparation programs, preparation for teaching takes place in a variety of public and private entities. Today there are many different pathways into teaching that offer a dizzying array of program options. Many of these take teacher preparation out of the university and center it in new venues and under different conditions. The great challenge for universitysituated programs is to identify the essential contribution the university can make, which cannot be undertaken by other providers (Imig, Wiseman, & Imig, 2012). Engagement with local schools, reliance on evidencebased practices, a

commitment to continuing preparation during the early years of practice, collaboration with local schools and systems in the continuing education of teachers and other school professionals, a focus on improvement, and a greater commitment to a scholarship of practice are necessary steps. These are only the beginning steps. Partnership arrangements between schools and universities that are meaningful and rewarding and professional learning communities that include disciplinarybased academics and teacher educators, school practitioners, and educational researchers are important. Doing so at a time when policymakers are seeking to constrain university costs, reduce college student debt, and provide greater opportunity for more students taxes the capacity of universities to experiment and respond. The challenge for universities is to find new ways of doing so despite these constraints because the failure to do so will allow online and forprofit entities to claim a larger and larger share of the market with their voices shaping public policy regarding teacher education (Imig, Wiseman, Wiseman, & Imig, 2016). At a time when student enrollments in schools are increasing and teacher retirements are rising, enrollments in teacher education are declining (Sawchuk, 2014). This decline has provided opportunities for a host of new providers to increase their “footprint” in teacher preparation. Private forprofit providers appear eager to gain access to a market that has been constrained in many states by regulations. Those constraints are now challenged by new providers who see the low costs of preparing teachers and the highvolume needs for more teachers attractive. The possibility of high returns on investment is attracting a host of venture capitalists to teacher education (Levine, 2006; Picciano & Spring, 2013; Zeichner, 2014) with the promise that they will have a major voice in the future of the enterprise. Competition among the array of providers now seems certain to affect all of teacher education as forprofit and notforprofit entities compete for “market share” and debate cost efficiencies and “marketizing” the ways of preparing highquality teachers. Whether such approaches to reframing teacher education and competition between and among different providers will lead to higher quality is widely debated, but little evidence is available to support the validity of such assertions.

1.6.1 What’s Next? What is certain is that the reformers have the upper hand in the current debate and it seems certain that we will not return to an era when traditional or universitybased teacher education dominated the endeavor. The impact of this shift will not be clear for years to come. It is now clear, however, that competition between an everincreasing pool of providers obstructs collaboration and broad improvement. At a time when we most need one another the field is more divided than ever.

1.7 Conclusion As this survey demonstrates, recent decades have certainly provided an astonishing array of challenges and activity related to teacher education. The aggressive policy quest for teacher

quality, the struggle for teacher professionalization, an emphasis on practicebased pedagogies, the pressures of changing student demographics, and the proliferation of teacher education providers are certain to continue in the coming years. Whether the frenetic activity described here results in improvements that positively impact teachers and teaching remains unclear. If successive waves of K12 school reform in the United States have a lesson for teacher education reform, it is that structural changes are much easier to accomplish than fundamental improvements (Cuban, 1990). To accomplish actual improvement in teachers and teaching, stakeholders must stop the incessant chatter around changing teacher education and must instead focus on systematic improvement of teacher education. Such a paradigm will refocus the field on collective efforts to define exceptional teaching and teacher education rather than splintered attempts to tinker on the edges through modifications in courses, program types, internship hours, and entry requirements. Teacher educators need the space, opportunity, and resources to experiment with new pedagogies and the use of information technologies. They need extended “life space” in which to work with novices and the opportunities to interact or “network” with faculty and master teachers, clinicians and research scholars, colleagues and stakeholders to identify promising practices. Above all, teacher educators need expansive research and development opportunities to direct and inform their work. They must be optimistic in overcoming what they see as inane and detrimental in the nation’s focus on accountability, standardized testing, competition, deprofessionalization, and teacher evaluation but they also have to be realists that see the sociopolitical system as something that exists—but something that can be changed. They have to enlist others to join them in their quest for change but also acknowledge that change is challenging and difficult. The five conditions are real and will continue to be real. Teacher educators have to address each of them with determination. Accountability—teacher educators have to take the lead in framing a new accountability “mechanism” that enables all programs to demonstrate excellence in their offerings, enables graduates to make a positive difference in the lives and learning of all students, creates expectations that are both transparent and costeffective, and is embraced by the public and the profession. Professionalism—preparation programs have to recenter the enterprise on the basic tenets of democratic professionalism with greater community involvement in program design, a reconsideration of professional ethics, and more ambitious thinking of teaching roles, career paths, and access to the profession. Diversity—teacher educators must continue to press for culturally responsive teaching to prepare teachers able to guide the learning of all children and youth. They must also address the need to recruit and prepare a more diverse teacher workforce that better represents the demographic composition of America. Experimentation—teacher educators must engage in careful study of new forms of pedagogy and share widely effective ways of preparing teachers and sustaining teacher

learning. One of the roles for universitysituated providers is to carefully assess all preparation models to identify promising practices and take the lead in building networked improvement communities that address perplexing problems confronting teacher education. Provider proliferation—teacher educators in universitysituated programs should recognize that there will be many forms of preparation conducted by an increasing array of providers. Competition among and between providers is a reality that is unlikely to disappear. The special role universities can play is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to teacher preparation and to guide the conversation about highquality teacher education. Four decades ago, the teacher education community took on the responsibility of “educating a profession” by laying out an agenda for the professionalization of teaching based on core values and a common set of principles shared by teachers and teacher educators (Howsam, Corrigan, Denemark, & Nash, 1976). An ambitious agenda was described and work was undertaken on a number of fronts to realize a profession of teaching. While great efforts were made to realize that agenda, much work remains unrealized. Today, it seems important that a similar effort be undertaken to address ways of professionalizing teaching and to build a commitment for collaboration and partnership across all facets of teaching—from preschool providers to higher education faculties, from research scholars to practicing professionals—to realize a twentyfirstcentury vision for teaching and learning (MacBeath, 2012). That is the agenda we propose.

References Allen, M., Coble, C., & Crowe, E. (2014). Building an evidence based system for teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Teacher Preparation Analytics. Bales, B. (2011). Teacher education reform in the United States and the theoretical constructs of stakeholder mediation. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 2(6), 1–14. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s bestperforming school systems come out on top. New York, NY: McKinsey & Company. Barnes, C. J. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way. Negro Educational Review, 57(1/2), 85. Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 734–742. Boser, U., & Hanna, R. (2014). In the quest to improve schools, have teachers been stripped

of their autonomy? Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Bullough, R. V. (2016). Status and quality of teacher education in the U.S.: Neoliberal and professional tensions. In J. C.K. Lee & C. Day (Eds.), Quality and change in teacher education: Western and Chinese perspectives (pp. 59–76). New York, NY: Springer. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. CochranSmith and K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cross, C. T. (2014). Political education: Setting the course for state and federal policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13. DarlingHammond, L. (2010). The flatworld and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. DarlingHammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DarlingHammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302. Dieker, L. A., Rodriguez, J. A., Lignugaris, B., Hynes, M. C., & Hughes, C. E. (2013). The potential of simulated environments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 21–33. Dotger, B. H., Harris, S., Maher, M., & Hansel, A. (2011). Exploring the emotional geographies of parent–teacher candidate interactions: An emerging signature pedagogy. The Teacher Educator, 46(3), 208–230. Dowling, C., & KwokWing Lai. (Eds.). (2003). Information and communication technology and the teacher of the future. New York, NY. Springer. Earley, P., Imig, D., & Michelli, N. (2011). Teacher education policy in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations. New York, NY: Routledge. Endacott, J. L., Wright, G. P., Goering, C. Z., Collet, V. S., Denny, G. S., & Davis, J. J. (2015). Robots teaching other little robots: Neoliberalism, CCSS, and teacher professionalism. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37(5), 414–437. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016. PL 11495. (S.1177, 114th Congress, 2015–2016).

FeimanNemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. The Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. Feuer, M., Floden, R., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs: Purposes, methods and policy options. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. Forzani, F. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 357–368. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2015). Teacher preparation programs: Education should ensure states identify low performing programs and improve information sharing (GAO15598). Washington, DC: Author. Gastic, B. (2014). Closing the opportunity gap: Preparing the next generation of effective teachers. In F. Hess & M. McShane (Eds.), Teacher quality 2.0 (pp. 91–108). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Greenberg, J., Walsh, K., & McKee, A. (2014). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. CochranSmith and K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009, September). Teaching practice: A crossprofessional perspective. Teachers College Record, 11(9), 2055–2100. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205. Grunwald, M. (2012). The new New Deal: The hidden story of change in the Obama era. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and culture and the politics of reform. Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 24(4), 335–351. Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., BattinPearson, S., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Longterm effects of the Seattle social development intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied

Developmental Science, 5(4), 225–236. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2011). On creating and using representations of mathematics teaching in research and teacher development. ZDM, 43(1), 1–5. Hoffman, J. V., Wetzel, M. M., Maloch, B., Greeter, E., Taylor, L., DeJulio, S., & Vlach, S. K. (2015). What can we learn from studying the coaching interactions between cooperating teachers and preservice teachers? A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 99–112. Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. CochranSmith and K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hostetler, A. L. (2016). Learning in and through practice: A case study of a designbased residency program. In A. R. Crowe & A. Cuenca (Eds.), Rethinking social studies teacher education in the twentyfirst century (pp. 265–278). New York, NY: Springer. Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: AfricanAmerican students’ perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131–149. Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. Howsam, R., Corrigan, D., Denemark, G., & Nash, R. (1976). Educating a profession: The report of the AACTE Commission for the Profession of Teaching. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Imig, D. (2004). A contextual scan. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Imig, D., Wiseman, D., & Imig, S. (2012). Teacher education in the United States. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 399–408. Imig, D., Wiseman, D., Wiseman, A., & Imig, S. (2016). What is high quality teacher education? In J. C.K. Lee & C. Day (Eds.), Quality and change in teacher education: Western and Chinese perspectives (pp. 77–94). New York, NY: Springer. Johnson, H. J., & Cotterman, M. E. (2015). Developing preservice teachers’ knowledge of science teaching through video clubs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(4), 393–417. Kazemi, E., & Waege, K. (2015). Learning to teach within practicebased methods courses. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17(2), 125–145. LadsonBillings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. LadsonBillings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Lampert, M. (2009). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 6(1–2), 21–34. Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. Lemov, D. (2011). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college (K12) (enhanced ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project, Teachers College, Columbia University. Lincove, J. A., Osborne, C., Mills, N., & Bellows, L. (2015). Teacher preparation for profit or prestige: Analysis of a diverse market for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 415–434. MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession. Brussels, Belgium: Education International Research Institute. Markow, D., Marcia, L., & Lee, H. (2013). Challenges for school leadership: The MetLife survey of the American teacher. New York, NY: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Maxwell, L. (2014, August 19). U.S. enrollment hits majorityminority milestone. Education Week. Retrieved from mobile.edweek.org.c.jsp? McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., KelleyPetersen, M., Mikolasy, K., Thompson, J., Valencia, S. W., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 500–515. McDonnell, L. (2005). NCLB and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19–38. McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey & Company. Murray, F. (2014). Is American teacher education fully up to the Common Core requirements? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 50(4), 152–153. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical teacher preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Washington, DC: NCATE. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2013). Preparing teachers for the Common Core: A new direction for success. Santa Monica, CA: Author. National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Noell, G., & Burns, J. (2006). Value added assessment of teacher preparation: An illustration of an emerging technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 37–50. Noguera, P. A., & Wells, L. (2011). The politics of school reform: A broader and bolder approach to Newark. Berkeley Review of Education, 2(1), 5–25. Office of the Federal Register. (2014). Teacher preparation issues. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/03/201428218/teacherpreparation issues Paliokas, K. (2014). Preparing teachers for the Common Core: Aligning preparation program curricula. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Center on Great Teachers & Leaders. Picciano, A. G., & Spring, J. (2013). The great American educationalindustrial complex: Ideology, technology and profit. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Reagan, E. M., Chen, C., Roegman, R., & Zuckerman, K. G. (2015). Round and round: Examining teaching residents’ participation in and reflections on education rounds. International Journal of Educational Research, 73, 65–76. Reed, D. S. (2014). Building the federal schoolhouse: Localism and the American reform. Harvard Educational Review, 41(1), 35–63. Sawchuk, S. (2013). Teacherprep programs zero in on effective “practice.” Education Week.

Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/03/27/26practice_ep.h32.html Sawchuk, S. (2014). Steep drop seen in teacherprep enrollment in numbers. Education Week, 34(9), 1, 10. Sawchuk, S. (2015). Gates Foundation turns attention to teacherprep “transformation.” Education Week, 35(13), 6, 8. Self, E. A. (2016). Designing and using clinical simulations to prepare teachers for culturally responsive teaching (Doctoral dissertation). Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Siwatu, K. O., Polydore, C. L., & Starker, T. V. (2009). Prospective elementary school teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self? Efficacy beliefs. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 4(1). Sleeter, C. E. (2008a). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. CochranSmith, S. FeimanNemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research in teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559–582). New York, NY: Routledge. Sleeter, C. E. (2008b). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1947–1957. Sleeter, C. E., & Owuor, J. (2011). Research on the impact of teacher preparation to teach diverse students: The research we have and the research we need. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5–6), 524–536. Stephenson, J., & Ling, L. (2014). Challenges to teacher education in difficult times: International perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Subotnik, R. (2014). Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Superfine, B. M. (2011). Stimulating school reform: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the shifting federal role in education. Missouri Law Review, 76(1), 81– 134. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). U.S. Department of Education proposes plan to strengthen teacher preparation [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/usdepartmenteducationproposesplan strengthenteacherpreparation U.S. Department of Education. (2015). 2015 Title II Reports: National Teacher Preparation Data. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2015). Schoolcomposition and the Black–White achievement gap (NCES 2015018). Washington, DC: Author.

Van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340–356. Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 370–380. WalkerDalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. D. (2006). Investigating White preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Negro Educational Review, 57(1/2), 69. Whitty, G. (2008). Changing modes of teacher professionalism: Traditional, managerial, collaborative and democratic. In B. Cunningham (Ed.), Exploring professionalism (pp. 28– 49). London, UK: Institute of Education, University of London. Wilson, S. (2014). Innovation and the evolving system of U.S. teacher preparation. Theory into Practice, 53(3), 183–195. Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practicebased teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376–382. Zeichner, K. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching International, 40(5), 551–568.

Note 1 In contrast, faculties largely acquiesced to the new accreditation standards of CAEP, despite their potential disruption of existing policies and practices. The different reactions by faculty to federal mandates visàvis professional accreditation standards drew both praise and consternation.

2 School Reform—A NeverEnding Story : Avoiding Attractive Pitfalls and Exploring Promising Perspectives Roland Vandenberghe University of Leuven, (Belgium)

2.1 Introduction In the second part of the twentieth century (between 1950 and 1980) many new curricula— especially in secondary education—were introduced. In most cases the content of this new curricula was linked to new developments and studies presented and discussed by scientists. For instance in primary as well as in secondary education the socalled “new mathematics” was introduced. In curricula for foreign languages, vocabulary and grammar became less important and were replaced to some extent by an emphasis on “spoken language.” In science there was a clear plea for the introduction of laboratory activities in the classroom. And studying history implies the analysis of historical sources. There was the assumption that given the existence of a clearly superior and inspiring content, teachers would implement the new curriculum and learn themselves what is needed in order to teach differently (Elmore, 1996). Using basic ideas and insights from different sciences for the development and adaptation of curricula remains necessary. But as we will elaborate, nowadays other types of arguments are more prominent in the discussions about school reform and curriculum development. School reform means more than the introduction of new curricula, explaining related underlying principles, contentmatter upgrading, and providing new teaching material. Also in the second part of the previous century interesting discussions took place about grouping students in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. In order to take into consideration differences among students, many researchers set up different types of classroom organizations. How to conceptualize differences among students (cognitive, emotional, social) and develop practical classroom solutions are still important questions. But the way this problem was introduced in the previous century differs from the way the same problem is analyzed now. There is now more attention on the direct impact of socioeconomic differences and related home context among students and the proven impact of these differences on learning results. In the 1970s, in many Western European countries, and especially in secondary education, so called “largescale innovation projects” were launched (Sahlberg, 2011; Van den Berg & Vandenberghe, 1984). Large scale means that schools and teachers were expected to implement simultaneously different types of specific innovations. Secondary schools had to move from a selective approach to a more comprehensive one. All students should be offered a fair chance to be successful and enjoy learning. So differentiation among students and special attention to students with learning difficulties became central issues. A secondary school ought to avoid tracking to academic subjects for more able students and “vocational” studies for those

preparing to learn manual skills. The equal opportunity principle implied a curriculum in which different contents were grouped in general themes. Career guidance and counseling became a compulsory part of the comprehensive curricula. Continuous formative evaluation of the students became an important task for all teachers. As a consequence, collaboration among teachers became a necessity. In some countries the school day was reorganized. Students were expected to study in small groups. The complex and multidimensional nature of the largescale projects creates transitions that disrupt teachers’ existing patterns and expectations. Teachers’ activities as well as teachers’ attitudes, opinions, values, and views with respect to teaching must fundamentally change for these largescale projects to succeed. Research has shown that such changes in teaching practices are extremely difficult to accomplish (Geijsel, Sleegers, Van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Van den Berg, Vandenberghe, & Sleegers, 1999). In the second part of the twentieth century and also in the first decade of the twentyfirst century the development of socalled “researchbased” teaching methods and classroom activities created many opportunities for teachers and schools. Many studies were launched in order to develop knowledge about the way these researchbased programs were implemented and about the impact on students’ results (see Best Evidence Encylopedia: http://www.whatworks.ed.gov). It remains important and necessary to develop these kinds of programs and to measure carefully the impact on the daily teaching in classrooms. It is still necessary to measure the impact of these kinds of programs on students’ outcomes, but it is also very important to study how teachers engage in intentional learning about new ways of teaching once they try to implement these new programs (Elmore, 1996). Here too, we notice that these kinds of innovations and the promised results are evaluated critically because school improvement or, more generally, improvement of an educational system is recently approached in a different way. Nowadays there is the general expectation that the national school system must play a central role in solving social and economic problems. There is an increased demand for effectiveness, equity, and quality in education in order to meet different kinds of political, social, and economic challenges. Here are some examples to illustrate these general expectations. According to an OECD report (2015), 16% of the reforms between 2000 and 2014 focused on ensuring quality and equity in education. Many countries have prioritized policies to support disadvantaged students or schools with diverse student populations. Some 29% of the reform measures in the OECD report aim to better prepare students for the future. To this end, many countries have focused on improving the quality and relevance of their vocational education and training programs or expanding their workbased training and apprenticeship systems. It is clear from these observations that an explicit link is created between a national school system and political, social, and economic developments and related expectations. Cultural, social, and economic hopes (and anxieties) are translated into broad demands for educational reform. And this explicit link creates some interesting challenges for politicians and policy makers. Also teachers and principals are confronted with totally new challenges, such as how to integrate into the daily classroom activities a new and unknown cultural background of immigrant children and minority students. Already in 1995 Tyack and Cuban noticed that “For

over a century and a half, Americans have translated their cultural anxieties and hopes into dramatic demands for educational reform” (p. 1). Looking at some recent developments, one comes to the conclusion that this is still true today.

2.2 Policy Development: A New Style and Approach The last 10 to 15 years have been a time of great challenge as well as considerable excitement for educational systems around the world. Politicians feel responsible for the economic, social, and cultural development of their country. Given the economic crisis in 2008 they want to improve the quality of the educational system and create equal opportunities for all youngsters. Governments everywhere have been embarking on substantial programs of reform in an attempt to develop more effective school systems and raise the levels of student learning and achievement. Schools in many countries have been subject to a barrage of legislation and policy that has meant changes in curriculum, assessment, organization of classrooms, governance and management, financing (Hopkins, 2001), and teacher education. The problem is not the absence of reform proposals or new policy initiatives, but rather the presence of too many ad hoc, disconnected, uncoordinated innovations and superficial proposals (Fullan, 2001). These proposals are mostly characterized by a lack of continuity, sometimes creating among schools and teachers a kind of “wait and see” attitude. Principals and teachers have learned that when a new minister of education appears on the political scene, new ideas and proposals for educational reform will be launched. Teachers and principals are nowadays confronted with different kinds of pressure, growing demands, and new responsibilities. Sometimes policy people propose projects and solutions for problems that are available on the international educational market. It is almost inconceivable that countries and educational systems with very different political cultures and stages of economic development should all be pursuing what is to all appearances a very similar political agenda. For instance, school reform should be guided by a list of standards to be achieved by all children. Curriculum development must be based on an official list of standards such as the Common Core State Standards. Teachers and schools should only use programs that have research documenting that they make a difference. The renewal of teacher training should be based on a list of capacities describing a good and effective teacher (OECD, 2005; Sachs, 2003). Schools are accountable for the quality of teaching and learning and they are expected to use several systems and methodologies for the evaluation of students and teachers (Lasida, Podestà, & Sandoya, 2008). Or the government should invest in a national assessment system and make public school results. Related to this accountability, evaluation schemes have been developed, mostly used by an external inspection team. Principals and teachers are expected to use the provided data in a context of continuing improvement. Here we have the case of what Halpin and Troyna (1995) called “policy borrowing” for largely symbolic purposes. Faddism—the adoption of any current vogue, irrespective of its fit to a particular problem or challenge, just to be seen to be doing something—is a welldocumented response to the pressure for reform (Hopkins, 2001; Vleugelers, 2004).

Choosing a general solution or adopting a general proposal for a particular national problem is one albeit essential reason why policy development is one step, but policy implementation is a giant reason. It is now generally accepted among scholars that there is no onetoone relationship between policy and practice. Research on educational innovations (see, e.g., Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hall & Hord, 2015; Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan, & Hopkins, 1998; Hopkins, 2001; Spillane, 2004) has shown that implementation of an innovation encompasses far more complex and unpredictable processes than a straightforward execution of policy prescriptions or the use of new curricula or new teaching material. The same has been argued in policy studies (Ball, 1994; Jephcote & Davies, 2004; Kelchtermans, 2007; Troman, 1999). In order to understand the potential impact of policy measures, it is necessary to open the “black box” between a policy proposal and the daily practices at the school and classroom level (McLaughlin, 1990). The main question is how to combine the macrolevel perspective (general norms, general expectations, administrative rules, and logics) with the micro level (local actions and interactions and processes of sensemaking by individual teachers and school leaders). Before opening the black box, some frequently applied policy actions are presented and discussed (see also März, Kelchtermans, & Dumay, 2016).

2.3 Policy Development and Policy Actions Politicians who are responsible at the national level for the quality of the education system and who intend to improve or to change that system propose and introduce different plans and actions including different stakeholders at different levels.

2.3.1 A General Plan is Proposed In most countries, at the start of an improvement cycle, a general memo such as a plan or white paper is published. In most cases this is the result of discussions (and limited previous research or limited use of existing research data; Harris et al., 2013) among different stakeholders and representatives of parents, teachers, principals, unions, and sometimes, researchers. These innovation plans describe the goals and intended outcomes of an innovation project in rather general terms. Immediately after the publication of the memo, positive and negative reactions and comments are published in the general press. Meetings are organized and proponents of the proposed improvement plan defend the memo; those who are confronted with the everyday school and classroom practices ask questions and make meaningful remarks. Although such general policy plans have ultimately a limited effect, the publication of an improvement plan is a meaningful policy action. It creates opportunities for policy makers to start a discussion about the role of schools, about the necessity to enhance teacher training, to renew existing curricula, and so on. The memo itself, and discussions about the content of the plan, create an opportunity for policy people to demonstrate their political accountability. The minister of education and other legislators are expected to justify their proposals and decisions. Creating room for a national discussion among stakeholders is a central task for those who are responsible for the development of an education system (DarlingHammond,

1989). A general memo, more specific proposals, and related discussions create a basis for the development and introduction of a new law (act). Unfortunately, as Fullan (1982) observed, policy makers often assume that the policy process is completed when a new law has been passed and the writing or guidelines have been completed (see also DarlingHammond, 1990). Policymakers mostly forget to create and provide support for building connections between the big ideas and the fine grain of practice in the daily classroom (Elmore, 1996). In most cases there is a lack of a clear vision and related system for systematic professional development and ongoing support of schools, principals, and teachers.

2.3.2 New Standards as a General Solution As already announced, the education reform movement focuses increasingly on the development of new standards for students and lists of competences for teachers and principals. Related to the new standards, which express what students should know and be able to do for instance at the end of the secondary school, new curriculum frameworks to guide instruction are developed, and in some countries new tests for assessing students’ knowledge and capacities are made available. Accountability schemes (e.g., instruments) are also presented to schools and teachers, and schools are expected to demonstrate they succeed in achieving the standards that sometimes include newly developed promotion or graduation requirements (DarlingHammond, 2004). This socalled standardsbased reform (SBR) is a “tight–loose” model in which the state is “tight” in specifying what students should learn and “loose” about how they learn. The “tightness” takes the form of statewide standards with some countries mandating tests that assess students’ mastery of the standards and accountability for results. The “looseness” takes the form of freedom of teaching methods, use of teaching materials, organization of teaching time, and installation of a local evaluation system. In summary it is a matter of tightly defined goals with looser regulation of processes (McDermott, 2007). (For a critical review and analysis of the impact of SBR in the USA, see Hamilton, Stechner, & Yuan, 2008; Mathis, 2010; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Ravitch, 2011). It is important to analyze two assumptions about the potential impact of SBR. Some proponents believe that standards spur other reforms that mobilize more resources for student learning, including highquality curricula; evidencebased teaching methods and materials; assessments tied to the standards providing useful feedback to teachers; more widely course offerings that reflect these highquality curricula; more intensive teacher preparation and professional development guided by related standards for teaching; more equalized resources for schools; and more readily available safety nets for educationally needy students. So, there is the assumption that an effective and at the same time flexible alignment between several components of the teaching system will be created by offering a welldesigned set of general standards and goals. In other words, the SBR movement reflects the belief that school reforms are mostly to be effective when all components of the education system are designed to work in alignment toward a common set of goals (DarlingHammond, 2004). This assumption reflects a rational way of looking at the school improvement processes. There is the underlying belief that schools, principals, and teachers are capable and willing to develop efficient alignments between the essential components of the educational reality. Teachers and principals (and

students) are considered consumers of policy decisions and more specific proposals. The school here is presented as a cipher of government policy, policy that comes from outside and which overrides local particularities or priorities or principles and that enacts designed teaching and learning (Ball, Maguire, Braun, & Hoskins, 2011, p. 613). There is the idea that problems of schooling are due in large part to a lack of welldefined direction, non acceptable differences between schools and among teachers, and low accountability within the education system. Standardization is the solution for this kind of problem. For others, the notions of standards and accountability became synonymous with mandates for student testing which in some cases may have little connection to policy initiatives that directly address the quality of teaching, the allocation of resources, or the nature of teaching. They argue that standards can motivate change only if they are used to apply sanctions to those who fail to meet them. They see the major problem as a lack of effort and focus on the part of educators and students (DarlingHammond, 2004). There is the assumption that a well organized evaluation system is the driving force for school improvement. There is the belief that principals and teachers are capable and willing to use national tests, to analyze the data, and to implement necessary changes in their school and classrooms. For instance, according to Welner and Mathis (2015), underlying the No Child Left Behind Act was the assumption that holding an educational system responsible for improving tests scores will achieve equality. Such policies follow a predictable logic: based on some test results we see that some schools are failing and we believe that schools will quickly improve if we implement a highstakes regime that makes teachers and principals responsible for increasing students’ scores. But according to Ravitch (2011), NCLB created a national education policy that neglected the central purpose of education: to shape good human beings, good citizens, people of good character with the knowledge and skills to make their way in the world and to join with others to sustain and improve our democracy. (p. 245)

And there is also the general conclusion that testbased standards and that kind of accountability policy show little or no evidence of effectiveness. In fact they generated unintended and negative effects such as teaching to the test, curriculum narrowing, and drill andpractice (Welner & Mathis, 2015).

2.3.3 External Evaluation and Support As part of a new education policy, in many countries the inspectorate has undergone major changes, and new professional bodies, such as educational consultants, are installed. In most Western European countries the key task of the inspectorate can be defined as evaluating whether the state investments (money provided by the taxpayers) in schools is used effectively to provide quality education for all students. There is the generally accepted principle that some form of accountability for publicfunded education to safeguard school and teaching quality and equitable treatment of students is important for serving the public interest. The main criterion used by the inspectorate is the official list of national standards or the goals of a

particular curriculum. Complementary to this quality control, but strictly separated from it, the body of educational consultants was created to support schools in their efforts to maintain or improve the quality of their education. Their task thus is to guide, support and help sustain educational quality in school, but they are in no way allowed to evaluate or control teachers or schools. Control and support of educational quality are thus supposed to be two separate tasks, to be taken care of by two separate bodies of professionals. The strict separation between assessment and support was assumed to provide the best warranty for successful and effective improvement of the educational quality. (Kelchtermans, 2007, p. 473)

The following example illustrates that development. In Flanders (the Dutchspeaking part of Belgium), “the issue of quality management and control has taken a very central position in the educational policy of the Flemish government” (Kelchtermans, 2007, p. 472). Before 1991 an individual inspector visited a school and did some observations in a number of classrooms. He or she gave some feedback to the teachers and the principal. And it was expected and accepted by the teachers that the inspector made some suggestions for improvement and gave information about, for instance, new teaching methods or the evaluation of students. So assessment and support were combined in one person. It is remarkable that the impact on teachers and principals of this type of combined evaluation and support has never been studied. Since 1991 the organization and modus operandi of the inspectorate have changed. Instead of individual inspectors evaluating individual teachers through unannounced visits in the classroom, the reorganized inspectorate makes audits of the entire school. Schools are informed that such an external audit is planned on beforehand and need to engage in selfevaluation procedures in order to prepare for the external audit (recently schools are visited every 10 years, which is a low frequency compared to other countries [De Volder, 2012; Standaert, 2001]). A team of inspectors then visits the school for a week (or in primary schools for three days), using the internal evaluation outcomes as a starting point, checking its findings and complementing them if necessary. This is done through a systematic audit procedure, in which the legally defined minimum standards operate as guiding criteria. The schools know the criteria used by the inspectorate. The audit results in a report for the entire school, which contains the inspectorate’s final judgment about the educational quality (Kelchtermans, 2007). After the school has had the opportunity to propose some amendments or corrections, the final report is made available for the public. The strict separation between assessment and support became an important issue. In many countries policymakers and other stakeholders started a fundamental discussion about the relation between external evaluation and school selfevaluation (Ryan, Gandha, & Ahn, 2013). Schools are nowadays confronted with two different approaches. There is, as in the United States, the testbased accountability model that holds schools and teachers accountable for student outcomes with little attention to school improvement processes. Other countries (e.g., the UK and the Netherlands) enact more schoolcentered accountability efforts, such as school selfevaluation, followed by inspection to examine school quality. The impact of a

welldesigned combination of external inspection with school selfevaluation is not yet very clear. Ehren and Visscher (2008) conducted 10 indepth case studies in Dutch elementary schools to examine potential moderating effects of school and inspection characteristics. They found that inspection outcomes are influenced by a complex interaction between inspector style, perception of recommendations, and school capacity and readiness for change (see also Ehren, Altrichter, McNamara, & O’Hara, 2013). There is evidence that educators have positive experiences with a combination of external inspection and school selfevaluation, but the implementation quality may be an important factor in building an effective system (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 9). It is also difficult to measure the real effects of the inspection. Teachers and principals are asked to evaluate the effects (and nonintended side effects) of, for instance, the inspection report. Their evaluation is mostly a matter of perception and less a report of real changes as a result of the description by the inspectors of the strong and weak points of their school. It is also difficult to evaluate the lasting effects of the evaluation report. Shortly after the inspection visit, some changes are reported by teachers and principals. One or two years later according to most of the team members reported changes are no longer linked to the inspection (Penninckx, 2015). Holding schools accountable through school inspection has increased considerably (Faubert, 2009; International Institute for Educational Planning, 2011). And whether the inspection drives schools to further development remains unclear (Dedering & Müller, 2011). According to Penninckx (2015) the most prominent discussion for adapting the current inspection mechanism the past two decades with the purpose to increase the intended effects and to decrease the side effects is whether schools’ selfevaluation can have a more central role in inspection. Several scholars have strongly advocated using more systematically the school’s selfevaluation as a basis for the inspection (Barber, 1998; McNamara, O’Hara, Lisi, & Davidsdottir, 2011). The intended effects are predominantly explained by the perception of the inspection quality, or more specifically, by the psychometric quality (reliability and validity) of the transparency of the inspection process, and of the criteria used for determining the inspection judgment, and of the friendly, trustworthy, supportive, and respectful approach toward staff members. The schools’ policymaking capacities are the strongest predictor of emotional side effects during the inspection, with teachers in schools with stronger policymaking capacities reporting a greater increase in stress and anxiety (Penninckx, 2015; see also Penninckx, Vanhoof, De Maeyer & Van Petegem, 2016).

2.3.4 Evaluation and Assessment Related to the foregoing observation, there is a growing focus on evaluation and assessment (OECD, 2013). There is the widespread recognition that evaluation and assessment arrangements are key to both improvement and accountability in school systems. “Decentralisation and school autonomy are creating a greater need for the evaluation of schools, school leaders and teachers while greater IT capacity allows for the development and analysis of largescale student assessments as well as individualised assessment approaches” (OECD, 2013, p. 17). In many countries there is a varied use of evaluation and assessment

results. There is a focus in the use of evaluation results to hold policymakers, school leaders, and teachers accountable. In many countries school leaders are observed and evaluated, because they are important for effective teaching and learning. Also teacher appraisal became a central policy task. There is the general belief that effective appraisal and feedback for teachers are essential to increase the focus on teaching quality and teachers’ professional learning. National evaluation data may help shape policy management decisions on resource distribution, curriculum development, and definition of standards or strategies for professional development. But there is also a growing interest in using evaluation results for formative purposes. A school leader can use assessment data for detecting problems in the way team members are collaborating. Individual teachers use test results for a change in the way they teach mathematics. The growing attention for evaluation and assessment creates an interesting research theme: how to use data? How do policymakers use national evaluation data for the adaptation of national standards? Or how to activate teachers through teacher evaluation (Tuytens & Devos, 2013)? How to provide meaningful feedback to principals, and so on? In many countries the implementation process of an evaluation policy is nowadays a central issue. The pressure for accountability and providing and using data has led to the necessary development of supportive evaluation systems and tools (DarlingHammond, AmreinBeardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2011). There is the assumption that results from standardized tests and other sources will be used to make useful decisions about school and classroom practice. The study by Ingram, Seashore Louis, Schroeder, and Schroeder (2004) is an interesting longitudinal study being conducted of practices and culture in nine high schools that are implementing a Continuum Improvement approach. They collected data about the impact of the organizational culture of schools upon databased decisionmaking. The collected data make clear that culture is a strong determinant of how teachers use data to judge their effectiveness, and it influences the type of data that teachers think are needed. For instance: many teachers develop their personal metric for judging the effectiveness of their teaching (my pupils like most of the classroom activities; they are honest; they ask spontaneously many questions; they say “I need help”, etc.) and often this metric differs from the metrics of external parties. Many teachers and administrators base their decisions on experiences and anecdotal information (professional judgment) rather than on information that is collected systematically. So, data use is not only a matter of changing practices and behavior, but there is also the matter of changing underlying values and assumptions held by teachers. This is also illustrated by the fact that most teachers remark that data about “really important outcomes” are rarely available and are hard to measure (Ingram et al., 2004). There is a clear need for wellorganized followup studies about systemic barriers to improvement and knowledge use.

2.4 Policy Development and Policy Actions: Some Reflections

It is important to scrutinize the assumptions underlying a national education policy in general and improvement proposals in particular. Analyzing the disjunctures between policy proposals, administrative structures and related regulations, and the multiple realities of people in particular schools leads always to valuable insights about improvement processes and influencing factors, and creates interesting new research questions.

2.4.1 Rational Approach versus IndividualCultural Approach The potential impact of a national plan is overestimated by most policymakers. It is a well known phenomenon that most teachers and school leaders seldom read policy statements, memos, or white papers. General ideas about the need for school improvement explained by national and local education leaders, by external consultants, and by researchers mostly put school leaders and teachers in a hierarchical relationship. In many cases there is a tension between the rational and technical approach and arguments offered by all these actors and the emotional reactions by school leaders and teachers. Sometimes this tension is reinforced by additional explanation, more demonstrations, more written notes, general suggestions for the needed classroom changes, and the presentation of specific activities. By acting that way, those with policy and change responsibility overload teachers’ understanding of what is good for students. So, it is a matter not of finding ways to make the hierarchy work better, but to accept that a supportive confrontation of implicit assumptions underlying education policy, external support, functioning of schools, school leaders, and teachers is absolutely necessary. A rationaltechnical approach (change is created through the dissemination of innovative techniques and rational arguments) and a political approach (change is generated through legislation, more pressure, and more control), assuming that the improvement processes taking place at different levels of the education system can be steered in a logical and linear way, must be replaced by an individualcultural approach (Gitlin & Margonis, 1995; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Sashkin & Egermeier, 1993; Van den Berg, 2002).

2.4.2 Official Expectations versus Personal Ideas and Professional Experiences The socalled individualcultural approach means that implementing an improvement program always implies an ongoing confrontation between the official goals and expectations of the program and the personal and professional ideas of those who are responsible for the ultimate realization of the program and who will be held accountable for the results. Reformers should take into consideration the way teachers engage in intentional learning about new ways to teach. This is clearly summarized by Elmore (1996):

Teachers are more likely to learn from direct observations of practice and trial and error in their own classroom than they are from abstract descriptions of new teaching; changing teaching practice even for committed teachers, takes a long time, and several cycles of trial and error; teachers have to feel that there is some compelling reason for them to practice differently, with the best direct evidence being that students learn better; and teachers need feedback from sources they trust about whether students are actually learning what they are taught. (p. 25)

And there is also always a confrontation between the existing organizational norms and culture of a school and goals and expectations of the improvement program (see hereafter, second illustration). So, conceptualizing the implementation process as a rational and linear process is creating an illusion and mostly a onesided identification and interpretation of factors influencing that process.

2.4.3 Limited Impact of a Rational Approach The limited impact of a rationallinear approach is illustrated in the socalled “standard based reform and testfocused policies” (Welner & Mathis, 2015, pp. 4–5). The core logic of standardbased systems rests upon alignment of three core elements. First, standards define the knowledge and skills—or competences—students are expected to attain. Second, the curriculum covers the objectives identified in standards, and third, student assessments and school evaluations focus on attainment of standards. If these three elements are misaligned, it is impossible to draw valid conclusions about the success of student learning or to develop effective strategies for school improvement. But it is very difficult, almost impossible, to achieve a perfect rational or technical alignment because school systems include multiple layers and links, operate in diverse contexts, and employ teachers and school leaders with a range of professional experiences and related opinions and capabilities. And learning is in and of itself a complex process. Given this complexity, it is very difficult to establish a clear relationship across standards, curriculum, assessment, and evaluations. According to Looney (2011), social alignment is more important than technical alignment. In socially aligned systems, institutions and actors work together to define challenges and objectives. Central actors (teachers, school leaders) define and implement different types of evaluations, they analyze data collaboratively in order to improve classroom activities, and they create opportunities for mutual learning and internal structures for ongoing professionalization. A shared focus on instruction and learning and a strong teacherto teacher trust are created (Baker, 2004; see also Huberman, 1995). The collective and ongoing analysis of positive experiences creates a culture that supports teachers and a platform that decreases the feelings of vulnerability.

2.4.4 Identity Learning and Emotions In many contemporary innovations, teaching no longer means transferring a subject content in a structured way. It means above all supporting the learning process of the students who are

expected to use a specific content adequately in a new and often complex context. This is a fundamental change for most teachers, and this change implies a change in the professional identity of teachers (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005). A teacher is no longer just a provider of a subject content but also a coach supporting the learning processes of pupils. Providing learning strategies and supporting the metacognitive development of pupils are more important than a clean enumeration of subject facts and findings. Here a change in professional identity is at stake, which implies a process of individual sensemaking (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Sensemaking is not only a cognitive process, but also implies a confrontation with new and sometimes unexpected emotions (Spillane et al., 2002). It is more than an intellectual and rational process (see also Kelchtermans & Deketelaere, 2016). Teachers experiencing serious questions about their existing professional identity or self concept have great concerns about themselves (Hall & Hord, 2015) and, according to Charlotte Bühler, experience the boundary of the existing professional selfconcept (cited in Geijsel & Meijers, 2005, p. 424). “This may concern an experience of opportunity for learning and growth, coupled with positive emotions. Probably more often, however, it is an experience of conflict, shortcoming or inability, and of uncertainty, which is coupled with negative emotions” (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005, p. 424). In many countries, policymakers assume that the development toward a new professional identity can be supported by providing welldefined general goals, researchbased teaching methods, or general suggestions for continuous evaluation of pupils’ progress. A prescriptive policy does not provide the necessary support. A fundamental change in the working conditions at the school level is necessary. Teachers need structured working conditions that invite them to implement new teaching approaches and specific teaching methods and create room for creative reflections with colleagues. The creation of a supportive learning environment and new ways of professional collaboration have consequences for the organizational structure and culture of schools. In summary, changing an existing teaching practice at the teacher level is a complex social cognitive process (Spillane et al., 2002). At the school level, it means the intersection of school management focusing on the creation of a professional community.

2.4.5 Fair Accountability: Accepting the Complexity of the Implementation Process According to Milner (2013), The push for high test scores undermines the very essence of teachers’ creativity and their ability to be responsive to the particular needs of their students, varying as they do from student to student, year to year, and classroom to classroom. (p. 5)

Focusing on test scores is making schooling less engaging and creative (Zhao, 2009); teachers and school leaders are no longer considered as responsible and welltrained professionals (Milner 2013); arts, music, social studies and science are no longer considered as essential

parts of the curriculum (Cawelti, 2006); and a standardsbased approach marginalizes values and skills that help students develop the ability to cooperate, solve problems, reason, and make sound judgments (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). In most countries, test results and evaluation reports by an external inspection team are made available for the general public. There is the underlying assumption that schools cannot be stimulated to improve unless the real accomplishment—or deficits—of their students and the school team are raised to public attention (DarlingHammond, 2004). Accountability is necessary, but it must be fair. Welner and Mathis (2015) summarize clearly the unfairness of a onesided accountability: Holding teachers accountable but excusing the policymakers who fail to provide necessary supports is as harmful and illogical as holding students accountable but excusing poor teaching. Today’s demoralized teaching force has been given too much responsibility for outcomes and too little control over those outcomes. A system of universal accountability would continue to make strong demands on teachers and principals, but equally strong demands must be made on the leaders and the policymakers in district offices, state and federal legislatures, and state and federal departments of education. (p. 7; see also Hargreaves & Braun, 2013; Howe & Meens, 2012)

Universal accountability is essential: accountability must be shared by all those who are responsible at different levels of the educational system. This form of accountability also implies that several identifiable and unidentifiable factors and influences impacting the implementation process must be accepted by those who are responsible for school reform and, if possible, be changed. Related to the individualcultural approach, policymakers should for instance accept that in a time of overload—many innovations must be implemented at the same time—teachers and principals move between different emotional states. They experience less autonomy to define how to work. Principals are confronted with conflicts among teachers and they try to find acceptable compromises. Both teachers and principals experience a higher degree of vulnerability which constitutes a structural condition of the teaching job (Kelchtermans, 2003). These kinds of emotions and new experiences among team members have a strong influence on the way innovations in a particular school are implemented. A one sided focus on accountability always implies a narrow conception of the complex implementation process.

2.4.6 Three Perspectives: Different Meanings and Explanations In the foregoing sections, three different perspectives have been introduced. A perspective is a combination of facts, values, and presuppositions into a complex screen through which change and innovation are seen and explained. Adapting a specific perspective means that one focuses on specific characteristics, uses a specific interpretation of processes, values the impact of some determinants, advocates certain policies, and conducts certain types of research and evaluation studies. Perspectives act as interpretive frameworks for understanding the innovation process. They also serve as a guide to what is important and as a guide to action (House, 1981). Investments in one perspective will always lead to limited results. It is a matter

of finding a balanced interaction and approach among three perspectives. The technological perspective focuses on the innovation itself, on its characteristics and component parts, and how to introduce the innovation to teachers and schools in such a way that it is implemented efficiently. The technique and its effects are the focal points. The political perspective focuses on the innovation in context, on the relationship between sponsors (developers) and recipients (schools and teachers), on rewards and costs, and on their distribution among individuals or groups. Power and authority relationships are the focal points. The cultural perspective focuses on the context, on how work in schools is structured and the teaching job is experienced, on how the innovation is interpreted, and on how the relationship and existing norms are distributed. Meaning and values are the focal points. These three perspectives also led to different kinds of implementation studies. From a technological perspective one is interested in a faithful implementation (the socalled fidelity studies); from a political perspective one is interested in studying the degree to which an innovation is adapted to the local situation (the socalled mutual adaptation studies); and from the cultural perspective one will look primarily on the implementation process itself and how the interaction between different subcultures has an impact on the evolution of the innovation (the socalled process studies) (House, 1981).

2.5 Exploring the Implementation Process It is a simple observation, but there exists a long journey between a policy proposal and the actual implementation of the proposal. Between the policy level and the school and classroom level, many actors, on different levels, are involved, with different intentions, responsibilities, and power. All these actors look at the proposal from a different and personal perspective. Their perspective is fed by many professional experiences and has grown during the years of their professional career. So, it is important to explore this journey and try to understand how and why local implementers—principals and teachers—respond as they do (Van der Vegt, Smyth, & Vandenberghe, 2001). Implementation always implies change. It means giving up familiar behaviors and structures, and actually replacing these for new ones. It means learning through developing new knowledge and skills (Hall & Hord, 2015). Implementation has always a systemunsettling potential. It involves redesigning and rearranging customary ways of doing things in line with the newly arrived program or new policy concept. Implementation work is “for real” and “for keeps.” Actually, implementation is a critical intervention, upsetting in various degrees the “steady state” of an organization and the usual way activities are organized in a classroom and in a school (Van der Vegt et al., 2001). Not only the objective characteristics of the innovation, but also the manner in which meaning is attached to the innovation by those involved appear to be of particular importance for successful innovation. Subjective meanings not only color the manner in which teachers perceive and define their work and the working environment but also steer their behavior (Kelchtermans, 1993, 2005). A useful metaphor for an exploration of the implementation journey is the implementation

stairs with several steps. For instance, at the top step, the central administration has published a list of standards for mathematics in the primary school. These standards define the level and quality of the expected outcomes at the end of the primary school and teachers are expected to use these standards as a guideline for their daily teaching activities and decisions about the learning content and evaluations. But on a second step these standards are translated into an elaborated curriculum defining more specific goals, contents, teaching, and evaluation activities. The developed curriculum is evaluated by the inspectorate using the published standards as criteria. As soon as the curriculum gets a positive evaluation and is officially accepted by the inspectorate, educational consultants—on the third step—help principals and teachers understand the standards and to explore the new content of the curriculum. They also suggest some interesting teaching activities; they promote existing or new teaching material; they demonstrate how one can evaluate students; and they organize inservice training for teachers, and so on. Publishers—a fourth step, sometimes in collaboration with teachers and consultants—prepare new teaching methods and teaching material. The standards, the curriculum, the suggestions and advice of the consultants, and the new teaching methods arrive on the desk of principals (the fifth step). It is their job to motivate the staff to read the new curriculum, explore how the standards are used for the development of the curriculum, evaluate several new methods, try out with their teachers some new teaching activities, and evaluate students’ outcomes (sixth step). It is important—and for researchers very challenging—to find out what is happening on these different steps. It is interesting to see that some actors (e.g., educational consultants) redefine or elaborate some standards to see how curriculum developers put an emphasis on some standards and how they minimize the importance of other standards. It is not at all a surprise to notice that a principal decides that in a first step of his or her innovation plan, a new teaching method will be made available only in one grade. Lastly, it is not unusual that experienced teachers will combine some parts of the new method with teaching activities they had developed in the previous years. So each step is a place where interpretation takes place and each step is a locus of transactions. These transactions occur at a host of decisionmaking points: between national commissions and local lay authorities (e.g., between the ministry of education and a local school board); between national authorities and unions; between national and local authorities and various layers of professionals; between one layer of professionals and another one (e.g., between consultants and principals; between a principal and his teachers); and finally between teachers and students. In summary, policy messages are distorted as they filter down through the various levels (steps) of the educational system (Spillane, 2004). Here we are confronted with several mediation processes between the proposed change (plan; innovation) and the existing norms, belief systems, and practices that lead those responsible (the several actors at the different steps) for the implementation. It is generally known that actors at the different steps impose their own meanings and interpretations on the change messages (see Coburn, 2001; Darling Hammond, 1990; Kelchtermans & Vandenberghe, 1998; Spillane, 1999; Spillane et al., 2002; Timperley & Parr, 2005). And there is an increasing insight that implementation failures often occur as a result of these complex mediation and sensemaking processes. So, it is generally

accepted and proved in many studies that a centrally mandated policy is translated, adjusted, and worked on differently by diverse sets of policy actors. Variability and distinctiveness characterize policy enactment at the different levels of practice within and between individual but similar schools (Maguire, Ball, & Braun, 2010).

2.6 The SenseMaking Process: Two Illustrations Sensemaking occurs when an individual or a group is confronted with new information, with an external or internal proposal or an external triggering that creates a disruption to their personal understandings of their work, their professional beliefs, selfconcept, and the organization of their workplace. While the sensemaking process is continuous and ongoing, it is brought into clear relief when individuals or groups react to information that is starkly different from their usual routines or previous experiences. So individuals or groups have to develop new activities and new or retreated interpretations (Coburn, 2001; Louis, Mayrowitz, Murphy, & Smylie, 2013).

2.6.1 Personal Concerns in Implementing Change The concept of personal concerns has stimulating intellectual sources: first in the professional field of teacher training (Fuller, 1969), and second in the domain of teachers involved in changing their classroom practices (Hall & Hord, 2015; Van den Berg & Vandenberghe, 1981). The various definitions of this concept share one feature: concerns emerge in a context of shifting dependencies, that is, dependencies formerly established and formalized and now unsettled by the arrival of a new policy concept or a specific innovation. In essence, (dormant) concerns will be activated and articulated through intervening events affecting the individual’s life, such as demanding transitional training for new competences, new tasks for group members affecting existing levels of intimacy, and the introduction of new structures challenging the present power of equilibrium among members. So, concerns make their presence felt in the cognitive and emotional lives of individual teachers. Concerns define the perception by the teachers of the announced project. And outsiders who are not involved in the implementation process sometimes interpret these concerns as “resistance.” But concerns, for those who are involved in a project, have a real impact on the evaluation and interpretation of an innovation proposal. We have identified five personal concerns that implementation bring into focus (Vandenberghe, 1978; Van der Vegt et al., 2001). 1. The first is the identityinclusion concern . Being a member of a school gives people the opportunity to express themselves professionally as well as personally. By providing opportunities for work and social interactions, schools are powerful facilitators of self definition or selfunderstanding. Thus, a major change in a school—amending the school’s identity—unsettles the established reference base for a person’s selfdefinition. This triggers an identityinclusion concern. (“Will my ideas about professional work still be supported in this new school?” “Do I really want to be a loyal part of this new school?”)

2. The second concern is investment of effort—an individual’s concern about how much intellectual and emotional effort to commit to the changing core processes of the school. (“How much do I want to contribute?” “Can I allow myself to appear dedicated, to be enthusiastic and excited?”) This concern is about vulnerability, since expenditure of effort usually involves being publicly associated with an attempt at change that may end up in failure. This concern can also involve the pain of devaluing one’s previous investments in learning complex professional skills. 3. The third concern is professional competence—the sense of mastery over the skills and knowledge required by the new core process. While clearly related to the identity inclusion concern, this competence concern is more operational. It deals with worries about technical knowhow for doing an effective job. (“Will I be able to use the new computer programs in an effective way?” “Do I have the necessary skills to lead a discussion group as required by the new curriculum of social studies?” “The evaluation instrument proposed by the consultant is really complex; I have to read a lot more before being able to use it as required.”) The new program makes old specifications less relevant; aspects of professional expertise are at stake. This concern about professional adequacy has strong overtones about selfesteem. Competence and selfesteem are closely related and the actuality of implementation work underscores this connection. 4. The fourth concern is influence—people’s preoccupation with their standing in the new pattern of power and influence in the school. This concern is about authority and discretion, and people’s hopes and fears about changes in influence relationships. Established expectations about the balance of influence are at stake; here the theme is revision of these expectations—a nagging concern about future losses and gains in what is essentially a competitive power influence. (“I fear that my younger colleagues who know more about the new history curriculum will determine what happens in the classroom.” “For the moment I’m not ready for a frequent discussion with my colleagues about the new evaluation system.”) 5. The fifth concern is fairness. The theme is the experienced fairness of one’s share of the organization’s pattern of rewards and incentives. The implementation of a demanding program may unsettle this pattern. The preoccupation then becomes with how fair a person’s position will be in a possibly redesigned pattern, relative to one’s (perceived) contribution to the school. (“Until now it was possible for me to propose many activities for the students during a free afternoon. Given the new program there is no longer free time. This is not fair. The two newly appointed vice principals will have a serious impact on the daily organization of the school work. I assume that my opinion about the organization of some teaching activities will no longer be taken into consideration.”) These concerns, related questions, and right or wrong assumptions are an important part of the socalled “black box.” Understanding the point of view of the participants in the change process is critical (Hall & Hord, 2015). The “personal” side of change is frequently ignored. It is curious that teachers frequently have been positioned in the discussions about educational improvement as objects to be manipulated and controlled rather than as professional creators

of a learning culture. “Typically, the academic and professional literature has assumed a relatively passive role for teachers in educational improvement initiatives, and only in recent years has this position been opened to academic and professional critique” (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000, p. 31). It is very important for consultants (and also for policy people who are at the top step of the implementation stairs) to understand the perception of the teachers. Without understanding where the teachers “are” and how they “feel,” only through chance will the interventions made by consultants address the needs of innovation users and nonusers. If the personal side is not taken into consideration, teachers are then left to struggle and discover through trial and error what the innovation is about and how to use it effectively. In this situation it is not difficult to predict the final result: the project is not implemented or implemented in an unacceptable way. When a concernsbased approach is used, consultants work in concert with teachers to address their emerging and evolving needs. In this way, not only change is viewed as a process, but the personal side of change as experienced by teachers is taken into account (Hall & Hord, 2015).

2.6.2 The Impact on the School as an Organization In the first illustration the perspective of the individual teacher involved in implementation work is explored. But implementing educational reform is known for its complexity and uncertainty of results. One aspect of this complexity is that external policy change not only impacts the individual teacher, but also the organizational level of a school. The existing organization and organizational characteristics impact the implementation process and the outcomes. Here too, it is interesting to explore meaningcreating interactions between the school as an organization and policy proposals. And, for instance, between schools and external services (educational consultants, external inservice training programs). The way schools deal with new policies and specific innovations is to an important degree determined by specific organizational characteristics and local conditions such as the actual composition of the school staff (for instance, the number of beginning teachers versus experienced teachers); the student population; the quality of social and professional interactions among colleagues; the leadership capacities of the principal; previous experiences with some innovations; the relation between the school and the local community, and so on (Kelchtermans, 2007). (For an analysis of the interaction between the individual and organizational side of the change process, see Mitchell & Sackney, 2000.) More generally, in order to understand how the implementation process is influenced by the specific school organization, it is necessary to explore and observe the impact of the leadership of the principal (Bristow, Ireson, & Coleman, 2007; Hall, Negroni, & George, 2013; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2011; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006; Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010; Vandenberghe, 2008); school culture (Hargreaves, 1994; Schein, 1985; Staessens, 1993a); collegial relations and collaboration (Achinstein, 2002; Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; Little, 1990; Staessens, 1993b; Kelchtermans, 2006); and organizational changes in the school’s working conditions (Smylie, 1994; Van der Vegt et al., 2001). How schools implement an externally proposed improvement program will be illustrated by

some information (and research data) from the renewal of the Primary School (RPS) in Flanders (the Dutchspeaking part of Belgium; Vandenberghe & Depoortere, 1986). This was a largescale improvement project and a striking feature of it was its multidimensionality: a number of important aims and objectives must be accomplished simultaneously and coherently. The main goals of the RPS were related to the following themes: enhanced integration and interdependence between the kindergarten (2.5 years–6 years) and the elementary school (6 years–12 years); more effective individualization during the elementary grades, particularly in relation to reading and arithmetic. It was expected that teachers adapt their teaching activities taking into consideration differences among pupils; enhanced contact and collaboration between classroom teachers and a remedial teacher, so that pupils with special needs and problems in regular classrooms will be worked with more effectively. There was an emphasis also on more collaboration among teachers and pupils of different grades; increased emphasis on the socioemotional and creative development of the pupils. A more childcentered approach was one of the key idea of the RPS; better interdependence with resources in the community environment (and particularly with parents) in terms of both the pupils going out into the community to learn and people from the community being used as resourcepeople on an ad hoc basis within the school (Vandenberghe, 1987a). Although this is an innovation project of the 1970s, the same general goals are still part of more recent reforms in primary education in many European countries. Local schools confronted with such an “innovation bundle” typically try to control the import of innovative concepts from the policy world. Objectives tend to get reduced, filtered, or downsized; schools differ in the degree of attention they give to specific components; overall, their agendas for change differ in scope, in content, and in ambition. These different innovation agendas can be regarded as a reflection of the school’s response to external policy (Vandenberghe, 1995). It is clear that those who were responsible for the development of that improvement program (a national committee) expected a lot from the teachers and from the receiving local context. During almost 10 years we had the opportunity to study the development of the RPS and to evaluate the outcomes (Vandenberghe, 1987b). This type of research is critical for policymakers and for educational consultants as well as for professionals in the local school, since it focuses on the confrontation between two universes, each with its own interpretation of the meaning of the improvement program. It is important to study the confrontation between two different “phenomenological” worlds, and to see how these differences influence results. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) stress the importance of the meaning of change to those involved in its adoption and implementation. They emphasize in this regard that perceptions are often a function of the phenomenological world in which actors are living and that, as a result, the administrator’s world may be very different from the teacher’s world. In his critical

introduction to one of Fullan’s publications, Huberman underlines this: “Many studies show that teachers chronically underestimate the difficulty of making organizational changes and administrators chronically underestimate the complexities of changing classroom level practices” (Huberman, 1992, p. 8). The same dynamic of differences in understanding occurs with policymakers as well. In an evaluation (intensive case studies in nine schools) of the implementation process of this bundle of innovations, three implementation patterns could be distinguished (Vandenberghe, D’hertefelt, & De Wever, 1993). 2.6.2.1 Group 1: Creative Use of the Project (3 Schools) Teachers report new teaching activities which are clearly linked to the goals of the innovation. The organization of new activities is accompanied by teachers’ reflection on the potential and actual impact on pupils. At the school level there is a striking effort to stimulate intensive communication about the project activities at the classroom level. This communication is characterized by exploration of possibilities (what can we do in our classroom?), by critical assessment of experiences (how did your pupils react?), and by discussion of potential problems and solutions. In this way, the teachers created the norm “we are responsible” for the quality of our school in general and for the success of the project in particular. The frequent discussions among teachers (led by the principal) were experienced by the teachers as an ongoing learning process. In other words, these discussions were considered by the teachers as a platform for permanent learning. Teachers communicated about the link between innovation goals, beliefs, actions, and results. This led also to open discussions about the more general goals of primary education. All these actions, discussions, and new insights led to fresh ideas about teaching and education. 2.6.2.2 Group 2: Reproductive Use of the Project (3 Schools) In these schools teachers carried out new activities if and only if the external change facilitators asked them to do so. In other words, changes at the classroom level and the implementation of new activities resulted from welldirected pressure from the external facilitators. The responsibility for the project activities in the school was put on the shoulders of the external facilitators. They were given discretion to organize some activities, and they also decided about the frequency of some activities (e.g., staff meetings; feedback sessions with the teachers; coaching of individual teachers). Teachers mostly accepted passively specific proposals and suggestions. The principals did not take any initiative to steer or provide internal support. Communication was limited to descriptions of what each teacher did in the classroom. Only very infrequently did this type of communication lead to supportive dialogues or discussions about underlying opinions or beliefs. There was no person or structure that promoted the creation of a shared vision or commonly accepted goals. In summary, the organizational reaction was a docile one. 2.6.2.3 Group 3: Defensive Use of the Project (3 Schools) At the classroom level these schools showed a great variety as far as innovative activities are

concerned. Each teacher decided individually (what and when) about some innovative activities in the classroom. As a consequence of this high degree of autonomy, there were many differences among the teachers within a school. Diversity and a generally low degree of implementation were typical for these schools. Here too, the organization of implementation activities was the responsibility of external change facilitators. They decided how the staff meetings and other interventions were organized. Existing structures (e.g., staff meetings or working groups) were utilized by the external facilitators. Teachers accepted the proposals and related activities, but—and this is important here—only to the extent that the new activities did not threaten their individual liberty and autonomy. This reaction could be understood in terms of an existing organizational norm which holds that what a teacher does in the classroom and in the school should be guided by his or her personal educational perspective. Therefore, activities aimed at the creation of a common vision or shared opinions about the project were not accepted. As far as communication is concerned, only teachers who shared a common perspective discussed the project. Each teacher claimed autonomy, which resulted in a rejection of activities involving sharing. Given this organizational reaction, the effect of the project in these schools differed from classroom to classroom. In Group 1 schools, the project offered the context for personal learning: teachers used the project for a continual analysis of their experiences, for discussing problems, and for seeking solutions for some practical problems. The new projectrelated experiences became integrated into the existing goals of the school. In more general terms, the project confirmed and to some extent strengthened the existing professional culture. Both the teachers and the school were learning and developing. The schools in Group 2 reacted passively. The teachers demonstrated a willingness to participate and to carry out activities proposed by the external facilitators. However, positive experiences did not lead to a shared vision or to organizational arrangements that stimulated or coordinated the implementation process. Program effects were in fact isolated results. Team members’ positive experiences and favorable program effects did not stimulate either individual professional development or organizational development. The learning process was characterized by “reproduction” rather than by creativity. The schools in Group 3 were characterized by a lack of opportunities for individual and organizational learning. Differences among team members as far as educational perspective are concerned, and the psychological tensions, obstructed any kind of development. The primary aim of most teachers was to preserve their personal beliefs about education and teaching; the primary aim of the organization was to survive. From these summarized descriptions, it is obvious that one of the important differences between the three groups was the impact the project had on the professional development of teachers and on the development of schools as an organization. Only in the schools of Group 1 were there wellbalanced opportunities (and sometimes intentionally created) for personal and organizational development. Individual teacher learning and school development took place where there was supportive and confirmatory interaction: complementarity between the individual and organizational development is a key concept.

2.7 Pitfalls and Promising Perspectives: Four Important Conclusions There is always a significant gap between policy aspirations and proposals and results at the school and classroom level. Or, there may be “many ways to fail and few to succeed” (Berman, 1981, p. 255). Given the transactions and interpretations taking place at different steps of the implementation stairs, it is clear that a topdown policy as “onesizefitsall” policy culture in education is unable to substantially increase teacher effectiveness and improved teaching.

2.7.1 Perspectives on Teaching In most school improvement situations, change initiators (at the top level of the stairs) adopt a socalled rational (technological) perspective in which teaching is viewed as a technology involving official standards, curriculum frameworks, evaluation systems, and explicit knowledge that can be transferred reasonably readily. There are the pitfalls of “explain it to teachers and they will do it” or “offer new teaching material and they will use it.” Teachers are supposed to “produce” student results according to the rules developed by external experts. “Little reflexive judgment is required of this teacher, indeed it could be argued that it is required that judgment is suspended and ethical discomforts set aside” (Ball et al., 2011, p. 612). In contrast, those responsible for change implementation—the teachers and principals in schools (at the lowest level of the implementation stairs)—are more likely to approach change from a personalcultural perspective in which teaching is viewed as a craft based on experience and tacit knowledge acquired over time in particular contexts (Timperley & Parr, 2005). What is important and necessary for each party (e.g., administrators or change initiators versus teachers and principals) is to take responsibility to engage with the others’ [perspective] and to recognize that advocacy by initiators and adoption by implementers in a change situation is motivated by what is valued. Mutual understanding of these values and the practice that arise from them is fundamental to success. (Timperley & Parr, 2005, p. 229)

Ongoing communication and wellorganized discussions, evaluation, and reflections among different actors must be organized during the implementation process. And accepting the practical wisdom already existing in schools by all actors involved creates room for professional discussions and support. And these discussions create opportunities for individual professional and organizational development (Huberman, 1995).

2.7.2 Improvement of Teacher and Principal Quality Common for several policy proposals and actions is the need for improvement of teacher and principal quality. Improving quality means more than the introduction of official lists with

capacities to be mastered by teachers and principals. Quality improvement and accountability policy will not increase school performance without a substantial investment in human capital aimed at developing the practice of school improvement in school leaders (Elmore, 2006). Or, a reliance on curriculum standards or statewide assessment strategies without paying due attention to teacher quality appears to be insufficient to gain the improvement in students’ outcomes sought. Here is the pitfall to assume that a one or twoday inservice training will lead to the expected improvement and results. In summary, each policy proposal or improvement program should always be accompanied by a wellorganized and longlasting program for professional development for principals and teachers.

2.7.3 Organizational Development of Schools Ensuring opportunities to learn should be complemented by a set of actions focusing on the organizational development of schools. Usually, individual teachers are seen as the most important actors for school improvement and improved student achievements, but stressing individual responsibility is a onesided view. Expected changes in individual teaching behavior must be supported by (new) structures in the school, such as discussion groups, subject groups (e.g., all math teachers explore a new curriculum), a local study group (collecting data about the change process and students outcomes), collaboration with colleagues from another school, ongoing internal evaluation procedures, and so on. In other words, individual responsibility should become a collective responsibility because shared expertise is the driver of instructional change. Certain types of structures are more likely than others to intensify and focus norms of good practices: organizations in which facetoface relationships dominate impersonal, bureaucratic ones; organizations in which people routinely interact around common problems of practice; and organizations that focus on the results of their work for students, rather than on the working conditions of professionals (Elmore, 1996, p. 20). King and Newmann (1999) and Youngs (1999) argue that excellent professional development is not sufficient because it only increases the skills and dispositions of individuals. In addition, they claim that the learning community or culture of the school must change; in other words, the organizational culture of learning must change along with individual learning. Moreover, these authors also note that the school or system must work at “program coherence,” i.e., reducing the number of disjointed initiatives in the school by focusing on clear goals, sustained over a period of time. Coherence making involves aligning individual development, learning communities, and program goals and activities.

2.7.4 Teams to Implement School Improvement The implementation of an improvement program, the installation of a longlasting program for professional development, and the needed organizational development of a school are destabilized by frequently changing teams in schools or changes in the principal team. The realization of locally adapted innovations, the formation of a learning team, and the organization of a supporting organizational structure become impossible if the team changes almost every year. The creation of positive team norms (such as we all are in favor of the

innovation; we all encourage colleagues to disclose their ideas and feelings), the creation of trust and an open communication culture, the creation of a clear sense of purpose (the team members know why this team exists and what they should be doing) is really impossible in a situation where almost every year the composition of the team is changing. So, improvement of schools and the quality of the learning results are only possible in a stable teacher and principal team. Simple solutions, targeting one factor (new standards; a new curriculum; a oneday professional training, etc.), are frequently observed pitfalls. Understanding how policies influence teaching implies an ongoing and wellstructured analysis of the complex and sometimes unpredictable interaction between the nature of policy implementation, the educational context wherein new policies come to rest, the basis for teaching decisions, and the nature of the change process (DarlingHammond, 1990). There is a clear need for well designed longitudinal case studies in which concrete changes at the school and classroom levels are systematically collected, analyzed, and confronted with already existing research results. This approach opens a perspective in which it is possible to evaluate gradually the impact of general policy measures taking into consideration at the same time the role of specific local conditions and professional factors of the team members involved. This approach will also lead to reports that are experienced as meaningful for those who are responsible at the local level.

References Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict and community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 421–455. Baker, E. L. (2004). Aligning curriculum, standards and assessments: Fulfilling the promise of school reform. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and poststructural approach . Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: Some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32, 611–624. Barber, M. (1998). The dark side of the moon: Imagining an end to failure in urban education. In L. Stoll & K. Meyers (Eds.), No quick fixes: Perspectives on schools in difficulty (pp. 17– 33). Bristol, UK: Falmer Press. Berman, P. (1981). Educational change: An implementation paradigm. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools: Using what we know (pp. 253–286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bristow, M., Ireson, G., & Coleman, A. (2007). A life in the day of a headteacher: A study of practice and wellbeing . Nottingham, UK: National Center for School Leadership. Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64, 64–68. Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–101. Coburn, G. D. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 45–70. DarlingHammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record, 91, 59–80. DarlingHammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over the top.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 233–241. DarlingHammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047–1085. DarlingHammond, L., AmreinBeardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2011). Getting teacher evaluation right: A background paper for policymakers. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association & the National Academy of Education. Dedering, K., & Müller, S. (2011). School improvement through inspections? First empirical insights from Germany. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 115–135. De Volder, I. (2012). Externe schoolevaluaties in Europa. Een vergelijkend onderzoek [External school evaluation in Europe: A comparative study]. Antwerp, Belgium: Garant. Ehren, M. C. M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). The impact of school inspection on improvement of schools: Describing assumptions and causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25, 1–41. Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationship between school inspection, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56, 205– 227. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26. Elmore, R. F. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper for the international conference “International perspectives on school leadership for systemic reform.” Paris, France: OECD. Faubert, V. (2009). School evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries. OECD Working Papers. Paris, France: OECD.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226. Geijsel, F., & Meijers, F. (2005). Identity learning: The core process of educational change. Educational Studies, 31, 419–430. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of largescale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 130–166. Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teachers’ resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103, 377–405. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hall, G. E., Negroni, I. A., & George, A. A. (2013). Examining relationship between urban principal change facilitator style and student learning. International Journal of Leadership and Change, 1, 36–46. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329–351. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 22, 149– 173. Halpin, A. W., & Troyna, B. (1995). The politics of borrowing. Comparative Education, 31, 303–310. Hamilton, L. S., Stechner, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standardsbased reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers work and culture in the postmodern age. London, UK: Cassell. Hargreaves, A., & Braun, H. (2013). Datadriven improvement and accountability . Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/datadrivenimprovementaccountability

Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (1998). International handbook of educational change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Academic Press. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Harris, A., Chapman, C., Muijs, D., Reynolds, D., Campbell, C., Creemers, B., … Weinstein, J. (2013). Getting lost in translation? An analysis of the international engagement of practitioners and policymakers with the educational effectiveness research base. School Leadership and Management, 33(1), 3–19. doi:10.1080/13632434.2012.723622 Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. House, E. R. (1981). Three perspectives on innovation: Technological, political, and cultural. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools: Using what we know (pp. 17–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howe, K. R., & Meens, D. E. (2012). Democracy left behind: How recent education reforms undermine local school governance and democratic education. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://necp.colorado.edu/publication/democracy leftbehind Huberman, A. M. (1992). Critical introduction. In M. Fullan (Ed.), Successful school improvement (pp. 1–20). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualizations, exchanges and experiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practices, 1, 193–211. Ingram, D., Seashore Louis, K. R., Schroeder, L., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258–1287. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). (2011). Supervision: A key component of a quality monitoring system. In UNESCO/IIEP (Ed.), Reforming school supervision for quality improvement (pp. 28–32). Paris, France: Author. Jephcote, M., & Davies, B. (2004). Recontextualizing discourse: An exploration of the working of the meso level. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 547–564. Kelchtermans, G. (1993). Getting the story, understanding the lives: From career stories to teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 443–456. Kelchtermans, G. (2003). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Selfunderstanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 995–1006. Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in education reforms: Understanding its moral and political roots. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 307–323.

Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions: A review. Zeitschrift für Pädgogik, 52, 220–237. Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in the micropolitics: The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Educational Policy, 22, 471–491. Kelchtermans, G., & Deketelaere, A. (2016). The emotional dimension in becoming a teacher. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 429–461). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1998). Internal micropolitical use of external control and support for quality improvement: The response to a national policy by primary schools. Paper presented at the AERA conference, San Diego, CA; ED425 495/EA 029271. King, B., & Newmann, F. (1999). School capacity as a goal for professional development. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Lasida, J., Podestà, M., & Sandoya, J. (2008). La calidad educativa: Sistemas y potencialidades [Quality in education: systems and opportunities]. Paginas de Educacion, 1, 55–75. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509–536. Looney, J. W. (2011). Alignment in complex education systems: Achieving balance and coherence. (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 64.) Paris, France: OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg3vg5lx8r8en Louis, K. S., Mayrowitz, D., Murphy, J., & Smylie, M. (2013). Making sense of distributed leadership: How secondary school educators look at job redesign. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 1, 33–68. Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and student “control”: Enacting policy in the English secondary school. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20, 153–170. März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Dumay, X. (2016). Stability and change of mentoring practices in a capricious policy environment: Opening the “black box of institutionalization.” American Journal of Education, 122, 303–336. Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” standards initiative: An effective reform tool? Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/commoncorestandards

McDermott, K. A. (2007). “Expanding the moral community” or “Blaming the victim”? The politics of state education accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 77–111. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand agent study revisited: Macro perspectives, micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16. McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Lisi, P. L., & Davidsdottir, S. (2011). Operationalising self evaluation in school: Experiences from Ireland and Iceland. Irish Educational Studies, 30(1), 63–82. Milner, H. R. (2013). Policy reforms and deprofessionalization of teaching . Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/policyreformsdeprofesssionalization Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning community. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How highstakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. OECD. (2005). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: Final report. Paris, France: Author. OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Paris, France: Author. OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Paris, France: Author. Penninckx, M. (2015). Inspecting school inspections. University of Antwerp, Belgium: Edubron. Penninckx, M., Vanhoof, J., De Maeyer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2016). Explaining effects and side effects of school inspection: A path analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27, 333–347. doi:10.108/09243453.2015.1085421 Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ryan, K. E., Gandha, T., & Ahn, J. (2013). School selfevaluation and inspection for improving U.S. schools? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http:/nepc.colorado.edu/publication/schoolselfevaluation Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher professional standards: Controlling or developing teaching. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 9(2), 175–186.

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sashkin, M., & Egermeier, J. (1993). School change models and processes: A review and synthesis of research and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21stcentury schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22, 181–203. Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership project: Investigating the links to improve student learning: Executive summary of research findings. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement & Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Smylie, M. (1994). Redesigning teachers’ work: Connections to the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 20, 129–177. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143–175. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431. Staessens, K. (1993a). Identification and description of professional culture in schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 6, 110–128. Staessens, K. (1993b). The professional relationships among teachers as a core component of school culture. In F. K. Kieviet & R. Vandenberghe (Eds.), School culture, school improvement and teacher development (pp. 39–54). Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University. Standaert, R. (2001). Inspectorates of education in Europe: A critical analysis. Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 227–251. Troman, G. (1999). Researching primary teachers’ work: Examining theory, policy and practice through interactionist ethnography. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Researching school

experience (pp. 33–50). London, UK: Falmer Press. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2013). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 509–530. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meaning regarding educational practices. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577–625. Van den Berg, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (1981). Onderwijsinnovatie in verschuivend perspectief [Educational innovation in a shifting perspective]. Tilburg, Netherlands: Zwijsen. Van den Berg, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (1984). Grootschaligheid in de onderwijsvernieuwing [Largescale innovations]. Tilburg, Netherlands: Zwijsen. Van den Berg, R., Vandenberghe, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). Management of innovations from a cultural–individual perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 321–351. Vandenberghe, R. (1978). The renewed primary school in Belgium: Institutionalization of a local innovation policy. In M. B. Miles, M. Ekholm, & R. Vandenberghe (Eds.), Lasting school improvement: Exploring the process of institutionalization (pp. 47–67). Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Vandenberghe, R. (1987a). The Renewed Primary School in Belgium: Local innovation policy and the role of the principal. In R. Vandenberghe & G. E. Hall (Eds.), Research on internal change facilitation in schools (pp. 185–215). Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Vandenberghe, R. (1987b). The Renewed Primary School in Belgium: Institutionalization of a local innovation policy. In M. B. Miles, M. Ekhlom, & R. Vandenberghe (Eds.), Lasting school improvement: Exploring the process of institutionalization (ISIPBook, 5, pp. 47– 68). Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Creating locally adapted innovations through a schoolbased review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27, 317–324. Vandenberghe, R. (2008). Beginnende directeurs Basisonderwijs: Een followup onderzoek [Beginning primary school principals: A followup study]. Antwerp, Netherlands: Garant. Vandenberghe, R., & Depoortere, J. (1986). Het VLOproject in Vlaanderen: Van plan naar realiteit [The Renewed Primary School in Flanders: From plan to reality]. Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Vandenberghe, R., D’hertefelt, M., & De Wever, H. (1993). Schools as implementors of an externally proposed improvement program. In F. K. Kieviet & R. Vandenberghe (Eds.), School culture, school improvement and teacher development (pp. 55–76). Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University.

Van der Vegt, R., Smyth, L. F., & Vandenberghe, R. (2001). Implementing educational policy at the school level: Organization dynamics and teacher concerns. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 8–23. Vleugelers, W. (2004). Between control and autonomy: Restructuring secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 141–160. Welner, K. G., & Mathis, W. J. (2015). Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act: Time to move beyond testfocused policies . Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http:/nepc.colorado.edu/publication:esea Youngs, P. (1999). District and state influences in professional development and school capacity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of gobalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

3 The Culture and Teaching Gap: What Is It, and How Can Teacher Educators Help to Close It? Roderick L. Carey1, Abiola FarindeWu O’Connor3 1 University of Delaware 2 University of Massachusetts Boston 3 University of Pittsburgh

2 , H. Richard Milner IV3 , and Lori Delale

3.1 Introduction In this chapter, we consider what we conceptualize as the culture and teaching gap and offer approaches for teacher educators to help close it. The culture and teaching gap reflects the cultural, and often racial, disparity existing between teachers and their students that impedes school success for increasingly diverse student populations. This gap also references the distance between the experiences, expectations, norms, and values rewarded by majority White, middleclass teachers and the norms and values of their racially and ethnically diverse student populations. Understanding the culture and teaching gap is essential to building robust knowledge to support teacher practices. In particular, we argue for the importance of considering the myriad ways opportunity gaps intensify and extend the school underperformance of so many students due in part to a gap between teacher and student culture, or rather what we deem here—the culture and teaching gap. Our arguments align with other scholars who critique the urge many—researchers, practitioners, and others—have to place blame solely on teachers or their underresourced schools for the impact of broader social inequities on the lives of schoolchildren (Carey, 2014; Kumashiro, 2012). However, we argue that teachers do have tremendous power and potential to narrow the culture and teaching gap that reproduces inequitable student learning outcomes. As we explain, teachers’ ability to do so resides in their competencies, knowledge, dispositions, and practices, as well as their willingness to deeply understand themselves and their students’ cultural identities and backgrounds. To support teachers in narrowing gaps between themselves and students, we focus this chapter on investigating the nexus between PreK12 pedagogical practices and the ways teacher educators can build on those practices in teacher education programs. Simply, we focus on two questions that underscore what teacher educators need to know for addressing the culture and teaching gap. First, we address the following question: What issues of teacher education should be considered to more fully understand the culture and teaching gap? Second, we consider the question: How can teachers and teacher educators employ innovative strategies to address the culture and teaching gap in the PreK12 classroom? After exploring theories and studies that underlie the culture and teaching gap, we pose implications for theory, policy, and

practice.

3.2 What Issues Are Important to Consider in Addressing the Culture and Teaching Gap? In this section, we focus on the first question above: What issues of teacher education should be considered to more fully understand the culture and teaching gap? Race and class are at the core of these considerations. Research reveals some startling trends along the lines of race and class. For instance, studies continue to find that more people/students of color live in poverty than do White people (Milner, 2013)—a 2015 U.S. Census report shows that 12.7% of White people lived below the poverty line, in contrast to 26% of Black people and nearly 24% of Hispanic/Latino people. These trends are even more striking when considering our PreK12 classrooms—poverty rates are highest for Black, Latino, and American Indian children with 38% of Black children, 32% of Latino children, and 35% of American Indian children living in poverty in comparison to 13% of White children (Jiang, Ekono, & Skinner, 2016). Such findings are compounded by the way that race and class intersect in the schooling experiences of U.S. schoolchildren (Milner, 2015). For instance, in addition to living with higher poverty rates, students of color are more likely than their White peers to attend inadequately funded, overcrowded schools with high student dropout rates, low graduation rates, low standardized test scores, a greater number of unqualified or firstyear teachers, and high teacher turnover rates (DarlingHammond, 2000a; Howard & Reynolds, 2008; Milner, 2015; Orfield & Lee, 2005). Given this context in U.S. public schools, it is important to consider what the culture and teaching gap is in relation to broader social phenomena and explicate how race, class, and culture disparities reveal themselves in school. Thus, in addressing the question of what issues should be explored in teacher education to address the culture and teaching gap, we acknowledge that race and culture are not synonymous. Continuing, first we consider issues of culture and the current demographics of the teaching force in comparison to the makeup of increasingly racially and ethnically diverse classrooms. Second, we focus on the role of teachers and the importance of instructional practices in contributing to students’ learning opportunities.

3.2.1 Culture While many definitions exist, culture for our purpose refers to “the patterning of the practices of ‘doing being human’—in our routine actions, in our interpretation of meanings in those actions, and in the beliefs that underlie our meaning interpretations” (Banks & Banks, 2009, p. 35). Various groups of individuals embody diverging cultural experiences, values, and norms. For U.S. society broadly, and its education system specifically, White, middleclass cultural norms and values remain the referent culture for what is valued and deemed “appropriate” for knowledge and behavior in schools (Boykin, 1994; Delpit, 1988; Kincheloe, 1999). These norms are reflected in behavioral expectations, communication, classroom dynamics, parent engagement, and many other classroom factors.

The gap between the culture embodied and recognized by teachers and that of their students creates space for misunderstanding, and often race is one of the facets of students’ cultural identity that plays a key role in creating dilemmas. Moreover, race and racial demography is an essential component of the culture and teaching gap because of the distinct role racial and ethnic differences play in the lives of individuals. Given the power and privilege assigned to certain groups (and denied to others) due to their racial positioning, various racial and ethnic groups develop and maintain specific culturally based beliefs, practices, and dispositions to cope with and thrive within society. Historically, despite the prevalence of White cultural norms in society prior to school desegregation mandated in the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954, Black (used interchangeably with African American throughout this chapter) students attended schools with Black teachers who promoted the social uplift of Black people and celebrated African American culture in the school curricula. Because of the influence and instructional methods of Black teachers on the educational experiences of their students, Black schoolchildren were able to close various gaps (e.g., the literacy gap, the elementary school attendance gap, and the high school completion gap) between themselves and their White counterparts (Anderson, 2004). After schools began to integrate, Black and Brown schoolchildren began to slowly lose ground on some of the significant educational gains made (Milner & Howard, 2004). Currently, many teachers from the predominantly White teaching workforce may misunderstand the cultural practices of students of color from lowincome backgrounds, and they may subsequently view these students as uninterested in learning or unable to achieve academically at high levels. For this reason, it is important to consider racial disparities and the incongruence existing between students and teachers in the classroom. We are not suggesting that race and culture are synonymous, but rather, we assert that race can be viewed as one of the most salient cultural identity features for students and one of the most significant dimensions of culture that shapes the ways in which students experience learning in school contexts (Milner, 2010, 2015). The U.S. teacher workforce reflects a mostly White teaching field serving an increasingly diverse body of students. U.S. teachers are predominantly White, female, and monolingual (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). In fact, racial demographic trends indicate that the U.S. teaching force has remained relatively unchanged over the past three decades. Table 3.1 illustrates the racial demographics of teachers from 1987 to 2012.

Table 3.1 Percent of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools by race: selected years, 1987–1988 through 2011–2012. Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013).

Race/ethnicity Percentage distribution of teachers 1987– 1990– 1993– 1999– 1988 1991 1994 2000 White 86.9 86.5 86.5 84.3 Black 8.2 8.3 7.4 7.6 Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native Two or more races

2003– 2004 83.1 7.0

2007– 2008 83.1 7.0

2011– 2012 81.9 6.8

3.0 0.9 — 1.0

3.4 1.0 — 0.8

4.2 1.1 — 0.8

5.6 1.6 — 0.9

7.1 1.2 0.2 0.5

7.1 1.2 0.2 0.5

7.8 1.8 0.1 0.5

—

—

—

—

0.7

0.9

1.0

While the teaching demographics have not changed significantly over the past decades (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), the student racial demographics of U.S. public schools have altered dramatically due to an increasingly diverse student population (see Figure 3.1). For instance, between the years 2002 and 2012, enrollment differences indicate that the U.S. public school student population of Asian/Pacific Islanders increased slightly (approximately 4% to 5%) with a projected increase of an additional 1% by 2024, and the Native American/Alaskan student population stayed roughly the same (1%). Greater differences, however, were seen and are projected in other racial groups (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). During the same 10year span (2002–2012), as White (59% to 51%) and Black (17% to 16%) student enrollment decreased, Latina/o enrollment increased from 18% to 24% (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Indeed, in fall 2015, the student population shifted to a majority minority student population as predicted by various indicators, with the number of nonWhite students comprising over 50% of the U.S. elementary and secondary school population (U.S. Department of Education, 2014a). And this minority majority will continue to grow—it is estimated that by fall 2024, Black students will comprise 15% of the school population, Latina/o students 29%, and White students a projected 46% of public school students in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

Figure 3.1 Percentage distribution of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: fall 2002, fall 2012, and fall 2024. Source: U.S. Department of Education (2016).

As the teaching force remains overwhelmingly White, female, and monolingual, current trends and future projections indicate U.S. schools will reflect significant racial/ethnic gaps. Given these disparities, wide cultural gaps are evident between the current teacher population and the demographics of their diverse classrooms (Milner, 2010), and projections indicate that these gaps will continue to widen. In considering the culture and teaching gap, too often teachers contend, “[they] do not see color; [rather, they advocate that they] just see children” (Ladson Billings, 1994, p. 31). Those adopting colorblind mindsets often fail to acknowledge the relevance of students’ racial and cultural lived experiences and the importance of race and culture with regards to teaching and learning (Milner, 2010). Teachers who refuse to engage with the ways race and culture work in the classroom fail to fully acknowledge children themselves. We argue that the teachers who operate from these perspectives extend the culture and teaching gap. Instead of silencing culture in the classroom, students’ varying cultural and linguistic diversity, their home and community environments, their heritages and familial backgrounds, and their individual learning styles all should be considered as important fodder for curriculum and instruction. These gaps matter because students’ racialized experiences shape their cultural experiences and ways of knowing inside and outside of the classroom. Teachers who do not understand systematic racism or been on the receiving end of an interpersonal racist attack, for instance, may struggle to understand the ways marginalized

students’ experiences manifest in the classroom. In other words, teachers who misunderstand the importance of race often misunderstand the importance of culture and further the gap existing between themselves and their students. For example, social studies teachers who teach through majoritarian lenses only, or ignore the contributions of historically marginalized communities do students a significant disservice (Woodson, 2016). Simply, “whiting out” the curriculum silences or distorts the role of certain historical occurrences in furthering currentday U.S. social inequalities. Societal inequities are propagated not only through overt misinformation about people and communities of color, but also through a hidden curriculum of absence, such as when teachers ignore or gloss over the harmful effect of the enslavement of Black people during the transAtlantic slave trade, the economic and geographic massacre of Native Americans in the Trail of Tears, the forced removal of Mexican Americans during the Great Depression through the Mexican Repatriation Act, and the imprisonment of Asian Americans in internment camps during World War II. Throughout the curricula teachers must confront and embrace these historic U.S. events, which are not only relevant to classroom instruction, but shape students’ heritages and experiences. These lessons do not stop in the history class, as students learn lessons about their worth and potential through not only the curriculum in classes, but also the way they are treated by teachers and administrators. Inequitable treatment in many schools is evident considering Black and Brown students receive harsher and higher rates of discipline referrals than other student groups. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that in 2014, students of color were suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than their White peers, and accounted for 70% of police referrals (U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). Teachers and administrators in schools that serve diverse student populations are more likely to expel and suspend Black and Brown students than their White and certain Asiangroup counterparts (Skiba et al., 2011). Zerotolerance policies that remove students who have committed particular infractions from the classroom have grown in schools across the country since the 1970s, and Black students are more than three times as likely to face this outcome than White students (Losen & Skiba, 2010). The tendency to target these vulnerable groups of students begins as early as preschool, with African American students representing only 18% of the student population, but accounting for 48% of children suspended more than once (U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). Also, teachers are less likely to recommend Black and Brown students for gifted and talented programs, yet overly recommend Black and Brown students for special education services (Shealey & Lue, 2006). Research demonstrates that many content and special education teachers report feeling unprepared to connect with diverse populations and deal with what they consider challenging behaviors, even after attending accredited teacher preparation programs (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010; Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Reports suggest that suspensions are strongly associated with other negative impacts such as academic disengagement, future disciplinary exclusion, and failure to graduate on time (Achilles, McLaughlin, & Croninger, 2007; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). In this regard, by misunderstanding the culture of students, teachers may alter the educational trajectory of students by inaccurately positioning them for discipline or recommending them for special educational services.

Given that schooling outcomes mirror in many ways societal outcomes for students of color and their families, it is important to consider schools as sites where social inequities play out and the ways teachers can close gaps of understanding between themselves and their students. To do so, teachers must incorporate students’ cultures into daily classroom practices across all content areas. Through content knowledge, culturalbased pedagogical training, and identity awareness and acknowledgment in effective teacher education programs, preservice teachers can learn how best to improve the schooling experiences and academic outcomes of all students. Irvine (2003) studied the numerous ways teachers of color serve as mentors, advocates, and “cultural translators” (p. 55) between home and school for students of color. Scholars continue to assert the importance of recruiting and retaining a more racially diverse pool of teachers (Bristol, 2014; Farinde, Allen, & Lewis, 2016; Lewis, 2006; Sleeter & Milner, 2011; Villegas & Davis, 2007). However, retaining and recruiting a diverse teacher corps has remained one of the biggest challenges for teacher education programs and school districts. Increasing the teacher of color workforce can, among other things, help address and redress some of the cultural and teaching gaps that exist in classrooms (EastonBrooks, 2014). However, as scholars and policymakers work to increase the number of nonWhite teachers from diverse racial backgrounds, it is important to consider that the majority White teaching workforce can be successful at narrowing the culture and teaching gap. Teachers can do so by developing the knowledge, skills, attitudes, practices, and dispositions necessary to support their racially diverse classrooms (LadsonBillings, 1994). However, beyond racial facets of culture, it is important to consider disconnects between teachers and youth culture in closing the culture and teaching gaps. For instance, the fashions, musical tastes, dance styles, and other elements underlying the cultural movement encompassed in urban youth culture (UYC) may be silenced in schools and overlooked as sources of wealth for pedagogy and practice in schools (SealeyRuiz & Greene, 2011). Teachers’ thinking and practices should be shaped by an understanding of their students’ interests, experiences, and ways in which their students interact with family and community members outside of school (Milner, 2008). But how often do teachers systematically study these aspects of students’ cultures and cultural practices to make sense of student expressions and to make links to curriculum and instructional practices? Youth culture, as epitomized in hiphop music, dance, fashion, social media, and other dispositional knowledge, is a key and often missed source for teachers to draw from and connect with their students.

3.2.2 Teaching According to Stigler and Hiebert (2009), a teaching gap “refers to the differences between the kinds of teaching needed to achieve the educational dreams of the [U.S.] people and the teaching found in most [U.S.] schools” (pp. xviii–xix). When examining a teaching gap and its influence on student learning, Gallimore and Stigler (2003) noted that despite decades of educational reform efforts, the ways teachers teach have remained relatively unchanged. Research has shown that teachers replicate the types of traditional, redundant, and normative

instruction they experienced as students, in their own classrooms (Gallimore & Stigler, 2003). Also, teachers may rely on teaching practices they experienced when they were students themselves. These conventional teaching approaches may be familiar to teachers, but may also be noninnovative and nonresponsive to their current students’ interests, assets, and needs (Milner, 2015). With teaching as the primary vehicle for change and learning inside PreK12 classrooms, a powerful solution to improving pedagogies and methods resides in better teacher learning. Without continual teacher learning and instructional growth, we suspect the culture and teaching gap will widen, and consequently students, especially those from marginalized backgrounds such as students of color, those who live below the poverty line, those whose first language is not English, and those who have disabilities, will continue to lag behind.

3.3 How Can Teacher Education Programs Help to Close the Culture and Teaching Gap? Given the important role of teacher education programs in training future teachers, and the ways social inequities play out in the classroom, this section explores various pedagogical approaches, as well as innovative practices that seek to bridge the culture and teaching gap. To accomplish these ends, we consider various culturally based, assetdriven pedagogies that, we argue, can work to address culture and teaching gaps. Lastly, this section considers the ways that teacher education programs can restructure, with a special eye toward technology, to better train teachers to close the culture and teaching gap. The overarching question we attempt to answer is: How can teachers and teacher educators employ innovative strategies to address the culture and teaching gap in the PreK12 classroom?

3.3.1 AssetBased Pedagogies To address the culture and teaching divide that fueled (and continues to fuel) deficit thinking among teachers and increasingly diverse student bodies, educational researchers have built a legacy of pedagogies and practices to achieve greater equity. A firm grounding for multicultural education and assetbased approaches was established in the early work of historians, sociologists, and ethnic studies pioneers like G. W. Williams, W. E. B. Du Bois, Carter G. Woodson, and Manuel Gamio, and continued in the educational research of James Banks, Geneva Gay, Shirley Brice Heath, Carl Grant, Sonia Nieto, and others (Banks, 1993). Drawing from these earlier approaches, scholars have continued this rich legacy and developed various frameworks that confronted abiding deficit notions of students marginalized because of their race, culture, ethnicity, and language (Milner, 2008). During what Paris and Ball (2009) referred to as the golden age of resource pedagogy, scholars asserted that students were continually subjected to deficitbased school practices and policies that neither acknowledged nor built upon their culturally based, academic, and social strengths (Gay, 2000, 2002; LadsonBillings, 1994, 1995; Lee, 1998, 2007; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Nieto, 2010). Luis Moll and his colleagues researched workingclass communities in Tucson, Arizona, to

develop teaching innovations that drew upon the knowledge and skills found in the local households of Mexican American families (Moll et al., 1992). From this study emerged the concept of funds of knowledge or “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual function and wellbeing” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). Families utilize funds of knowledge to help cope with changing economic and social times and build social networks among other families, which helped enhance their ability to survive in these social conditions. Moll and his colleagues found significant contrasts between home and school. At home, children were active citizens in the lives of their families, participating in essential tasks, such as assisting in rearing their siblings, cleaning, and working small jobs. At school, students were inactive and mostly passive recipients of information from adults. Teachers rarely drew from the funds of knowledge students brought with them to school from their home community. To support responsive teaching practices, Moll suggested that teachers interact with parents and integrate funds of knowledge into teachers’ curriculum and instruction (Moll et al., 1992). During the study, teachers eventually found that Mexican parents held deep scientific knowledge, drawn from their work in ranching, farming, construction, and mining, for instance. One teacher increased student engagement by using parental insight to teach mathematics and literacy, by leading a unit on model buildings. Parents who worked in construction visited the classroom to explain the ways certain tools were used to measure distance and weight. In the late 1980s, Gloria LadsonBillings ( 1995) studied the teaching practices of eight successful teachers of Black students. From this research, she outlined a framework for culturally relevant pedagogy. This framework offered an alternative approach to characterizing quality teaching for African American students—an approach that considers students’ home and community cultures as well as school cultures as existing synergistically rather than hierarchically. LadsonBillings proposed three characteristics of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), broadly defined as: (a) conceptions of self and others, (b) social relations, and (c) conceptions of knowledge. In her propositions, successful teachers of students of color believed all students were capable of academic success, saw their pedagogy as art, saw themselves as members of the community, and, stemming from the work of Paulo Freire, believed in drawing knowledge out, resisting the urge to deposit knowledge. In addition, as teachers strove to develop a community of learners where students learned collaboratively and were responsible for each other, fluidity and connectedness existed within student–teacher relationships. Lastly, LadsonBillings posited that for successful teachers, knowledge was not static; rather, it was shared, recycled, constructed, and viewed through a critical lens. Teachers were passionate about knowledge and learning, and built bridges to facilitate the learning for multifaceted assessments that incorporated various forms of excellence. Cultural modeling, developed by Carol Lee, is a frame for designing curriculum and learning environments that links the everyday knowledge of African American youth and other racial/ethnic minority groups, in particular, with specific learning tasks in academic subject matters (Lee, 2001, 2006, 2007). For instance, in a study of the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk in a twelfthgrade literature course, Lee ( 2006) illustrated the ways African

Americans’ “undervalued linguistic repertoires can be scaffolded for academic learning” (p. 309). For this study, Lee drew from lyrics of a popular hiphop song as a cultural data set to explore the ways students tacitly interpreted symbolism in rap, and made apparent the ways students could similarly interpret symbolism in canonical literary texts. Utilizing cultural modeling, a teacher’s role is to help students recognize the similarities between the ways students interpret their own familiar cultural data sets and what students would do to interpret a subject area’s specific information.

3.3.2 HipHop Pedagogy In addition to cultural pedagogical approaches, teachers can utilize other elements that draw from students’ assets and interests to bridge critical cultural gaps. For example, scholars have utilized rap and other elements of hiphop culture as a tool to bridge the divide between classroom curriculums and the knowledge bases, creative forms of expression, and popular youth cultures widely adopted within urban communities (Morrell & DuncanAndrade, 2002; SealeyRuiz & Greene, 2011). Researchers have found that teachers who seriously engage with hiphop music and culture can reimagine teaching, teacher education, curriculum, and classroom spaces broadly (Akom, 2009; Bridges, 2011; Dimitriadis, 2009; Emdin, 2010; Emdin & Lee, 2012; Hill, 2009; Hill & Petchauer, 2012; Love, 2014; Stovall, 2006). At its core, hiphopbased education (HHBE) utilizes elements of hiphop “to promote civic education and engagement, critical dialogue, and social consciousness among young people” (Love, 2014, p. 53). When implemented effectively, HHBE could serve as a tool to help teachers remedy the cultural divide between them and their students. In an ethnographic study of an English course in an urban high school, Hill (2009) drew from hiphop music as a source for curriculum and as a culturally responsive tool to resonate with the lived experiences of students. Hiphop literature allowed students to share painful stories in ways that provided a form of release and relief. In this regard, hiphop literature served as a space where students built bonds among each other, exposed and reflected upon shared experiences, challenged dominant ideologies, and produced new knowledge through a process called “wounded healing.” Although hiphop pedagogy has been more readily seen in English, literacy, and social studies education (see Hill, 2009; Love, 2014; Morrell & Duncan Andrade, 2002; Stovall, 2006), researchers are beginning to employ hiphop culture in early childhood and elementary classrooms (Love, 2015) and science curriculums (Emdin, 2010; Emdin & Lee, 2012). For instance, Emdin’s (2010) research, based on an indepth study in urban science classrooms, urged teachers to realize and incorporate the strengths and cultural knowhow of students from urban settings by incorporating hiphop into their practice. Emdin (2010) argued that hiphop culture and scientific inquiry are actually complementary, and not antithetical, to each other. For instance, the collaborative nature of deciphering scientific questions and the importance of observation to come to findings and make conclusions mark not only basic principles of scientific inquiry, but also of rapping and hip hop culture (Emdin, 2010). An example for optimally employing hiphop pedagogy, in science class, may include elements of what is referenced as a rap cypher, a familiar occurrence within hiphop culture. In a rap cypherstyled science lesson, students sit in a circle, each receiving

equal opportunities to speak and work collaboratively to reach a shared goal (Emdin, 2010). Given the popularity of rap music, hiphopcentered instruction holds tremendous potential for engaging not only students in urban communities, but also young people generally. In order for teachers to close the culture and teaching gap by employing assetbased approaches and other innovative pedagogies like HHBE, teacher educators must consider the ways current teacher education programs are structured. The next section will address this very important concern.

3.4 How Should We Restructure Teacher Education Programs? In this section, we focus on innovative principles, strategies, and techniques drawn from the previous sections on assetbased and hiphop pedagogies to further address the culture and teaching gap through teacher education. Teacher education programs must ensure that teachers are explicitly trained to better serve the needs of increasingly diverse student populations. This section considers ways teacher education programs should restructure to offer optimal opportunities for teacher candidates to learn the mindsets and practice the tools of culturally responsive educators. DarlingHammond ( 2012) noted, “one of the most damaging myths prevailing in American education is the notion that good teachers are born not made” (p. ix). Teacher education programs make good teachers through rigorous programs that equip future educators with understandings of race, class, and ethnicity, and provide them with tools to create meaningful outcomes in diverse classrooms (Anderson & Stillman, 2010; Cochran Smith, 1995; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). To develop such educators, teacher preparation programs must implement holistic improvements that align methods coursework and practicum experiences with the realities of diverse PreK12 classrooms. In particular, we advance the following five factors as ways to engage in this work: (1) advancing professionalization through restructured induction and pipeline building; (2) centering student voices in policy and practice; (3) broadening perspectives through community immersion; (4) disrupting misperceptions and building cultural competence; and (5) better utilizing technology in teacher education.

3.4.1 Advancing Professionalization 3.4.1.1 Teacher Induction Restructuring teacher education programs will entail extending preservice teacher education programs to ensure that these learning experiences respond to the needs of teachers who will graduate and work within increasingly diverse classroom populations. Many teacher preparation programs have responded to time constraint criticisms and have implemented fiveyear joint undergraduate and master’s teacher education programs that provide a more thorough and indepth study of content and pedagogy and lengthen preservice teachers’ schoolbased clinical field experiences (DarlingHammond, 2000b). Aligning with this method and drawing from the work of others like Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald

(2009), we posit that teacher preparation should take clinical practice placements more seriously and extend field placements similar to those seen in training programs during medical residencies. Preservice teachers, like medical students, need sufficient training time to hone and improve their skills and abilities. Preservice teachers should work under the tutelage of skilled teachers in residencies at local urban, suburban, and rural schools, and these should extend beyond one semester during their collegiate years. We also urge rigorous capstone projects and teacher performance assessments for providing a glimpse into the likelihood of teachers being able to successfully meet the needs of their diverse student populations. In addition, after teacher residency, preservice teachers should have the opportunity to receive additional specialized training and be supported in further studying a specific specialization within schools (e.g., literacy, special education, adolescent development, math, or STEM specialist). Teachers should also be encouraged to become experts in other facets that inform their practice across various content areas. For instance, advanced certificates in urban education practice and policy or a similar supplemental licensure in rural education would support teachers in extending their mastery and expertise of their students’ lived experiences. Teachers should take advanced courses in child or adolescent development to understand what cognitive, social, and behavioral processes might influence student decisionmaking. With increased mastery of the lived experiences of students, teachers can build better bridges across cultural differences, by finding commonalities across student and teacher barriers. 3.4.1.2 Pipeline Building We also believe that we need to think differently about when teachers of color are recruited into the pipeline. In this regard, we believe that in addition to unique high school induction experiences, advanced summer training, career mentoring, and eventual monetary incentives (i.e., scholarship money) should be provided for high school students of color to compel them to become teachers. Programs should also be created to help young men of color, in particular, to consider and commit to the teaching profession. Scholars continually note that the negative and sensationalist social imagery surrounding Black and Latino boys and young men, in particular, shapes harmful discourses that follow them into schools (Carey, 2015; Dumas & Nelson, 2016; Fergus, Noguera, & Martin, 2014; Howard, 2014). One way to support the academic and social achievement of boys of color is to work to usher more men of color into the education field, particularly into classroom teaching (Bristol, 2014; Brockenbrough, 2012; Brown, 2012; Givens, Nasir, ross, & de Royston, 2016; Warren, 2013). Partnerships between high schools, social service agencies, local universities, and district supervisors should be made so that Black and Latino adolescent boys and young men can serve as mentors and tutors to younger children to inspire in them a desire to consider teaching as a career. Similar programs that recruit teachers of color, like the Call Me MISTER® (Mentors Instructing Students Toward Effective Role Models) at Clemson University, have shown some remarkable results for increasing the pool of teacher candidates for elementary schools, and show potential for expanding to other highneed areas across the United States. Although reforming teacher education in this way will require policy and funding reform, this restructuring has the potential to substantiate teaching as a professionalized occupation that

requires specialized knowledge and skills as well as advanced training. Our most vulnerable student populations would benefit the most from increased efforts to professionalize the teaching field, by ensuring that every student would have access to effective and dedicated teachers.

3.4.2 Centering Student Voice and Experience Teacher education programs, particularly those serving predominantly White women, should alter field experiences in ways that intentionally immerse preservice teachers in diverse schools and communities of color. Student teachers should be encouraged to pinpoint first hand the struggles, assets, and complexities of communities and learn to situate their personal pedagogies within the lived experiences of their future students. Teachers must become adroit at pinpointing the ways issues like the impact of systematic racism, housing segregation, unemployment, the prison industrial complex, exploitative working conditions, and gentrification, for instance, impact the lives of their students. We believe that teachers are restricted in their ability to undo the systematic and structural barriers that weigh on the learning experiences of students, but with an understanding of these various factors, teachers can build bridges to students and respond to their needs. There have been some promising results from studies that have centered students and their voiced experiences in teacher education. Studies have found that when students are brought into teacher education courses, teachers indicate increased levels of cultural competence around issues of race and youth culture (Brown, Clark, & Bridges, 2012). Student voices should be harnessed and utilized to impact change beyond teacher education programs and be infused into school district policy. For instance, districts can develop student advisory boards to “teach” in teacher education programs locally and regionally. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, students at an organization called TeenBloc from A+ Schools created the “Student Bill of Rights,” which included 10 rights, among which were the right to free expression, the right to participate in decisions that affected their education, the right to positive disciplinary practices, and the right to equitable access to accelerated classes and academic counseling (see http://www.aplusschools.org/wpcontent/uploads/StudentBillofRights4Pager v8.pdf). The Pittsburgh Public School Board passed these unanimously in 2014, and since then has used these in policy decisionmaking and practice. Learning from student voices could prove to be especially powerful learning experiences for teachers, administrators, and policymakers who either may be removed from the realities of culturally diverse students or who do not understand the experiences of those outside of their racial and cultural groups.

3.4.3 Broadening Perspectives through Community Immersion Another promising practice that can help both preservice and practicing teachers better respond to the cultural learning needs of their students is community immersion experiences (e.g., communitybased crosscultural immersion experiences or community service learning immersion experiences) (Sleeter, 2001; Waddell, 2013). While both preservice and in service teachers’ pedagogical practices could benefit from their exposure to community cultural experiences different than their own, community immersion experiences are not a

widespread practice among inservice teachers already working in urban schools. These community immersion experiences involve preservice teachers either living or closely working with communitybased organizations and community members who serve urban neighborhoods that are culturally different from preservice teachers’ own cultures (Sleeter, 2001). In a community immersion experience as preservice teachers learn to teach, they also deepen their cultural knowledge and understanding of their future students’ academic needs. In order for community immersion experiences to effectively prepare preservice teachers to adequately meet the needs of diverse student groups, preservice teachers must undergo training that interrupts and dismantles destructive biases toward lowincome students of color before these novice teachers enter the field (Kirkland, 2014). Learning in community immersion programs can have myriad positive effects on preservice teachers. Stachowski and Mahan (1998), in their study of two immersion projects at Indiana University Bloomington, discovered that preservice teachers found community members to be important sources of information and formed strong relationships with community members that promoted stronger crosscultural understanding. Programs such as the Chicago Teacher Education Pipeline (CTEP) focus extensively on both recognizing and connecting with assets in the communities in which teachers teach. If implemented correctly, by living and/or serving in communities and neighborhood agencies for extended periods of time, preservice teachers may gain a better understanding of themselves, the community, and the lived experiences of their future students (Waddell, 2013).

3.4.4 Disrupting Misperceptions and Building Cultural Competence Scholars have investigated various ways to broaden the perspectives of teacher candidates in their courses. In a study of her own undergraduate course, Vann Lynch (2009) described the results of community immersion. She introduced her mostly White, female, monolingual preservice teachers to the reality of the urban Philadelphia landscape by engaging them in a tour of the popular citywide murals. By allowing teacher candidates to experience the lush culture and vivid wealth of artistry in Philadelphia, Vann Lynch was able to disrupt students’ prevailing misperceptions and stereotypes of urban communities. In addition to providing experiential learning for preservice teachers, Vann Lynch noted the importance of building the confidence and courage needed for success in urban classrooms. Beyond seeing and observing students’ neighborhoods, we believe that teachers should be more deeply immersed in the communities in which they will teach. For an entire semester, or year, teachers would live, shop, and even worship in the communities where they plan to teach in order to build community knowledge and community connections before and after they begin teaching. Study abroad programs can also broaden pre and inservice teachers’ multicultural perspectives, encourage their greater intercultural awareness, and lay the foundation for increased cultural awareness (Cunningham, 2015; Marx & Moss, 2011; Phillion, 2009). Phillion (2009) discussed a threeweek study abroad experience that placed preservice teachers in rural classrooms in Honduras. A key issue Phillion (2009) found was that through the immersion into Honduran culture, the mostly female and White preservice teachers experienced being the “other” (p. 144). The program provided an opportunity for her students

to experience the unease with not being fluent in Spanish, and not implicitly knowing cultural norms. For Phillion (2009), inservice teachers who experience a diverse environment, engage in a language other than English, and work with students unlike themselves, will be better prepared to work with historically underserved students. Similarly, Marx and Moss’s (2011) examination of a semesterlong experience, as well as Walkington ( 2015) and Trilokekar and Kukar’s (2011) studies, point to the value of preservice study abroad for critical selfreflection and raising greater awareness of one’s positionality and power in the classroom. While studies of study abroad experiences for practicing teachers are often limited to shortterm preservice engagements with students in other countries, they have been shown to offer some invaluable cultural experiences that broaden teachers’ mindsets and inform their practices when they return to their country of origin.

3.4.5 Better Utilizing Technology in Teacher Education Researchers have found that employing technological resources in teacher education programs can benefit preservice teachers in expanding their pedagogical proficiencies (Szabo & Schwartz, 2011). In particular, video technology has been utilized as a tool to examine and analyze teachers’ teaching practices. Through videorecorded observations, teachers can identify aspects of their teaching not readily captured by memory, recognize weaknesses in their teaching practices, develop new instructional approaches, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of fellow colleagues (Petty, Heafner, Farinde, & Plaisance, 2015; Sherin & Van Es, 2005). By receiving and offering invaluable feedback, teachers are able to expand their pedagogical thinking and actions, which may result in improved teacher instruction (Harfitt & Tavares, 2004; Tripp & Rich, 2012). In addition to employing technological advances in training teachers, various online tools can be utilized to bridge culture and teaching divides in classrooms. Students in today’s classrooms are technologically savvy, and teacher educator programs broadly and teacher educators must highlight the wealth of online and media resources for integrating multicultural and culturally relevant curriculum in the classroom. Video excerpts, audio clips, podcasts, digital lesson plans, social media outlets, curriculum maps, online discussion forums, and other tools abound at the websites for organizations like Teaching for Change (www.teachingforchange.org). For instance, the Civil Rights Teaching resource, sponsored by Teaching for Change, offers lesson plans, complete with audio and video recordings of interviews conducted with often understudied heroes and heroines of the Civil Rights Movement. Primary source documents are available for discrimination court cases involving unsung women like Women Army Corp Private (WAC) Sarah Louise Keys, whose case (Keys v. Carolina Coach Company) paved the way for forcing the end to Jim Crowera transportation segregation. Organizations like Teaching for Change, and others including Rethinking Schools, Teaching Tolerance, and the Zinn Education Project, work to create teacher supplements and activities that move students closer to technologically sound, social justiceoriented engagement with historical events and social issues. Through authentic engagement with primary source documents, video, and media, students are provided with new ways to understand the world and help culturally diverse students see themselves in the

curriculum.

3.5 Conclusions In this chapter, we have conceptualized the culture and teaching gap and pointed to ways that it can be addressed to better meet the needs of students most wholly underserved in schools. We have suggested that teacher education plays an enormous role in how teachers develop the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practices required to meet the needs of students. We conclude with several areas to consider as sites of exploration and perhaps radical exploration to address the culture and teaching gap in schools. Specifically, we highlighted multiple ways teacher education programs and districts can think differently about closing the culture and teaching gap. Successful teachers of students marginalized by society for various racial, classbased, or linguistic facets hold high expectations for all students and create safe and responsive classrooms that connect curriculum and learning to students’ lived experiences. They build relationships with students inside and outside of the classroom, understand the community and social contexts surrounding student experiences, and focus on and draw from students’ assets in planning, instruction, and assessment. These teachers also allow students to forge collaborative learning arrangements through purposeful group work, incorporate various elements of students’ home communities into the classroom, and build pedagogies from students’ assets. Teacher education programs hold tremendous promise as being sites where future teachers hone their mindsets and their abilities to meet the needs of everincreasing diverse student populations. Through more thoughtful and radical engagement with the realities of students’ lives, and the assets students bring to classrooms, teachers can be taught to narrow the culture and teaching gap. Indeed, we are living in perilous times that call for urgent and immediate reform efforts. Continuing to engage the work of teaching and the training of teachers in the same ways will likely yield similar (ineffective) results. We are ready for radical reforms.

References Achilles, G. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Croninger, R. G. (2007). Sociocultural correlates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 33–45. Akom, A. A. (2009). Critical hiphop pedagogy as a form of liberatory praxis. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(1), 52–66. Anderson, J. D. (2004). The historical context for understanding the test score gap. National Journal of Urban Education and Practice, 1(1), 1–21. Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in highneeds schools: Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education, 45(2), 109–141.

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review of Research in Education, 19, 3–49. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Boykin, A. W. (1994). Afrocultural expression and its implications for schooling. In E. Hollins, J. King, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 243–273). New York, NY: SUNY Press. Bridges, T. (2011). Towards a pedagogy of hip hop in urban teacher education. Journal of Negro Education, 80(3), 325–338. Bristol, T. J. (2014). Not strangers: How social distance influences Black male teachers’ perceptions of their male students of color. In Y. SealyRuiz, C. Lewis, & I. Toldson (Eds.), Teacher education and the Black community (pp. 117–128). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Brockenbrough, E. (2012). “You aint’ my daddy!”: Black male teachers and the politics of surrogate fatherhood. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(4), 357–372. Brown, A. L. (2012). On human kinds and role models: A critical discussion about the African American male teacher. Educational Studies, 48(3), 296–315. Brown, T. M., Clark, S., & Bridges, T. (2012). Youth teaching teachers: Bridging racial and cultural divides between teachers and students. In S. Hughes & T. R. Berry (Eds.), The evolving significance of race: Living, learning, and teaching (pp. 69–82). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Carey, R. L. (2014). A cultural analysis of the achievement gap discourse: Challenging the language and labels used in the work of school reform. Urban Education, 49(4), 440–468. Carey, R. L. (2015). Desensationalizing Black males: Navigating and deconstructing extreme imageries of Black males and masculinities. In K. J. FaschingVarner & N. D. Hartlep (Eds.), The assault on communities of color: Reactions and responses from the academy (pp. 153– 157). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. CochranSmith, M. (1995). Uncertain allies: Understanding the boundaries of race and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 541–571. Cunningham, H. B. (2015). Developing intercultural competence among preservice teachers through international student teaching (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh. DarlingHammond, L. (2000a). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263–287. DarlingHammond, L. (2000b). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher

Education, 51(3), 166–173. DarlingHammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299. Dimitriadis, G. (2009). Performing identity/performing culture: Hip hop as text, pedagogy, and lived practice (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Dumas, M. J., & Nelson, J. D. (2016). (Re)Imagining Black boyhood: Toward a critical framework for educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 86(1), 27–47. EastonBrooks, D. (2014). Ethnicmatching in urban education. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The handbook of urban education (pp. 97–113). New York, NY: Routledge. Emdin, C. (2010). Affiliation and alienation: hiphop, rap, and urban science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 1–25. Emdin, C., & Lee, O. (2012). Hiphop, the Obama effect, and urban science education. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1–24. Farinde, A. A., Allen, A., & Lewis, C. W. (2016). Retaining Black teachers: An examination of Black female teachers’ intentions to remain in K12 classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), 115–127. Fergus, E., Noguera, P., & Martin, M. (2014). Schooling for resilience: Improving the life trajectory of Black and Latino boys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2003). Closing the teaching gap: Assisting teachers to adapt to changing standards and assessments. In C. Richardson (Ed.), Whither Assessment (pp. 25–36). London, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(106), 106–116. Givens, J. R., Nasir, N. I., Ross, K., & de Royston, M. M. (2016). Modeling manhood: Reimagining Black male identities in school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 47(2), 167–185. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. Guardino, C. A., & Fullerton, E. (2010). Changing behaviors by changing the classroom

environment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 8–13. Harfitt, G. J., & Tavares, N. J. (2004). Obstacles as opportunities in the promotion of teachers’ learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 353–366. Hill, M. L. (2009). Wounded healing: Forming a storytelling community in hiphop lit. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 248–293. Hill, M. L., & Petchauer, E. (Eds.). (2012). Schooling hiphop: Expanding hiphop based education across the curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. CochranSmith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Howard, T. C. (2014). Black male(d): Peril and promise in the education of African American males. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Howard, T. C., & Reynolds, R. (2008). Examining parent involvement in reversing the underachievement of African American students in middleclass schools. Educational Foundations, 22, 79–98. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jiang, Y., Ekono, M., & Skinner, C. (2016). Basic facts about lowincome children: Children under 18 Years, 2014. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). The struggle to define and reinvent Whiteness: A pedagogical analysis. College Literature, 26(3), 162–194. Kirkland, D. E. (2014). “They look scared”: Moving from service learning to learning to serve in teacher education: A social justice perspective. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 580–603. Kumashiro, K. K. (2012). Bad teacher! How blaming teachers distorts the bigger picture. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. LadsonBillings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. LadsonBillings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Lee, C. D. (1998). Culturally responsive pedagogy and performancebased assessment. Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 268–279.

Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese: A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–142. Lee, C. D. (2006). “Every goodbye ain’t gone”: Analyzing the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3), 305–327. Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lewis, C. (2006). African American male teachers in public schools: An examination of three urban school districts. Teachers College Record, 108(2), 224–245. Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k12education/schooldiscipline/suspended educationurbanmiddleschoolsincrisis/SuspendedEducation_FINAL2.pdf Love, B. L. (2014). Urban storytelling: How storyboarding, moviemaking, and hiphop based education can promote students’ critical voice. English Journal, 103(5), 53. Love, B. L. (2015). What is hiphopbased education doing in nice fields such as early childhood and elementary education? Urban Education, 50(1), 106–131. Marx, H., & Moss, D. M. (2011). Please mind the culture gap: Intercultural development during a teacher education study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 35– 47. Milner, H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counternarratives of teachers and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1573–1598. Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Milner, H. R. (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race theory lens. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 1–53. Milner, H. R. (2015). Rac(e)ing to class: Confronting poverty and race in schools and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Milner, H. R., & Howard, T. C. (2004). Black teachers, Black students, Black communities, and Brown: Perspectives and insights from experts. Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 285– 297. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

Morrell, E., & DuncanAndrade, J. M. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging hiphop culture. English Journal, 91(6), 88–92. Nieto, S. (2010). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York, NY: Longman. Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Paris, D., & Ball, A. (2009). Teacher knowledge in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms: Lessons from the golden age and beyond. In L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy instruction: Issues of diversity, policy, and equity (pp. 379–395). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Petty, T. M., Heafner, T. L., Farinde, A., & Plaisance, M. (2015). Windows into teaching and learning: Professional growth of classroom teachers in an online environment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 375–388. Phillion, J. (2009). Study abroad in teacher education: Preparing preservice teachers to work with diverse students in a globally interdependent world. In H. R. Milner (Ed.), Diversity and education: Teachers, teaching, and teacher education (pp. 133–146). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. SealeyRuiz, Y., & Greene, P. (2011). Embracing urban youth culture in the context of education. Urban Review, 43(3), 339–357. Shealey, M. W., & Lue, M. (2006). Why are all the Black kids still in special education? Revisiting the issue of disproportionate representation. Multicultural Perspectives, 8(2), 3–9. Sherin, M. G., & Van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372–382. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. Sleeter, C. E., & Milner, H. R., IV. (2011). Researching successful efforts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81–104). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of education statistics 2013 (NCES 2015 011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Stachowski, L. L., & Mahan, J. M. (1998). Crosscultural field placements: Student teachers learning from schools and communities. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 155–162. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Stovall, D. (2006). We can relate: Hiphop culture, critical pedagogy, and the secondary classroom. Urban Education, 41(6), 585–602. Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. (2011). Learning methods for teacher education: The use of online discussions to improve critical thinking. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 20(1), 79–94. Trilokekar, R. D., & Kukar, P. (2011). Disorienting experiences during study abroad: Reflections of preservice teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1141–1150. Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.10.asp U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a). Projections of education statistics to 2022. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014b). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: School discipline. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/crdc schooldisciplinesnapshot.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racialdiversity/stateracial diversityworkforce.pdfVann Lynch, R. (2009). Preservice teacher engagement in urban communitybased field experiences: Implications for praxis. In H. R. Milner (Ed.), Diversity and education: Teachers, teaching, and teacher education (pp. 147–162). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Villegas, A. M., & Davis, D. E. (2007). Approaches to diversifying the teaching force: Attending to issues of recruitment, preparation, and retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(4), 137–147. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Waddell, J. H. (2013). Communities as critical partners in teacher education: The impact of community immersion on teacher candidates’ understanding of self and teaching in urban schools. Current Issues in Education, 16(2). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1198 Walkington, J. (2015). Enhancing multicultural perspectives in the formation of preservice teachers through immersion in a culturally different context. Multicultural Education Review, 7(3), 140–154. Warren, C. A. (2013). Being Black, being male, and choosing to teach in the 21st century: Understanding my role, embracing my call. In C. W. Lewis & I. A. Toldson (Eds.), Black male teachers: Diversifying the United States’ teacher workforce (pp. 167–182). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group. Woodson, A. (2016). We’re just ordinary people: Messianic master narratives and Black youths’ civic agency. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(2), 184–211.

4 The Role of the Community in Learning and Development Elizabeth Spier, Raquel L. González, and David Osher American Institutes for Research

4.1 Introduction Schools, families, and community settings play vital roles in children’s learning and development. They can serve as ecological assets for children that support thriving and protect against risk. However, both individually and together they can create and amplify risk. While this is the case for all children, it is particularly the case for children whose families struggle with disadvantage or are marginalized due to their race, culture, ethnicity, or linguistic status. In lowresource communities schools can potentially serve as a locus for harnessing resources within the community and ensuring families with children have access to such resources (Bryan & Henry, 2008; Ebersöhn, 2012). In reality, however, often schools are “walled in” while the community and families are “walled out,” creating barriers to learning and healthy development (AndersonButcher et al., 2010). Many educators believe that schools cannot do it alone, that community engagement and support will help the school fulfill its mission, and that schools have a key role to play in establishing linkages with their communities (Kettering Foundation & Public Agenda, 2014). However, despite understanding the importance of working with communities and families, schools often do not pursue or actively develop these partnerships. The issues can involve both attitudes and skills. Some educators view families through a deficit oriented lens (Valenzuela, 1999) while others lack the capacity to collaborate with culturally and linguistically diverse families (Osher & Osher, 2002; Osher et al., 2011). Some schools may not know how to develop these partnerships with families, agencies, and community organizations. Teacher training programs, for example, do not often provide the necessary skills for working with families and communities (Kettering Foundation & Public Agenda, 2014). Why should partnerships between schools, families, and communities matter? Ecological systems theory suggests that the dynamic interplay between and among different layers of an environment can impact a child’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lee, 2012). Schools and families are situated within communities. Home, school, and community form spheres of influence over the child (Epstein, 2001). The more aligned these spheres of influence are in supporting positive development, the better outcomes, both academically and socially, for the child. The less they align or the more they align in developmentally inappropriate ways, the less likely it is that a young person will thrive (Simmons, 2011). These spheres of influence can be better aligned when schools partner and engage with families and communities in a culturally competent manner that is attuned to the developmental needs of children and youth

(Eccles & Harold, 1996). This chapter will add to the discussion of school, family, and community partnerships. We discuss how meaningful school–community partnerships can be constructed at the institutional level, and then talk about school engagement with community members and families.

4.2 Collaboration with Community Institutions Even when educators want to work with the community, they often lack the skills and capacity to realize this goal. Many school leaders believe that they must “take charge and set the agenda” based on pressures from state and federal mandates (Farkas & Duffett, 2015). At the same time, community members and agency staff may feel that it serves no purpose to try to engage in collaboration with the schools because their opinions and ideas will not influence decisionmaking. They may be right. In a national survey of 686 school superintendents, over 70% stated that they made decisions based on their own experiences and judgment, and only 23% stated that they based their decisions on the needs of the community (Farkas, Foley, & Duffett, 2001). And when schools do make an effort at constructive, meaningful community engagement, educators “struggle to define, understand, and operationalize engagement as part of their data and outcomedriven frameworks” (Roehlkepartain, Pekel, & Sullivan, 2013, p. 5). Many schools are not benefiting from the human and institutional capital that is available in their communities. Across the models presented here, a shared premise is that collective engagement among schools and diverse sectors of communities in a culturally and developmentally appropriate manner leads to far better impacts than can individual efforts or multiple smallerscale partnerships. As Kania and Kramer (2011) note, “No single organization is responsible for any major social problem, nor can any single organization cure it” (pp. 38–39). The agenda is defined jointly by the collaborating partners, and is developed within a relationship of mutual trust and recognition of the wisdom and capacity of the community, rather than being solely or primarily driven by the school (Roehlkepartain et al., 2013). By working in collaboration, schools and community institutions can do more to promote positive student outcomes than they can if working in silos (Osher, 2002). Together they can collaborate to solve problems that may affect the school alone, but usually affect both the school and the community (Kettering Foundation & Public Agenda, 2014; Kania & Kramer, 2011). These approaches require the active participation of multiple key organizations and stakeholders, the development of a common agenda, and the coordination of the networks through which they carry out their work (Roehlkepartain et al., 2013). In the remainder of this section, we present frameworks for school–community engagement across a continuum of intensity, from (1) relationships with community providers of supports needed by students, to (2) coordinated services in schools, to (3) systems of care for students with deeper needs for support, to (4) community schools models that combine schoolbased services with extended learning that reaches out into the community.

4.2.1 Relationships with Community Agencies Many schools have established connections with community agencies, most often to meet needs of students that place them at risk for poor educational outcomes but cannot be addressed within the resources available at the school. Yet interviews with educators, families, and agency staff as well as audits that Osher and colleagues have conducted (e.g., Osher et al., 2008), suggest that these arrangements are often ad hoc and that overall, there tends to be insufficient communication and collaboration between schools and community organizations that serve the needs of children and youth (AndersonButcher, Stetler, & Midle, 2006). School personnel are often unaware of how community resources could help meet the needs of schools or students, especially if those kinds of resources are not aligned with how schools themselves typically operate (Mathews, 2014), and many community agencies do not know how to work with schools (Woodruff et al., 1999). However, this issue is often twosided: schools often lack the capacity to work with agencies whose space demands and funding structures do not always align with school patterns and practices (Kendziora et al., 2008; Woodruff et al., 1999). For example, an afterschool tutoring program more closely resembles what schools do, and so schools may be much more likely to access that resource than, say, an organization of community seniors who are willing to dedicate their time to helping children practice reading. In addition, many schools lack the human resources available to identify and establish such partnerships on a consistent basis. A national survey of educators from over 400 schools identified lack of time as a significant limiting factor in the development of collaborative relationships with community organizations (Sanders, 2001). Again the matter is twosided; many agencies, which are only reimbursed for service provision, also lack the time and staff to reach out and plan with schools (Kendziora et al., 2008; Woodruff et al., 1999). One proposed solution is to create effective networks, rather than a centralized organization (Mathews, 2016). However, schools and agencies commonly lack information regarding how to identify, develop, and maintain such networks (Hands, 2005). When collaboration does occur, it is often ad hoc, with individual school staff identifying services and supports for individual students. For example, in interviews with school principals, Hands (2005) found that some schools had as many as 80 separate community collaborations in place. Although establishing these oneoff collaborative relationships may be very beneficial for the individual students involved, they are highly inefficient, dependent upon the personal initiative and community contacts of the referring teachers or school staff, and unlikely to reach all of the students who need support. They are person driven rather than needs driven and, as a consequence, are inequitable in terms of their outcomes: some students who are lucky enough to go to the right schools get services, while others with similar or even greater needs may not (Osher et al., 2008). Each community is likely to have some resources that have been already tapped by schools in some way (perhaps by individual teachers or counselors), and others that are untapped. Existing relationships matter: in discussions with school staff, Hands (2005) found that partnerships often emerged from existing personal relationships between school personnel and the community organization personnel, and that these existing connections provided valuable inroads for the initiation of partnership activities.

A second solution involves partnerships between schools and agencies. One form of partnerships between schools and community organizations is around the provision of academic supports for students. However, these partnerships are not usually as effective as they could be, because there is typically little communication between the school and the partner organization regarding the alignment of their supports with what is happening in classrooms, or with the teacheridentified specific learning needs of individual students (AndersonButcher et al., 2006; Kendziora et al., 2008). Common school–community partnerships are with mental health service providers, youth development organizations, and the juvenile justice sector. Schools may also collaborate with youth development organizations found in many communities, such as Boys and Girls Clubs and 4H. However, coordination and collaboration with these organizations is often limited by similar factors, which include lack of common definitions and indicators, funding restrictions, and a lack of understanding of each other’s cultures (Leone, Quinn, & Osher, 2002; Woodruff et al., 1999). While educators often feel that the collaboration does not provide all of the supports that are needed (AndersonButcher et al., 2006), agencies often claim that schools are not responsive to their offers to help (Osher et al., 2008; Osher & Hanley, 1996). This is unfortunate, for as Doll and Lyon (1998) state, “It is essential for schools and communities to align themselves in partnerships to foster resilience and capacitybuilding among highrisk students. Neither system has the resources to singlehandedly interrupt recurrent cycles of risk” (p. 360). To make such collaborations work, both school leadership and partner organizations must come to the effort with an assumption that there will be value in partnering, or else efforts are unlikely to gain traction (Hands, 2005). It is also important that the partners engage in dialogue without any one organization dictating the terms of the relationship (Sanders & Harvey, 2002) and that they address the logistical challenges, which can range from funding challenges (e.g., lack of reimbursement of time spent when not providing clinical services) to space for the provision of services (Woodruff et al., 1999). School principals have also emphasized the importance of willingness to compromise, and a mutual understanding of and flexibility in the terms of the partnership (Hands, 2005). In some cases terms of engagement need to be negotiated (Woodruff et al., 1999). And frequent interaction between and among the partners allows for the development of a shared framework and dialogue that, when used with students and their families, can then mutually reinforce what each partner is doing across the system (Epstein, 1995). The most effective partnerships are based on the common identification of needs that cannot be met as effectively by each organization individually (Sanders, 2001). Shared buyin and ownership of a need to be met or an issue to be addressed can further strengthen these collaborations (Sanders, 2001). For example, the McKinneyVento Homeless Education Assistance Act requires federally funded school districts to provide a McKinneyVento liaison to identify students who qualify for support and to ensure that they receive it (see McKinneyVento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001). However, often schools do not know which of their students are homeless or at risk, and community organizations approached by families in crisis (such as social service agencies and faith organizations) are unaware of students’ rights to support under the Act (Comey, Litschwartz, &

Pettit, 2012). Schools’ ability to meet student needs can be enhanced by collaborating with community based organizations, public agencies, local philanthropies, businesses, and advocacy organizations, which help access supports across a student’s entire ecology (Osher & Chasin, 2016). Communitybased organizations include small and large organizations, some of which have been in the community for more than a century (e.g., former settlement houses), a half century (e.g., community action agencies and mental health centers), and more recent ones (e.g., family selfhelp groups). These organizations also include local ethnic selfhelp organizations and the local faith community, which may provide culturally competent services that meet the needs of particular cultural communities and enhanced access to their members. Public agencies include state and local agencies. Although these agencies have specific mandates, their ability to realize their authorized goals may be affected by or even depend upon educational outcomes. For example, school connectedness is a public health outcome in Alaska and a dashboard developed for the New York State Office of Children and Families included school outcomes as important indicators. While this collaboration is possible in all situations, it may be particularly possible where there is mayoral control of education. Examples of what is possible include Chicago collaborations between child welfare and education to ensure that students do not have to change education plans when they change child welfare placements, and New York City collaborations between schools and the police to reduce the criminalization of school discipline. School–agency collaborations can be enhanced by jointly or collectively convening independent assessments of school agency connections. Examples include an audit commissioned by the Cleveland mayor and school superintendent, which was driven by a school shooting (Osher et al., 2008) and independent audits coordinated with the county commissioner, mayor, and school district through an operating foundation (Say Yes to Education) in Syracuse (Osher, Amos, Jones, & Coleman, 2015). School–agency collaboration can also be facilitated by federal initiative efforts such as those supported by Now is the Time and realizing Pathways for Youth, the federal strategic plan for youth developed by the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. Such collaborations can also be supported by public–private initiatives such as the Supportive School Discipline Initiative (www.supportiveschooldiscipline.org) and My Brother’s Keeper (www.mbkalliance.org). Community foundations can support evidencedbased audits, as did the Cleveland Foundation, which supported both the Cleveland Audit and a followup audit (Osher et al., 2008; Osher, Poirier, Jarjoura, Brown, & Kendziora, 2014). Similarly, community foundations have been critical to Say Yes to Education’s communitywide collaborations in both Syracuse, Buffalo, and Guilford County, North Carolina. Say Yes illustrates how businesses can coordinate their efforts with schools. For example, the legal community provides pro bono legal assistance to families that can address housing instability and other stresses (Osher et al., 2015). Advocacy organizations can play an important role. Efforts to reduce the pipeline to prison provide an example. Organizations such as Denver’s Advocates for Children and New York City’s Advocates for Children have played sustained roles in fostering collaborative efforts that have reduced criminalization of school discipline and supported

restorative practices.

4.2.2 Coordinated Services for Schools Another level of engagement with community providers is to bring their services into schools through coordinated efforts that include school staff, agency partners, students, and families. In this section, we present the engagement of coordinated services for the general student body through two examples: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model; and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s Safe Schools/Healthy Students model. The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model is based on the premise that children and youth will fare better both inside and outside of school if the school can be leveraged as a resource to promote physical and mental health and wellness. This model is intended to ensure that all students are healthy, safe, supported, engaged, and challenged. Schools implement this model through the provision of health education, physical education, school health services, mental health and social support services, family and community involvement in the promotion of health and wellbeing, health promotion for school staff, and nutrition services (Lewallen, Hunt, PottsDatema, Zaza, & Giles, 2015). A recent review found that many states and school districts have already begun to integrate this model into existing practice, that it was indeed possible to prioritize and address student health within education systems, and that strategic leadership and school–community collaboration were key to their success (Chiang, Meagher, & Slade, 2015). The Safe Schools/Healthy Students model is focused on the prevention of youth violence and substance abuse, combined with the promotion of student mental health. This model is in use across the United States, and uses school–community collaboration combined with systems and policies that promote mental, emotional, and behavioral health; school safety; and school, family, and community partnerships. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students model rests on the guiding principles of cultural and linguistic competence; evidencebased and developmentally appropriate policies and practices; youthguided and familydriven approaches; collaboration to ensure the availability and sustainability of resources; and special attention to students from vulnerable or atrisk populations (National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention, 2016). A national study of Safe Schools/Healthy Students found that implementation of the model resulted in reductions in school violence and substantial increases in feelings of school safety among students and staff, a large increase in the percentage of students who received needed mental health supports, the development and strengthening of school collaboration with community agencies, and the increased use of effective monitoring to guide decisionmaking and approaches (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013). We now turn from schoolwide supports for the general student population to systems of care approaches to meet the needs of students who require special supports.

4.2.3 Systems of Care

Students with special emotional, behavioral, or mental health needs are disproportionately likely to receive exclusionary discipline, to show poor academic performance, and to drop out of school (Woodruff et al., 1999). Even when schools make a positive effort to engage communitybased supports to meet the needs of these students, such arrangements are often uncoordinated, and fail to include students and families in planning, thus substantially limiting their effectiveness (Osher & Hanley, 1996). Systems of care are intended to fill that gap through effective collaboration between school, mental health service providers, community agencies, families, and youth. They aim to keep children in the least restrictive setting, and to provide comprehensive, individualized care that is culturally competent and tailored to the needs of the student and his or her family (Stroul, 2002). National data accumulated over many years have documented the effectiveness of systems of care in reducing student emotional and behavioral problems, reducing suicidality among students with suiciderelated histories, and stabilizing academic performance (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, 2006). A system of care is an approach rather than a specific model, but effective systems of care share certain characteristics. A key feature of systems of care is a wholechild and whole family approach, which encompasses the student’s mental health needs while also considering other needs for education, health care, substance abuse treatment, vocational and recreational support, and other social service and operational concerns (Stroul & Friedman, 1986). They provide a single point of contact for students to obtain comprehensive supports; are based on authentic collaboration with families; deliver services in the least restrictive environment; are based on school partnerships with community agencies; include longterm case management that moves with the student as his or her needs or circumstances change; use evidencebased interventions; are based on or compatible with the beliefs, values, and culture of the student and his or her family; and are seen as accountable to the students and families that they serve (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, 2006). A study of effective systems of care (Hodges, Israel, Ferreira, & Mazza, 2007) yielded some important findings. First, stakeholders need to share the belief that the aligned provision of services will be beneficial to the student; have a shared sense of trust, responsibility, and commitment to the process; and share a belief that positive change is possible. Second, specific, measureable goals must be established to move from beliefs to action. Goals should be established for outcomes, processes, and planning. Third, collaborative structures between schools and community partners (such as those described in this chapter) are needed to align services and break down silos. And fourth, system stakeholders should use continuous, data driven monitoring and feedback to make ongoing and timely adaptations for system improvement. The authors make an important point that when shifting from piecemeal services to a system of care, there is also a shift away from structures and process and toward beliefs and values, ultimately improving outcomes for students and families. One form of systems of care is the wraparound approach, which is focused on students with

serious emotional disturbance. Wraparound is not a treatment per se, but rather a model for intensive planning and support to help maintain students in their homes, schools, and communities. The approach emphasizes “voice and choice” for students and their families, and helps families build “natural supports” within the relationships and community resources available to them (National Wraparound Initiative, 2016). This means that students and their families are at the forefront of decisionmaking, with guidance and support from professionals, and that solutions to difficulties are primarily sought or developed within their existing social and cultural structure. Wraparound approaches are also notable for their emphasis on unconditional support for students and families, and their use of creativity and flexibility in identifying the best ways to help the student succeed in their current environment (Kendziora, Bruns, Osher, Pacchiano, & Mejia, 2001).

4.2.4 Community Schools Community schools approaches build on the model of coordinated services, with the addition of a comprehensive approach that incorporates a range of educational, health, social welfare, and family engagement activities (Dryfoos, 2005). These models are compatible with systems of care, but are extended to the entire school and community. Community schools rest on a foundation of shared responsibility for children and youth (Henig, Riehl, Rebell, & Wolff, 2015). According to the Coalition for Community Schools (2016), community schools models “share a common set of principles: fostering strong partnerships, sharing accountability for results, setting high expectations, building on the community’s strengths, and embracing diversity and innovative solutions” (About Us, para. 1). Community schools go beyond bringing community services into the school by opening up the school as a resource for families and community members, by implementing a curriculum that connects students with their community through realworld learning and participation in community problem solving, and by sharing physical resources (Coalition for Community Schools, 2014). Community schools approaches also take into account what is culturally relevant for students and their families; view students, families, and community members through a strengthsbased lens; and place a high value on the input and assets of the community (Center for Popular Democracy, 2016). This broad inclusion of community agencies and the public strengthens the school’s ability to fulfill its primary function of educating students, rather than detracting from it (Jacobson & Blank, 2015). The success of this model has led to the formation of the Coalition for Community Schools, which now includes a broad range of national, state, and local education authorities; youth development organizations; community development organizations; providers of health and support services for families and children; and other government and philanthropic organizations (Coalition for Community Schools, 2016). There is substantial evidence that community schools improve outcomes for students, reduce teacher burden for student support, and also provide a significant return on investment (Blank, Jacobson, Mellaville, & Pearson, 2010; Blank, Mellaville, & Shah, 2003). Community schools rely on a leadership team of diverse stakeholders to define and carry out the model for their particular school and community. The exact composition of the leadership

team may vary, but typically includes the school principal and other educators, family members, school support staff, community partners, students, and others. The leadership team is responsible for developing a shared school and community vision with welldefined, measurable goals, aligning the efforts of the school and community stakeholders toward achieving the goals, and monitoring progress (Coalition for Community Schools, 2014). Leadership teams should be inclusive of the diverse constituencies in the school community, and should give community members an authentic voice rather than token participation (Center for Popular Democracy, 2016). The work of the leadership team is most effective when carried out through a model of continuous quality improvement, including closely monitoring the effectiveness of the partnerships, and the extent to which the structure and goals of the community school align with the needs and wants of stakeholders (Coalition for Community Schools, 2016). Community schools models also typically include one or more school–community coordinators. The school–community coordinator takes part in the schoolbased leadership team, builds and maintains relationships with and between school staff and community partners, engages family and community members, and coordinates the efficient and effective provision of needed supports for students—drawing upon supports from within the community as well as within the school (Coalition for Community Schools, 2014). This role is highly focused on the facilitation of communication and collaboration among school staff, families, students, community agencies, and others in order to achieve the desired outcomes for the school and for its individual students (Coalition for Community Schools, 2016). The Coalition for Community Schools (2016) identifies several other key features of effective community schools models. These include the assessment and alignment of needs and available assets (already within the school, or through development of partnerships) and the monitoring of results from the use of these assets against short and longterm goals; the provision of highquality services for students and their families; the definition of roles, responsibilities, and expectations for the school and the community partners; ongoing comprehensive professional development for school staff and community partners, combined with regular meetings with all stakeholders to develop trusting relationships, a shared vocabulary, and a common approach to achieving desired outcomes; the development of a detailed plan for longterm sustainability based on diverse funding streams; and the development and implementation of a plan to share progress and challenges with stakeholders (see below for further discussion regarding effective communication between schools and community members). Effective community schools models also incorporate high expectations with opportunities for students to engage in deeper and more challenging learning, studentcentered teaching, highquality instruction, and positive discipline (Center for Popular Democracy, 2016; Jacobson & Blank, 2015). And many community schools make use of wraparound supports and restorative justice approaches to provide a positive environment of support for struggling students (Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2015). We now turn to effective collaboration with community members and families at the individual level.

4.3 Collaboration with Community Members and Families The relationship between schools, educators, and families is and has been complex and contested, particularly when there are differences of class, ethnicity, culture, language, experience, and residence. The causes here are both structural and cultural. Structural issues include role pressures, what people see, and when they can be seen. For example both teachers and parents (literally) work in “busy kitchens” (Huberman, 1983) and have almost no ability to directly see how each deals with the child or how the children deal with each other. Cultural factors include values, expectations, and life experiences around learning and child development. For example, teachers and family members may have had divergent experiences with schools themselves as well as different expectations for children (Osher & Osher, 2002). Structurally, both educators and caregivers face job, family, and community stresses that, although often in similar social fields (e.g., the home or workplace), create competing demands for educator and family time. Educators and parents are also challenged by different time demands due to their role sets and the related time demands and behavioral contingencies for each, which, again paradoxically, exist in the same social fields—work, community, and affiliative. These structural factors can lead to competing stresses and time demands, which may (absent support) make it hard to collaborate. These differences become palpable when we think about the best time and venue for meetings between families and educators. Cultural tensions can include discrepant ideologies and schoolrelated experiences as well as the role that education has often played in the acculturation of marginalized and nondominant groups. Educators often believe that community engagement is key to achieving better outcomes for students (Kettering Foundation, 2014), and believe that the most important barriers to student educational success are situated outside of the school walls—a lack of attention and support from adults in students’ lives, a lack of discipline, and a lack of adults “staying on them” (Shapiro, Ginsberg, & Brown, 2002, as cited in Hands, 2005). However, at the same time that educators profess the importance of family and community engagement, educators see themselves and their schools as “besieged and repeatedly second guessed” (Kettering Foundation, 2014, p. 4) and “in defense mode” (p. 7) in relation to the community. When they do hear from the public, such as in school board meetings, it is often regarding polarizing issues or grievances, leaving many school and school board leaders feeling that lack of engagement with the community is a sign that things are going well (Farkas & Duffett, 2015; Mathews, 2016). As one school board member put it, “The less we hear from the public, the better our relationship with our community is … A quiet public is a happy public. We can leave the work to the educators” (Farkas & Duffett, 2015, p. 8). In terms of school partnership with families, there appears to be growing recognition about the need to move past a discussion of parent involvement and the narrow focus of activities parents must do, to talking about school, community, and family partnerships, which recognizes that different stakeholders (i.e., school, community, and family) have a role in supporting students collectively (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). This thinking dovetails with the models

presented above, which incorporate families into collaborative relationships with schools and community service providers. In the remainder of this section, we first discuss school engagement with the broader community (the general public), and then turn to school–family partnerships—how to create effective partnerships, the role of communication in developing these partnerships, and the impact of promoting athome support for students.

4.3.1 Building Meaningful Public Engagement Public engagement can range from informing to involvement to partnering. Most schools define their role in community engagement as one of keeping the community informed and asking for the community’s support. The agenda is defined by the school leadership (Farkas & Duffett, 2015; Roehlkepartain et al., 2013). In a national survey of 475 school board members, a large proportion (87%) believed that public engagement meant informing parents about what the school is doing. A much lower percentage (61%) felt that community engagement meant providing an opportunity for community residents to influence school policy (Farkas et al., 2001). The most common form of community engagement is when schools share information with families and with the broader public. Educators garner support for their school by sharing good news about student and school achievements. Families and community members are invited to sports events, concerts, and so on. This kind of information sharing can be valuable in terms of creating a positive reputation for the school among community members. Schools and individual teachers may share a large amount of information about school and classroom activities with the families of their students. Families and teachers or school counselors may be in frequent communication through emails and telephone calls regarding specific students. This kind of information sharing can also be valuable in meeting the needs of individual students. However, as Mathews (1995) points out, “Better public relations and techniques to ‘involve the community’ don’t really get at the roots of the problem” (p. 5). And Farkas and Duffett (2014) have recently concluded that “Even though school and district leaders have adopted the language and some of the surface conversations of engagement, genuine dialogue, understanding and inclusiveness are still largely missing” (p. 2). So what is the problem? These issues often reflect lingering disengagement or outright hostility based on past critical events or power struggles—issues that may still poison the relationship even if none of the original parties are currently involved (Farkas & Duffett, 2015). There may also be a lack of consensus regarding what is important for children and youth (values); and generational trauma and marginalization often lead to skepticism about the ability of families and communities to make meaningful contributions to solving problems (Roehlkepartain et al., 2013). And in interviews with educators, Kettering Foundation (2014) reported that “mistrust is especially acute in districts that have many closures or frequent staff turnover, or where staff are more white and affluent than parents” (p. 10). So often, relationship challenges between schools and communities are most acute in places that could benefit the most from increased

collaboration. What should a district or school do to (re)establish a positive, trusting relationship with the community? The first step is for schools to just listen to members of their communities, respecting the knowledge and wisdom that they offer (Roehlkepartain et al., 2013) without making any attempts to promote the school’s own agenda. Often community members will identify problems or wants that are shared by the school, even though they may use different terminology. For example, what educators call “unacceptably high levels of chronic truancy,” community members may describe as “too many of our young people just hanging out all day causing trouble.” It is essential for educators to discuss problems and needs with communities based on how the community defines them (Mathews, 2016). Next, educators need to listen to what community members want, try to commit to meeting the community’s needs where possible, and follow through. Kettering Foundation (2014) reported that when they talked with educators they found that “communities often want fairly modest things like space for events or access to a school’s gyms, libraries and playgrounds” (p. 11). By being willing and able to meet these requests, schools were able to begin to (re)establish a foundation of trust and communication. Successful community engagement efforts do not have to (and perhaps should not) start by trying to tackle large, seemingly intractable problems, but can rather start with smallscale activities and “easy wins.” When attempting to identify and address some shared problems, as Mathews (2016) puts it, “What to work on? Anything that troubles both the school and community will do” (p. 16).

4.3.2 Building Effective School–Family Partnerships Research suggests that robust family engagement in their children’s education contributes to improved attendance, behavior, persistence, and postsecondary expectations (Barrera & Warner, 2006; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Lee & Bowman, 2006; Raikes et al., 2006). Notably, this is the case for families of all backgrounds and does not depend on families’ ability to tutor students. Perhaps due to the promise of improved student outcomes from family engagement, family engagement or parent involvement is one of the most common ways in which the dynamic between school and families is thought and talked about by policymakers, districts, principals, teachers, and even families. By common usage of the term, parent involvement alludes to a set of behaviors, done at home or at school, that parents should perform in order to be involved with their child’s schooling. While different definitions of parent involvement exist (Henderson & Mapp, 2002), one of the most cited, used, and adapted framework is Epstein’s (2001) six types of parent involvement. This framework highlights the following six types of involvement as especially important for schools to involve parents in: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decisionmaking, and collaborating with the community (p. 409). However, the concept of parent involvement may be limiting when thinking about school and family partnerships, in that by focusing on the behavior of parents, parent involvement makes invisible the role of the school. The naming of this relationship as parent and involvement

removes the school as significant, as only one actor (i.e., parent) and their actions (i.e., involvement) are named. The role of the school and the interactions that occur between parents and school staff, critical in the formation of any partnership, becomes minimized. A partnership orientation in working with families views student achievement and school improvement “as a shared responsibility, relationships of trust and respect,” which “are established between home and school, and families and school staff see each other as equal partners” (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013, p. 5). School and family partnerships are not “random acts of engagement” such as yearly parent nights or oneway communication (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013, p. 6). Rather, strong and meaningful school and family partnerships can foster the development of a community of affection where parents develop a positive emotional attachment and identification with school staff (Comer, 1984). Unfortunately, educators (and other agency staff) often neither know about nor understand parents’ level of support for learning or the effects of positive family beliefs and values about schooling, or the cultures of their students (Baker, KesslerSklar, Piotrkowski, & Parker, 1999; Pianta, Cox, Taylor, & Early, 1999; Valdés, 1996). In developing partnerships with families, schools must be attuned to the need to work with families in culturally competent ways. For racial and ethnic minorities, encounters with schools are set within historic narratives that reflect the legacy of racism within the United States, the dominance of White culture within schools, and a lack of cultural sensitivity by schools to diverse families. These legacies can manifest themselves as an unwelcoming school environment for Native American families (Mackety & LinderVan Berschot, 2008), teachers evoking racial stereotypes of African American fathers (Jackson & Richards, 2009), or schools lacking translators to support communication with immigrant families (e.g., Sohn & Wang, 2006). For African American families, the history of discrimination and unequal resources in schooling for Black students may continue with parents’ mistrust of schools (Colbert, 1991; Davern, 1999). Immigrant families also carry past experiences with schooling into their engagement with teachers, often based on their home countries’ expectations of parents’ role in their child’s schooling. Immigrant families often view teachers as the experts in schooling; parents, therefore, defer to the teacher; and consequently, parents rarely seek interactions with teachers (HwaFroelich & Westby, 2003; Smrekar & CohenVogel, 2001; Sohn & Wang, 2006; Sy, 2006; Valdés, 1996; Yang & McMullen, 2003). In addition, language barriers are common for immigrant families, creating an additional challenge to schools when working with immigrant populations (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calbrese Burton, 2005; Sohn & Wang, 2006; Valdés, 1996). Beyond race and ethnicity, the experiences parents bring to their engagement with schools may be rooted in their daily lives and socioeconomic status (Lareau, 1987, 2003). Lareau (1987, 2003) finds middleclass culture provides parents with more ease in schools and sets the expectations that parents actively engage with the teacher regarding their child’s schooling. Workingclass parents view their relationship to the school differently; these parents intervene less over academic issues, regard teachers as authority figures, and engage less in

academic activities at home (Lareau, 1987, 2003). Similarly, other studies describe the lack of power and influence that families in poverty have in schools (Fine, 1993; Furomoto, 2003; Henry, 1996; Smrekar & CohenVogel, 2001). Economically disadvantaged families of color may not feel comfortable at the school or feel that they can play a role in their child’s education and may feel ineffective and not valued. Schools often lack an understanding of the barriers to family participation of economically disadvantaged families of color, which include perceiving that schools do not represent or respect the values and needs of lowincome people of color and unjustly accuse their children of poor behavior because of their economic disadvantage; perceiving themselves as outside the school system and excluded due to differences in their race, ethnicity, income, and culture; and experiencing school buildings and staff as unwelcoming and blaming and their social interactions with teachers as aversive (HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1997; McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000). In order to be effective, school and family partnerships must develop and exist in family driven, culturally competent ways, and schools should discover the culture of the families served to ensure they engage in a culturally and linguistically competent manner (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013; Osher et al., 2011). Schools can send active communications to families to inform them of activities at schools and events happening within the community or to provide families with general parenting information (e.g., resources on positive parenting, suggestions for developing healthy study routines, information about nutritious meals). For these communications to be meaningful, these contacts with families should be in families’ native language and at appropriate reading levels for families. Schools also can host workshops for parents, provide training on how to support children’s learning at home, or have events for families like family math night at the school. These workshops and events should focus on strengthsbased partnerships with families, that is, schools “must recognize and utilize the strengths and assets that lie in children, their families, and communities” (Bryan & Henry, 2008, p. 149). Using a strengthsbased partnership promotes cultural competency as schools recognize the strengths of families and do not label families as problems simply due to differences in behaviors and interactions of families. In the development of school and family partnerships, schools can allow parents to use school resources, such as providing limited access to the use of the computer rooms for parents to search for employment opportunities or send out resumes. As noted above, schools also may try to connect families with other community agencies and local resources, such as allowing food banks to distribute foods through the schools, or allowing mobile clinics to make visits to the school. Connecting families with resources allows schools to recognize the child is more than the academic, and encourages them to support families holistically. Doing this in a relational and supportive manner may contribute to resilience (Ebersöhn, 2013). Families may want to establish productive partnerships with schools but may not have the social and cultural capital necessary to create these effective partnerships; school staff also may struggle to develop these partnerships (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). A dual capacity framework, in which there is recognition of the need to develop the capacity of both staff and

families, can serve as a meaningful place to begin the development of partnerships (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). In these partnerships, there are four capabilities, “4 C’s,” necessary for both families and school staff to develop: 1. Capabilities: School and district staff need to know about the funds of knowledge that families bring, skills to engage in culturally competent ways, and modes for building trusting relationships. Families need to know how school systems work, information on student learning, and how to be an advocate for their child. 2. Connections: Staff and families need access to social capital. Access to social capital can be built through crosscultural networks built on trust and respect. 3. Cognition: Staff must believe in the importance of working with families and of the promise that working with families can improve student learning. Families have to view themselves as partners in their child’s education. 4. Confidence: Staff and families must feel confident in their abilities to work together and form partnerships working together across cultural difference. The development of strong school and family partnerships can lead to greater alignment between the spheres of home and school (Epstein, 2001), improve perceptions between families and teachers (Epstein, 1984, 1986), and improve student outcomes (Sheldon, 2003).

4.3.3 Communicating and Reaching Out to Families While children interact and communicate with teachers and families on a regular basis, teachers and families may struggle to have any meaningful amount of communication with each other. Work schedules of many families make it challenging for parents to speak with teachers during normal school hours. Teachers also have heavy workloads and may find it difficult to regularly contact families. A lack of communication can create tension between teachers and parents, where parents and teachers often blame each other for a lack of communication (Allen, Thompson, Hoadley, Engelking, & Drapeaux, 1997; Baker, 2001a, 2001b; Jayanthi, Nelson, Sawyer, Bursuck, & Epstein, 1995). Parents complain about the timeliness of teachers sharing academic and behavioral problems of their child and the lack of consistency and frequency of communication from teachers. A national survey from the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA, 2011) found that parents want regular contact from schools about their child’s progress and ways in which they can support their child. Teachers report limited time to communicate with parents and differences in parent attitudes, behavior, and expectations around schooling (Jayanthi et al., 1995). Improving communication can be one mechanism by which to strengthen partnerships between schools and families (Bauch, 1994; Chapman & Heward, 1982; Chrispeels, 1996; Westat and Policy Studies Associates, 2001). Different techniques have been used to increase communication with home. Programs may be effective in increasing communication with the home through automated messages for parents about school activities and childspecific information (Bauch, 1994; Chapman & Heward, 1982). Increases in technology and the development of schoolfocused web platforms are allowing teachers to provide more

frequent and detailed updates to parents on their child’s submission of classwork, progress in the class, and behavioral issues. A national survey of parents found that parents prefer receiving information through electronic/Internet formats such as email, but preferred less the use of social media to share school information (NSPRA, 2011). District policy also can play a role in promoting greater communication between home and school. A school district’s effort to evaluate teacher relationships with families resulted in teachers increasing communication with parents through newsletters, materials about class rules, additional parent and teacher conferences, and daily calendars for parents to review, respond to, and sign (Chrispeels, 1996). Increased efforts to communicate with families can lead to better relationships between parents and schools, greater parental involvement, and improved student achievement. Several studies show that parents report better relationships with teachers when teachers engage more with parents, through increased communication (Bauch, 1994; Chapman & Heward, 1982; Chrispeels, 1996), outreach strategies (Epstein, 1986), and the development of partnerships (Comer, 1984; Sanders, Epstein, & ConnorsTadros, 1999). Parents report higher ratings of teacher personality and quality when teachers have more outreach strategies (Epstein, 1986). Sanders et al. (1999) find school efforts to engage with and create partnerships with parents improve parents’ attitudes about their child’s high school. Outreach to families also may lead to increased parental involvement. Outreach can include, amongst other things, providing information to families who could not come to workshops and meetings, communicating clearly with all families, establishing twoway communication channels with families, and inviting parents to volunteer at the schools (Bryan & Henry, 2008; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). A regression analysis of the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988 sought to determine if parents’ reports of high schools’ outreach would positively predict parents’ involvement (Simon, 2004). Regardless of teenagers’ socioeconomic status, gender, family structure, race, ethnicity, and achievement, parents who perceived more outreach by their teenagers’ high schools reported higher attendance at collegeplanning workshops and school activities, more parent–teenager discussions about postsecondary educational planning and employment, more work with their teenagers on homework, and more parent–teenager discussions about school activities and coursework. Outreach to parents by schools, in particular in increasing communication, also has been found to have positive effects on student achievement (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; González, 2012; González & Jackson, 2013; Jeynes, 2012; Simon, 2004; Westat and Policy Study Associates, 2001). For example, Westat (2001) explored the impact of student achievement in 71 Title I elementary schools, including outreach to parents. Teacher outreach to parents of low performing students was associated with increased student achievement in reading and math. While communication can promote school and family partnerships, communication will not be effective if there is misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the message. For example, González and Jackson (2013) found that school outreach efforts with families had differential effects on student achievement by the poverty level of the school, where greater amounts of communication in highpoverty schools was associated with lower student achievement.

Different cultural and social capital of families may impact families’ abilities to translate school outreach efforts into improved student achievement (González & Jackson, 2013). Language barriers also make it difficult for schools and immigrant families to communicate (Pérez Carreón et al., 2005; Sohn & Wang, 2006; Valdés, 1996). Parents may struggle to find translators (Valdés, 1996) and need additional time to communicate with teachers during parent–teacher conferences (Sohn & Wang, 2006). Communication problems may even arise for parents who speak English but are unfamiliar with educational terms in English (Sohn & Wang, 2006). Critical in the development of improved communication with families is the need to ensure families will be able to understand and utilize the information being transmitted. The norms of schooling assume that schools have some minimal contact and communication with parents. This minimum contact and communication may be the yearly Back to School Night or monthly newsletters sent home. However, feedback from families suggests that this minimum amount of communication and outreach is not enough to build effective school and family partnerships. Contact with families also needs to be done in culturally competent ways, which may include (but is not limited to) sending materials in the relevant languages of families, ensuring materials are at an accessible reading level for families, and making sure the contact is in a manner that is respectful and important to families. Regular ongoing culturally competent communication and outreach to families can strengthen parent and teacher relationships, improve both parent and teacher perceptions of each other, promote parental involvement in the child’s schooling, and improve student achievement.

4.3.4 Promoting AtHome Support for Students There are numerous ways in which families may be involved with and partner with schools. Parents can serve on the PTA/PTO committees, volunteer in the classroom, or attend school events. While there is little evidence of the impact of these types of engagement activities, there is evidence that programs and interventions that involve families in supporting their children’s learning at home are linked to higher student achievement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2012). Parents may not have the resources, knowledge, or skills to encourage their child’s learning (HooverDempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). Schools can provide the resources to help families learn how to support their child academically, and subsequently, foster school and family partnerships. A metaanalysis of 52 studies found that programs such as classes, workshops, or home visits to teach parents how to provide stimulating environments for children and support their children’s learning (Baker, Piotrkowski, & BrooksGunn, 1998; Mathematica Policy Research, 2001; Shaver & Walls, 1998) or programs that provide families with activities to complete at home and in school to support literacy (Jeynes, 2012; Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; St. Clair, Jackson, & Zweiback, 2012), writing (Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997), mathematics skills (Starkey & Klein, 2000), or science (Van Voorhis, 2001) were associated with increased student achievement. For example, in a study of a home literacy portfolio (Paratore, Hindin, KrolSinclair, & Durán, 1999), parents and teachers worked together to promote the development of the child’s reading skills. Parents were taught skills to help support their child’s literacy, completed activities at home with the child, and then engaged in

scheduled conversations with the teacher about the literacy activity. The home literacy portfolios established a mechanism to promote and balance parent and teacher dialogue and to create a collaborative relationship between parents and teachers (Paratore et al., 1999). Through the use of home literacy portfolios, the parents became active participants in parent and teacher conferences and teachers made connections about the child’s learning and abilities during these meetings. While schools can promote workshops to support families, partnership programs in which parents and teachers collaborate with one another as equals to improve children’s academic and/or behavior outcomes also have been shown to improve achievement (Jeynes, 2012). The partnership that develops between a teacher and a parent may be unique in order to meet the needs of a child. RadaszewskiByrne ( 2001) describes her collaboration with a teacher to provide additional services to her gifted child. The mother became an instructional partner with her daughter’s thirdgrade teacher as they collaborated to enhance the curriculum for the child. While the majority of the activities the child engaged in through this process occurred outside of the classroom, the teacher provided opportunities for the child to share her work with classmates. Programs for families also can focus on supporting family functioning, increased access to local resources, and empowering parents. The Families and Schools Together (FAST) program seeks to improve family engagement, family access to social capital, and student wellbeing. Results from a randomized control trial (RCT) showed that students whose families participated in FAST had improved social emotional skills and academic performance than students in the control group that were not exposed to FAST (McDonald et al., 2006). Parent empowerment programs seek to help parents understand, name, and challenge the power schools have in these relationships. Parent empowerment programs focused on Latino parents, for example, use critical reflection and consciousness and collective social action to address the educational inequities faced by their children (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; Delgado Gaitan, 1991; Furomoto, 2003). Latino families who participate in parent empowerment programs may come to hold new understandings of their role within schools and of ways of interacting with schools (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; DelgadoGaitan, 1991; Furomoto, 2003). While all parents may want their child to be successful in school, many may not know how to help their child. For example, schools may use new teaching techniques that parents may be unfamiliar with, making it harder for parents to help their child at home. As professionals, teachers have an understanding of the process by which students learn content. Parents also know their child intimately and will understand aspects of the child and temperament important for that child’s learning and social emotional growth. In working together, teachers and parents can combine their knowledge to further enhance and support children’s learning and well being.

4.4 Challenges to Developing Partnerships with Families and Communities

The assumption made in this chapter is that school and community and school and family partnerships should be promoted. While there is promise of improved relationships between teachers and families and communities when schools reach out, some scholars are skeptical of these partnerships and in particular argue that the evidence of improved student outcomes when parents are engaged in their child’s schooling is unconvincing (Robinson & Harris, 2014). If parent support of children’s learning at home is not consistently associated with increased student achievement, Robinson and Harris suggest that it may be unreasonable to expect families to support academic learning as a mechanism for improving student achievement. However, encouraging partnerships with families solely to improve student achievement is a limited way to think about the potential of these partnerships. Stronger partnerships between families, communities, and schools can yield a host of positive outcomes such as improved social and emotional support for children; a greater sense of community for teachers, children, and families; a better school climate; and greater access to resources. A caring and nurturing school in which teachers and school staff have a positive collaborative relationship with families and children should be a goal unto itself. If communities are encouraged to work with schools, the community then needs to have a real voice in helping to set an agenda that is meaningful to both the school and the community (Roehlkepartain et al., 2013). To work collaboratively with the community, schools must be willing to share and give up some authority over the work with its students. If parents are encouraged to develop partnerships with schools, parents may challenge a teacher or school policy, and the teacher’s and the school’s professional autonomy may erode (Goldstein, 2008; Henry, 1996; Landeros, 2011; LawrenceLightfoot, 2003) as the school reacts to parents’ requests. A parent’s request may have schools revisit or change school policy (Attanucci, 2004; Glasman & Couch, 2001). Teachers sometimes negotiate this challenge by limiting the development of partnerships with parents (Goldstein, 2008). Conversely, teacher requests to parents, such as a teacher asking parents to review schoolwork at home with the child, can create new unwanted responsibilities for parents (Henry, 1996). These requests also are made with the assumption that parents have the ability to support their child; however, parents may lack the schooling or English skills to help their child. Homework, for example, can potentially create an additional burden for a parent and tension between the parent and child when the parent tries to ensure that his or her child completes the homework assigned (Bennett, 2007). Some argue that when schools demand certain actions at home, it may strengthen the role of the school institution over the private sphere (de Carvalho, 2001). Delpit (1988) even suggests that a form of “cultural genocide” occurs when schools attempt to change home routines, such as having parents support more learning at home (p. 286). It is also unreasonable for schools to demand resources from the community, but not allow input from community members in what resources are given or how to use them. Given this critique, it is imperative that schools seek to foster culturally competent strengths based partnerships with communities and families (Bryan & Henry, 2008). Establishing meaningful, collaborative, culturally relevant, and equitable partnerships requires constant selfreflection, openness to families and the community, and, often, dual capacitybuilding for both schools and families (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). In developing partnerships, schools

should look beyond ideas of traditional community engagement in which a business group sponsors an athletic team; a social service agency provides a standalone tutoring program; or parents bake cupcakes for the school fundraiser, serve on the PTA, or help with a child’s homework. A strengthsbased partnership approach can recognize that support from the community can be integrated in a strategic and meaningful way within the schoolhouse walls. A strengthsbased partnership approach can recognize that some families do not have flexible work schedules to serve on the PTA or may not have the literacy skills to help a child with their homework and recognize that all families want their children to succeed. A culturally competent partnership would work to engage communities and families to determine how best to interact, understand the community and families’ expectations of schools, and develop a practice of reflexivity in which teachers and school staff constantly revisit their worldview and how it impacts their engagement with the community and families. If as a nation the goal is for all schools to have robust partnerships between communities, families, and schools, additional training and resources will be needed to develop these partnerships in all schools. Other accommodations such as flexibility for all workers to have time to go to their child’s school are needed. Frameworks created by organizations such as the National Network of Partnership Schools, the Dual Capacity Framework (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013), and new frameworks not yet developed will need to be implemented and studied to better understand how to improve these partnerships.

4.5 What’s Next for School, Community, and Family Collaboration Students develop and learn across multiple social fields, and their success is enhanced by approaches that coordinate supports across their entire ecology. Schools are under substantial pressure to meet the holistic needs of students, including their academic learning, social and emotional learning, physical and mental health, and overall wellbeing. However, no one sector of students’ lives (school, family, community) is solely responsible for their development in any of these areas, and so the solution to addressing student needs also cannot be found within a single sector. While schools should be accountable for creating conditions for learning, all too often schools “go it alone” in trying to meet the needs of students, taking full responsibility for “fixing” problems while at the same time blaming families or communities for not meeting student needs themselves. The solution to this common issue is the development of true partnerships between schools, communities, and families that combines a shared sense of responsibility with effective cross sector collaboration to build upon strengths and solve problems that includes both individual and collective accountability. The development of these kinds of partnerships requires schools to identify, recognize, and draw upon the assets that exist in all families and communities. As described in this chapter, there are effective models of partnerships that work at the school and the classroom level, across organizations and individuals, and in schools that face varying degrees of challenge in meeting the needs of their students. In some cases, there are real

barriers between schools and their families and communities based on historical mistrust or hostility. These barriers can and should be addressed. Transformational change is possible. Real school, family, and community partnerships reduce the burden on schools, empower and strengthen families and communities, and ultimately improve the lives and outcomes of the children they share.

References Allen, S. M., Thompson, R. H., Hoadley, M., Engelking, J., & Drapeaux, J. (1997). What teachers want from parents and what parents want from teachers: Similarities and differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408097). AndersonButcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Iachini, A., Flaspohler, P., Bean, J., & Wade Mdivanian, R. (2010). Emergent evidence in support of a community collaboration model for school improvement. Children & Schools, 32(3), 167–171. AndersonButcher, D., Stetler, G., & Midle, T. (2006). Collaborative partnerships in schools: A case for youth development. Children & Schools, 28(3), 155–163. Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2015). Investing in what works: Communitydriven strategies for strong public schools. Providence, RI: Author. Attanucci, J. (2004). Questioning honor: A parent–teacher conflict over excellence and diversity in a USA urban high school. Journal of Moral Education, 33(1), 57–69. Baker, A. J. L. (2001a). Improving parent involvement programs and practice: A qualitative study of parent perceptions. School Community Journal, 11(1), 127–153. Baker, A. J. L. (2001b). Improving parent involvement policies and practice: A qualitative study of teacher perceptions. School Community Journal, 11(2), 155–183. Baker, A., KesslerSklar, S., Piotrkowski, C., & Parker, F. (1999). Kindergarten and first grade teachers’ reported knowledge of parents’ involvement in their children’s education. Elementary School Journal, 99, 367–379. Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & BrooksGunn, J. (1998). The effects of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) on children’s school performance at the end of the program and one year later. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 571–588. Barrera, J. M., & Warner, L. (2006). Involving families in school events. Kappa Delta Pi Records, 42(2), 72–75. Bauch, J. P. (1994). Voicebased technology for parent involvement: Results and effects . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED382325).

Bennett, S. (2007). A parent’s perspective on homework. Encounter, 20(4), 11–13. Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., Mellaville, A., & Pearson, S. S. (2010). Financing community schools: Leveraging resources to support student success. Washington, DC: Coalition of Community Schools. Blank, M. J., Mellaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition of Community Schools. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and human design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2008). Strengthsbased partnerships: A school–family–community partnership approach to empowering students. Professional School Counseling, 12(2), 149– 156. Center for Popular Democracy. (2016). Community schools: Transforming struggling schools into thriving schools. Washington, DC: Author. Chapman, J. E., & Heward, W. L. (1982, September). Improving parent–teacher communication through recorded telephone messages. Exceptional Children, 49(1), 79–82. Chiang, R. J., Meagher, W., & Slade, S. (2015). How the whole school, whole community, whole child model works: Creating greater alignment, integration, and collaboration between health and education. Journal of School Health, 85, 775–784. Chrispeels, J. (1996). Evaluating teachers’ relationships with families: A case study of one district. Elementary School Journal, 97(2), 179–200. Chrispeels, J. H., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119–169. Coalition for Community Schools. (2014). What is a community school? Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools and Institute for Education Leadership. Coalition for Community Schools. (2016). Overview: Coalition for community schools. Retrieved from www.communityschools.org Colbert, R. (1991). Untapped resource: African American parental perceptions. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 26(2), 96–105. Comer, J. P. (1984). Home–school relationships as they affect the academic success of children. Education and Urban Society, 16(3), 323–337. Comey, J., Litschwartz, S., & Pettit, K. L. S. (2012). Housing and schools: Working together to reduce the negative effects of student mobility (Brief 26). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Davern, L. (1999). Parents’ perspectives on personal attitudes and characteristics in inclusive school settings: Implications for teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 165–182. de Carvalho, M. E. P. (2001). Rethinking family–school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DelgadoGaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in the schools: A process of empowerment. American Journal of Education, 100(1), 20–45. Delpit, L. D. (1988, August). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298. Doll, B., & Lyon, M. A. (1998). Risk and resilience: Implications for the delivery of educational and mental health services in schools. School Psychology Review, 27, 348–363. Dryfoos, J. G. (2005). Fullservice community schools: A strategy – not a program. New Directions for Youth Development, 107, 7–14. Ebersöhn, L. (2012, December 2–6). Rural schools, poverty and resilience in education: A South African perspective illustrating how relationships can create supportive schools. Invited contribution to International Symposium on Poverty and Education. AARE/APERA, Sydney Australia. Ebersöhn, L. (2013). Building generative theory from case work: The relationshipresourced resilience model. In M. P. Wissing (Ed.), Wellbeing research in South Africa (pp. 261–289). New York, NY: Springer. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Epstein, J. (1984). Single parents and the schools: The effect of marital status on parent and teacher evaluations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for the Study of Social Organizations of Schools. Epstein, J. L. (1986, January). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277–294. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), Sage handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117–138). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997). Involving parents in homework in the middle grades (Rep. No. 18). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research. Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2014). Maze of mistrust: How district politics and cross talk are stalling efforts to improve public education. Washington, DC: Kettering Foundation. Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2015). Maze of mistrust: Parents, educators, and the challenge of public engagement. National Civic Review, 104, 33–46. Farkas, S., Foley, P., & Duffett, A. (2001). Just waiting to be asked? A fresh look at attitudes on public engagement. New York, NY: Public Agenda. Fine, M. (1993). (Ap)parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power and urban schools. Teachers College Record, 94, 682–729. Furomoto, R. (2003). The roots of resistance: Cultivating critical parent involvement. Amerasia Journal, 29(2), 120–138. Glasman, N., & Couch, M. (2001). Balancing desires and responses: Private contacts between individual parents and the principal. PJE: Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 52–74. Goldstein, L. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers for success in NCLB’s kindergartens: Learning from experienced teachers’ strategies for managing professional relationships with colleagues and parents. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(3), 222–236. González, R. L. (2012). Exploring parents’ crossings into schools: Understanding a critical step in the development of home–school relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (ISBN 9781267722980) González, R., & Jackson, C. (2013). Engaging with parents: The relationship between school engagement efforts, social class, and learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(3), 316–335. Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships between schools and communities. School Community Journal, 5(2), 63–84. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis, 2002. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab. Henig, J. R., Riehl, C. J., Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R. (2015). Putting collective impact in context: A review of the literature on local crosssector collaboration to improve education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University, Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis.

Henry, M. E. (1996). Parent–school collaboration: Feminist organizational structures and school leadership. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Hodges, S., Israel, N., Ferreira, K., & Mazza, J. (2007). System implementation issue brief #2: Critical factors in system of care implementation. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, Research and Training Center for Children’s Mental Health. HooverDempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent– school relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 287–294. HooverDempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42. Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens: A situational analysis of routine knowledge use in schools. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4, 478–510. HwaFroelich, D. A., & Westby, C. E. (2003). Frameworks of education: Perspectives of Southeast Asian parents and Head Start staff. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 34, 299–319. Jackson, G. C., & Richards, D. (2009). Black fathers: Are they a missing link in the education of schoolage children? Protecting Children, 24(2), 43–53. Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. J. (2015). A framework for more and better learning through community school partnerships. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Jayanthi, M., Nelson, J. S., Sawyer, V., Bursuck, W. D., & Epstein, M. H. (1995). Homework communication problems among parents, classrooms teachers and special education teachers: An exploratory study. Remedial and Special Education, 16(2), 102–116. Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A metaanalysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742. Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 524–546. Kania, J. H., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovations Review, 9(1), 36–41. Kendziora, K., Bruns, E., Osher, D., Pacchiano, D., & Mejia, B. (2001). Systems of care: Promising practices in children’s mental health, 2001 series (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research. Kendziora, K., Jones, W., Brown, D., Osher, D., Rudolph, M., King, K., … Cantor, P. (2008, October). Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative: Final report to the United Way (Unpublished report). New York, NY: United Way of New York City.

Kettering Foundation & Public Agenda. (2014). In theory, yes: How educators of educators discuss the roles and responsibilities of communities in education. San Francisco, CA: Creative Commons. Landeros, M. (2011). Defining the “good mother” and the “professional teacher”: Parent– teacher relationships in an affluent school district. Gender & Education, 23(3), 247–262. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family–school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73–85. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. LawrenceLightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York, NY: Random House. Lee, C. D. (2012). An ecological and activity theoretic approach to studying diasporic and nondominant communities. In W. F. Tate (Ed.), Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities (pp. 173–202). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lee, J., & Bowman, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Education Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218. Leone, P., Quinn, M. M., & Osher, D. (2002). Collaborating within the juvenile justice system and youth serving agencies: Improving prevention, providing more efficient services, and reducing recidivism for youth with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Lewallen, T. C., Hunt, H., PottsDatema, W., Zaza, S., & Giles, W. (2015). The whole school, whole community, whole child model: A new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. Journal of School Health, 85, 729–739. Mackety, D. M., & LinderVan Berschot, J. A. (2008). Examining American Indian perspectives in the Central Region on parent involvement in children’s education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacitybuilding framework for family–school partnerships. Austin, TX: SEDL. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., & Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University. (2001). Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in lowincome families . Washington, DC: Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/ehs/ehs_reports.html Mathews, D. (1995). The public for public schools is slipping. Education Week. Retrieved

from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1995/04/19/30mathew.h14.html Mathews, D. (2014). Rethinking civic engagement: The case of the public schools and the public. National Civic Review, 103, 4–10. Mathews, D. (2016). The public and public education. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation. McDermott, P., & Rothenburg, J. J. (2000). Why urban parents resist involvement in their children’s elementary education. The Qualitative Report, 5(3), 1–16. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol5/iss3/4 McDonald, L., Moberg, D. P., Brown, R., RodriguezEspiricueta, I., Flores, N. I., Burke, M. P., & Coover, G. (2006, January). Afterschool multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial involving lowincome, urban, Latino children. Children & Schools, 8(1), 25–34. McKinneyVento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg116.html National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention. (2016, May 21). Safe Schools/Healthy Students framework. Retrieved from http://www.healthysafechildren.org/sshsframework National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA). (2011). National survey pinpoints communication preferences in school communication. Rockville, MD: Author. National Wraparound Initiative. (2016, May 20). What is wraparound? Retrieved from http://nwi.pdx.edu Osher, D. (2002). Creating comprehensive and collaborative systems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 91–101. Osher, D., Amos, L., Jones, W., & Coleman, V. (2015). Comprehensive community initiatives in education reform: The case of Say Yes to Education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 40, 47–56. Osher, D., & Chasin, E. (2016). Bringing together schools and the community: The case of Say Yes to Education. In J. Zaff, E. Pufall Jones, A. E. Donlan, & S. A. Anderson (Eds.), Optimizing child and youth development through comprehensive community initiatives (pp. 72–194). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Osher, T., Garay, L., Jennings, B., Jimerson, D., Markus, S., & Martinez, K. (2011). Closing the gap: Cultural perspectives on familydriven care . Technical Assistance Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health. Osher, D., & Hanley, T. V. (1996). Implications of the national agenda to improve results for children and youth with or at risk of serious emotional disturbance. In R. J. Illback & C. M. Nelson (Eds.), Emerging schoolbased approaches for children with emotional and behavioral problems: Research and practice in service integration (pp. 7–36). Binghamton,

NY: Haworth Press. Osher, D., Poirier, J. A., Dwyer, K. P., Hicks, R., Brown, L. J., Lampron, S., & Rodriguez, C. (2008). Cleveland Metropolitan School District human ware audit: Findings and recommendations. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Osher, D., Poirier, J., Jarjoura, R., Brown, R., & Kendziora, K. (2014). Avoid simple solutions and quick fixes: Lessons learned from a comprehensive districtwide approach to improving student behavior and school safety. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 16. Osher, T. W., & Osher, D. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 47–60. Paratore, J., Hindin, A., KrolSinclair, B., & Durán, P. (1999). Discourse between teachers and Latino parents during conferences based on home literacy portfolios. Education and Urban Society, 32(1), 58–82. Pérez Carreón, G., Drake, C., & Calbrese Burton, A. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498. Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., Taylor, L., & Early, D. (1999). Kindergarten teachers’ practices related to the transition to school: Results of a national survey. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 71–86. RadaszewskiByrne, M. (2001). Parents as instructional partners in the education of gifted children: A parent’s perspective. Gifted Child Today, 24(2), 32–42. Raikes, H., Luze, G., BrooksGunn, J., Raikes, H. A., Pan, B. A., TamisLeMonda, C. S., … Rodriguez, E. T. (2006). Mother–child bookreading in lowincome families: Correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Development, 77(4), 924–953. Robinson, K., & Harris, A. L. (2014). The broken compass: Parental involvement with children’s education. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Roehlkepartain, E. C., Pekel, K., & Sullivan, T. K. (2013). Getting the questions right: Exploring the role of community engagement in preparing all young people for post secondary success. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family and community programs. Elementary School Journal, 1–2(1), 19–34. Sanders, M., Epstein, J., & ConnorsTadros, L. (1999). Family partnerships with high schools: The parents’ perspective. Report no. 32. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal

leadership for school–community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345–1368. Shapiro, J. P., Ginsberg, A. E., & Brown, S. P. (2002, October). Family and community participation in urban schools: The ethic of care. Paper presented at the Values and Leadership in Education Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(2), 90–97. Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state test. Urban Review, 35(2), 149–165. Simmons, O. S. (2011). Lost in translation: The implications of social capital for higher education access. Notre Dame Law Review, 87(205), 1–45. Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209. Smrekar, C., & CohenVogel, L. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethinking the intersection of family and school. PJE: Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75–100. Sohn, S., & Wang, X. (2006). Immigrant parents’ involvement in American schools: Perspectives from Korean mothers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 125–132. St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., & Zweiback, R. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family involvement training on the language skills of children from migrant families. School Community Journal, 22(1), 9–19. Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 659–680. Stroul, B. (2002). Systems of care: A framework for system reform in children’s mental health. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health. Stroul, B., & Friedman, R. (1986). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotional disturbances. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. (2006). Helping children and youth with serious mental health needs: Systems of care. Washington, DC: Author. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative: A legacy of success. Rockville, MD: Author.

Sy, S. R. (2006). Rethinking parent involvement during the transition to first grade: A focus on Asian American families. School Community Journal, 16(1), 107–126. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment in home and school connection. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 20–32. Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title I schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. Woodruff, D. W., Osher, D., Hoffman, C. C., Gruner, A., King, M., Snow, S., & McIntire, J. C. (1999). The role of education in a system of care: Effectively serving children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research. Yang, H., & McMullen, M. B. (2003). Understanding the relationships among American primarygrade teachers and Korean mothers: The role of communication and cultural sensitivity in the linguistically diverse classroom. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 5(1).

5 Building Capacity in Order to Strengthen Teaching and Learning Sharon Harsh Education Consultant, Former Comprehensive Center Director, and Retired District Administrator

5.1 Introduction Teaching and learning are the primary cornerstones of education. Knowledge is transmitted through teaching and learning, and the major functions of the education system are designed to maximize resources for teaching and learning. When the cornerstone processes and major functions yield high achievement data, schools and districts are designated as high performing. Conversely, when data show low achievement, both the professional and lay communities immediately call for improvements in teaching and learning. Although educators know it is unproductive, schools and districts often repeat professional development (PD) sessions and reteach modified lessons in an effort to improve performance data. Simply repeating the standard slogans, requiring attendance at another PD session, or purchasing the latest reform program is unlikely to lead to improvement. When variations in performance occur in classrooms within a single school or school performance varies within a district, the data reveal that classrooms, schools, and even districts are at different places in their ability to implement required changes in teaching and learning. To effectively improve teaching and learning and attain desired performance results, schools need interventions and supports that pinpoint and address substandard procedures, knowledge, and skill in refining and replacing ineffective instructional activities, and the capacity to implement the identified changes. In some cases, underperforming schools are in the middle of an organization development cycle. These schools are in a longterm process of implementing specific approaches, processes, and methods to improve the functioning and effectiveness of the organization (Senge, 1992). In many of these cases, the performance data do not meet expected targets but consistently show incremental improvement. This slower but steady improvement process can succeed if restructuring and implementation of new systemwide structures and practices also are tailored to meet current needs (Bruch, Gerber, & Maier, 2005). In a development cycle, the system goes through a series of transitions between the current operational state and the desired change state (Bridges, 1998). During transition, the system moves through three stages: Endings, Neutral Zone, and New Beginnings. For change that involves a very long time horizon, multiple departments, staff with different perspectives, or different levels of scale. Bridges (1998) recommends using a process of transition management to achieve successful change results, arguing that it is often the transition, not the change, that people resist. Different staff will likely be at different transition stages along a change curve.

In most cases, underperforming schools do not demonstrate consistently improving performance. Some schools plateau at a borderline or marginally acceptable level, while others bounce between levels, always surprised with their unforecasted performance. These are the schools that need more than traditional intervention and would benefit from capacity building support.

5.2 Capacity and CapacityBuilding The terms capacity and capacitybuilding are often used interchangeably when they are actually very different concepts. Capacity is having the resources and ability to complete targeted work. Capacity is a precondition for performance and establishes the potential to attain and maintain gains in performance with gradually reduced levels of external support (LaFond & Brown, 2003). Additionally, capacity is a latent phenomenon (Brinkerhoff & Morgan, 2010) and is manifested only when it is used to complete some type of task. Occasionally, staff development training is mistakenly equated with the development of capacity. Interventions such as training increase the cognitive store of knowledge used to understand and learn new skills and mechanisms, but acquiring knowledge alone is insufficient; the knowledge has to be applied in context to build capacity. Welldesigned capacitybuilding initiatives improve performance by systematically using explicit methods and strategies designed to attain a desired performance level, identify gaps between desired and actual performance, use interventions that build targeted capacities, monitor whether progress has been made, and plan and implement additional interventions (Horton, 2002; LaFond & Brown, 2003; Maiese, 2005). Capacitybuilding initiatives are intense endeavors that have multipleyear duration and recurring cycles of intervention, support, and growth. When one stage of capacity development is achieved, the capacity growth becomes the new starting point for the next stage of capacitybuilding (LaFond & Brown, 2003). Capacitybuilding is both an end and a means to an end. It addresses the process of capacity change or how capacitybuilding takes place. It is an intermediate step toward desired performance by building the capacity elements needed for improved performance, and it targets an overall outcome or desired level of accomplishment (LaFond & Brown, 2003; Light & Hubbard, 2004). When a school or district decides to address capacity issues, it takes an important developmental step in increasing its ability to successfully implement change. However, merely discussing capacity or inserting the word capacity into an improvement plan, while creating heightened awareness of capacity issues, will not singularly enlarge the ability to accomplish improvement goals. Additionally, schools or districts that engage in capacity focused activities need to select an approach that will move the change agenda forward. The various approaches to capacity can be placed on a continuum according to the different results obtained with each approach. At the entry level of the continuum, schools or districts will often use existing instruments or templates to measure and quantify the levels of existing capacity. A measure of capacity in this instance usually results in a comparison of existing funds, facilities, or human resources along with a projection on the numbers or types of resources needed to

complete targeted tasks or operations. Once the capacity measurements are completed, and sufficient allocations have been made or the current expenditures and numbers of staff are commensurate with projected numbers, the school or district is still faced with the challenges that existed before the capacity measures were taken. In cases where there is a discrepancy in the projected and actual resources, the approach to capacity will often move to the next level of the continuum and focus the conversation on requests for additional human and material resources. While increased tangible resources can be very helpful, the addition of staff or line item funding may still not provide the knowledge or skill needed to accomplish targeted improvements. A third approach to capacity, particularly in cases where requests for increased resources are not filled, is where the school or district may refocus its efforts on innovative and creative ways to use staff and material resources to complete targeted change initiatives. This third approach to capacity, particularly if the innovative and creative approaches are carefully selected to fill identified capacity gaps, can result in greater efficiency in implementing the change agenda. The continuing dilemma, however, is that even with attention to capacity gaps, the third approach on the continuum uses the levels of capacity that exist among reassigned staff, redirecting but not enlarging the school or district’s ability to move forward. It is at the fourth approach to capacity where the conversation, activities, and ultimate results shift to capacitybuilding. Schools and districts take an even bolder developmental step when they choose to conduct capacitybuilding as part of a change process (Fullan, 2006; Horton, 2002; Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; Maiese, 2005). The dimensions and types of capacitybuilding vary according to the theory of action used to accomplish the targeted task, and include a wide variety of capacities, ranging from broad political capacity to specific capacity skills such as conflict resolution (Maiese, 2005). Capacitybuilding is more than a technical intervention; it is focused on improving performance at the individual, organization, and system levels (LaFond & Brown, 2003) and is a process that increases the ability of an individual, group, or organization to activate its resources and achieve its goals by developing and using skills and tools to define problems and formulate solutions (Maiese, 2005) and to identify and solve problems over time (Fullan, 2006; Lusthaus et al., 1999). Under the current educational structure, the organization, whether it is an individual school or the composite district, is the unit responsible for measuring, maintaining, and using capacity resources and is the unit responsible for establishing readiness and planning, implementing and supporting change initiatives with capacitybuilding activities. While the organization is the managing structure, to achieve systemic and sustainable change, capacitybuilding must occur at both the organizational and individual levels (Harsh, 2013).

5.2.1 Organizational Change and CapacityBuilding Change, according to Fullan (2007), is any movement away from the status quo. Any movement, regardless of its magnitude, impact, or position on the change continuum, modifies an organization in some way. Even positive, desired change creates unintended consequences that need to be monitored and managed (Mansfield, 2010). Therefore, any activity designed to

improve performance by implementing, correcting, adjusting, or refining teaching and learning practices involves instituting change. Further, change is not a static concept; it is a complex, dynamic, multifaceted, and recursive process (Gill & Griffith, 2004) that requires continuous constructing and using the capacity for change (Fullan & Miles, 1992). An organization responds to change by adjusting and adapting in order to sustain itself and requires ongoing assistance and support as it adapts to the targeted changes (Land, Hauck, & Baser, 2009). Over time, new demands and performance expectations can alter and increase the degree of change required, resulting in new levels of adaptation and change competence (Adelman & Taylor, 2003; Fullan, 2007). Organizations that have expertise in implementing change will thrive; those that do not may struggle to exist. In a 2009 report on The Shift Index, authors Hagel, Brown, and Davison report that in upcoming years, in addition to responding to increased demands and rates of change, successful organizational change will involve several strategic decisions, including the selection of an appropriate change model or process to guide the change work (Bruch et al., 2005; Fullan, 2008). The wide variety of available models and approaches often includes a set of procedures or steps to follow and many describe a range of dispositions or behaviors that are essential for change participants and leaders to implement during the change process (Hall & Hord, 2010; Hord, Rutherford, Huling, & Hall, 2006; Nikolaou, Gouras, Vakola, & Bourantas, 2007). One example of an organization change model is Kotter’s transformational change (Kotter, 1995), which identifies eight critical errors that can occur in the change process and outlines the steps to be taken to make the needed corrections. In the Kotter model, the first step of a successful change effort involves creating a sense of urgency around the need for change and cultivating a 75% rate of buyin from the organization’s management. In step two of the model, the organization forms a coalition, or team, of influential people who continue to build urgency and momentum around the need for change. Subsequent steps involve creating and communicating a vision for change, removing obstacles that obstruct change, creating short term wins, and building on and anchoring the change in corporate culture. The Kotter model, like many others, is grounded in the concept that change is not a singular, episodic event, but instead is an evolutionary and often complex process. Organizations such as schools and districts undergo change for several reasons, each reason representing a specific dimension of change (Adelman & Taylor, 2007). Sometimes organizational change is spontaneous and unplanned. A catastrophic event or a downturn in the economy can create an unexpected and unwanted change. In these circumstances, organizations are reactive and often respond with efforts to manage change in an ad hoc manner after the event has occurred. In other situations, organizational change is expected but occurs in response to imposed circumstances, often by organizational compliance with external regulations. In other dimensions of change, the organization is less reactive and engages in planning for change (Adelman & Taylor, 2003; Biech, 2007). In the first dimension where organization planning can occur, the targeted change is anticipated. Even though the circumstances are anticipated, mandates, regulatory changes, and audit or accountability reports can require an

organization to plan and implement required change; as a result, this threshold dimension is marked by organization tolerance for the targeted change rather than active efforts to embrace and use the anticipated change as a lever for system improvement. By contrast, the most powerful change is one that is purposeful—one that is not only planned, but designed and implemented by the organization. In situations where change is welcomed, the organization is an active partner and is open to collaborating with other agencies or organizations to plan and implement change that will benefit the operation of the system (Adelman & Taylor, 2007). At the upper end of the change dimensions, the organization is the lead actor in designing and instituting changes that will enhance vision and goal attainment. Across the various change dimensions, in addition to varying levels of planning and action, organizations demonstrate differing levels of accountability and responsibility for the design and execution of change. An organization taking a reactive stance assumes low levels of accountability for the success of the change initiative. At the upper dimensions, an organization that assumes greater accountability and responsibility for the design and success of the planned initiatives is taking a proactive stance regarding the need to implement change. 5.2.1.1 Proactive Organizational Change Organizations that are proactive and accountable in planning and executing change have the best chance of successfully implementing a change initiative (Ackerman, 1997; Orlikowski, 1996; Pennington, 2003; Weick, 2000; Weick & Quinn, 1999; Yee, 1998). While the articles and reports are accurate in their analysis, in many cases the recommendation for an active, accountable organization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful organizational change. Many organizations are eager to improve, can write detailed improvement plans, and are active partners in the change process, but struggle to implement and achieve the targeted changes. The hard realization is that in spite of their enthusiasm and effort, many schools and organizations do not have the capacity to implement and accomplish the targeted changes. Planned, proactive organizational change is different from unplanned or reactive change. First, proactive change is very purposeful and is the result of a conscious decision to move the organization in a different direction (Ackerman, 1997). Second, purposeful and proactive change is a dynamic and assertive stance that is taken when an organization wants to design and define its own niche among its contemporaries (Orlikowski, 1996). Third, purposeful change is controlled by the organization both in the pace of the change process and in the resulting state to be attained (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Taken together, the unique characteristics of proactive, purposeful change form a set of desirable and powerful circumstances and a positive context to work within. However, because of its unique characteristics, purposeful change also presents an accompanying challenge. Since unplanned and unwanted change can result in undesired effects, most unsuccessful attempts to implement imposed change are not attributed to the proficiency of the organization. By contrast, the result of planned, purposeful change is attributed solely to the proficiency of the system, increasing the need for organizations to be successful in the change endeavor (Adelman & Taylor, 2007; Lewis Palmer, Sugai, & Larson, 1999).

Organization leaders can increase the probability that a planned change initiative is successful by considering and selecting appropriate interventions and strategies that will ensure the change process sets in motion the level and type of activity needed to accomplish the stated goals (Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000). The importance of designing an appropriate approach to change is especially critical when organizations attempt to implement complex, difficult change. In an article on disruptive change, Gilbert and Bower (2002) report that organizations eager to implement change can inadvertently overreact by implementing too many changes at once. According to the report, overreaction can actually have a detrimental effect on efforts to implement change, especially when additional changes are simultaneously imposed on various parts of the organization. In many cases, additional changes are intended to insulate or support a primary change, but actually disrupt the change process. Instead, the organization needs to design and implement a change process that is neither overreaction nor insufficient to accomplish the desired goal. Ideally, organizational change is deliberate and planned and is the result of analysis, reasoning, and the selection of implementation phases and actions (Ackerman, 1997). Organizations with this capacity often conduct deliberate and planned change and have three abilities that support the continuous building of this capacity. First, the organization engages in continuous change (Weick, 2000; Weick & Quinn, 1999) that is an ongoing, evolving, and cumulative planned process of acquisition, implementation, and adaptation. Second, members of the organization think about its future development and evolution in relation to its longterm goals and make decisions about what changes need to be made to realize the goals (Orlikowski, 1996). Third, leaders understand that change creates a disturbance to the status quo of the organization and monitor the impact of change on system operations (Pennington, 2003). In addition, leaders recognize that change can be driven by both internal and external forces (Yee, 1998), with some change drivers emanating from largescale forces that demand and produce complex change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). 5.2.1.2 Readiness, Change, and CapacityBuilding Readiness, change, and capacitybuilding are nested concepts and processes. As nested concepts and processes they provide the change agent and support provider with a greater understanding of the needs that arise during change and the types of support that will enable participants to institute new behaviors or practices. Change, the largest of the three, encompasses all the incremental and smaller behavioral and procedural changes that have a cumulative effect on the final desired performance. Capacitybuilding is nested inside change and is one of many types of change. Individuals and organizations that engage in capacity building have different characteristics and operational styles than those who implement mandated change. They need activities and support services that are aligned with their level of operation. Readiness is nested as a precursor to change or as a preliminary step of change. The change process can be further complicated when the individual, group, or organization is not ready to abandon old practices and institute new ones. Change agents who understand readiness as a prelude to change can pinpoint and address areas of need that may go undetected and

unresolved. Change agents should determine the level of readiness for the targeted change and include appropriate support activities that will cultivate readiness. Readiness for change and capacitybuilding usually occurs in stages, each with distinguishing characteristics and behaviors. Wandersman, Chien, and Katz (2012), Wandersman et al. (2008), and Wandersman, Imm, Chinman, and Kaftarian (2000) describe readiness as the interest and ability to implement a program and established nine stages of readiness: 1. Tolerance: The individual, group, or organization tolerates or encourages the targeted behavior or performance. 2. Denial: The behavior or performance is viewed as a problem elsewhere and there is little effort to address the issue. 3. Vague awareness: The individual, group, or organization is aware of the problem but has little specific knowledge about it. 4. Preplanning: The issue is viewed as a problem, stakeholders have general information, leaders have been identified, but no action has been taken. 5. Preparation: Leaders are active, planning has occurred, participants have general knowledge of prevention and have implemented a trial run of the program. 6. Initiation: The program has started and training continues to be conducted. 7. Institutionalization: Staff are trained and the program is routine; however, there is no accountability for outcomes, no improvement in practice or regular assessment of implementation. 8. Confirmation/expansion: Old programs are supported and valued and the organization looks for better programs. 9. Professionalization: Participants have sophisticated knowledge of program, there is high organization support, and participants use ongoing evaluation to improve the program. In this approach, change agents assess whether the organization has a sufficient level of readiness to implement a program and whether the program is appropriate for the level of readiness. Prochaska, Norcross, and Di Clemente (1994) identified five stages of readiness for change. Groups and organizations that successfully change their behavior go through all five stages and often cycle through the stages three to four times. The five stages include: 1. Precontemplation: People have no intention of changing their behavior and deny having a problem even though others can clearly see the problem. People may change in response to constant external pressure, but once the pressure is removed, they quickly revert to old behaviors and practices. 2. Contemplation: People acknowledge that they have a problem, begin to think seriously about solving it, wonder about possible solutions, but have only vague plans to change and

are not ready to take action. 3. Preparation: People in the preparation stage plan to change, make their intention public, are committed to action, but are not convinced that this is the best step. 4. Action: People modify their behavior and surroundings and make changes that are visible to others. 5. Maintenance: People consolidate the gains they made and work to prevent relapses. In a final stage—Termination—people no longer have the problem and do not need to take any additional action. In this approach, groups and organizations set goals and action steps according to where they are in the cycle of change. If people set goals that they are not ready for, they are set up for failure, but if they match the goals to their stage of change, they maximize their ability to change. Fixsen, Blase, Horner, and Sugai (2009b) established a fourstage implementation process that incorporates readiness as part of an exploration stage. The stages are dynamic as groups and organizations move back and forth across stages when circumstances within the environment change. The implementation stages comprise: 1. Exploration: Readiness is assessed by an Implementation Team and actions are taken to create readiness. Individuals need information and time to process what the needs are and what the innovation or change means for them. 2. Installation: Individuals acquire or repurpose the resources needed to do targeted work. This stage involves selecting staff, identifying sources for training and coaching, providing initial training for staff, finding or establishing performance assessment tools, locating office space, and assuring access to materials and equipment. 3. Initial implementation: The innovation is used for the first time, staff attempt to use newly learned skills, and administrators support the new practices. 4. Full implementation: At least half of the staff use the innovation with fidelity and the innovation is now the standard way of work. When staff and administrators change, each new person develops the competencies to effectively perform and support the innovation. The Implementation Team ensures that effective practices are maintained and improved over time. Each approach to readiness emphasizes that pushing a group or organization to change before it is ready can lead to ineffective or negative results. Each approach describes readiness as a developmental process consisting of stages with distinctive needs and behaviors. Each stage requires different strategies or tools and each stage must be addressed before the ensuing stage can be implemented. 5.2.1.3 Individual Change and CapacityBuilding Effective organizations understand the importance of attending to staff needs when they are undergoing change (Hall & Hord, 2015). The level of organizational change is directly related to the level of change that individuals attain during the implementation of a change initiative.

During the change process, individuals need assistance and support based on the needs and concerns that are manifested at each level (Hord, Rutherford, HulingAustin, & Hall, 1987). Individuals going through change move through distinct phases or processes as they go from a current state to a new or different state. Various change models offer a different way to view or understand what the individual experiences. According to the threestage process (Collerette, Schneider, & Legris, 2003; Levin, 1951), change involves unfreezing the current behaviors or actions, moving to a new way of acting or being, and refreezing a new set of behaviors. The stage theory of behavior change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992) shows a clear progression of phases or stages involved in moving to a changed state in which the new behaviors are maintained or sustained. The stages of adult development (Kegan & Lahey, 1984) identify the areas of concern or focus that have to be addressed during the change process in order for the changes to be maintained. Change at the individual level also involves a progressive evolution of attitudes and decisions about a targeted change, and the attitudes and decisions that emerge directly affect the adoption and diffusion of the proposed change (Rogers, 2003). Rogers defines the diffusion process as the spread of a new idea from its source of invention or creation to its ultimate users or adopters. While the diffusion process occurs within society or a group, the adoption process occurs within an individual. Further, adoption is a mental process that an individual goes through from first hearing about an innovation to finally adopting it. This process is actually a series of stages that occur during adoption. The first stage in the adoption process is an awareness stage during which the individual is exposed to the change innovation but lacks complete information about it. Once awareness is reached, the person enters an interest or information stage during which time the individual becomes interested in the new idea and seeks information about it. The third is an evaluation stage during which the individual mentally applies the innovation to the present and anticipated future situation and decides whether or not to try it. The fourth stage is a trial stage when the individual fully uses the innovation, and the fifth and final stage is an adoption stage during which the individual decides to continue using the innovation. The stages identified by Rogers describe important stages that individuals encounter during the implementation of a change initiative. The response to each of these stages and levels shapes the ability of the individual to embrace and implement the desired change. 5.2.1.4 The Teaching and Learning Context and the Need for CapacityBuilding Change at both the individual and organizational level is conducted within a highly charged environment. In education, the processes of teaching and learning are particularly sensitive to the context in which they occur and multiple demands make change efforts especially difficult. Schools and districts establish local goals and improvement plans specifying desired levels of achievement. States adopt performance standards and accreditation criteria that are used to recognize schools that meet the standards and sanction schools that do not meet adopted targets. In addition to internally and externally imposed performance standards, the education system operates within an environment characterized by complexity and frequent change.

Context of Change. Schools and districts, along with other organizations operating within the current environment, are expected to understand and implement rapid change (Fullan, 2007). The demand for change often occurs in the middle of a performance cycle and frequently requires an organization to alter its work in one area while simultaneously continuing to implement multiple change initiatives in other areas. Additionally, schools and districts are expected to implement deep changes that will alter performance outcomes (Adelman & Taylor, 2003, 2007). Change must go beyond cosmetic, surface activities that create an illusion of change and institute activities that strengthen the fundamental practices involved in teaching and learning. The challenge is unprecedented. Schools and districts must understand the change process, create the ability to rapidly diagnose, design, and implement change in core operations, and build the capacity to maintain successful practices while altering and improving those that are ineffective. Context of Complexity. The change process is also characterized by an increase in the complexity of the issues to be addressed. Complexity theory offers a useful lens to understand change in educational settings and other complex endeavors (Bruch et al., 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Senge, 1997). Complexity theory explains that as complex adaptive systems, organizations integrate, adapt, or change in response to internal or external forces (Stacey, 1996). Change is a complex process and organizations such as districts and schools must be viewed as complex adaptive systems in order to understand how they move through change (Olson & Eoyang, 2001). Not only is change a complex process, but the context in which organizations implement change is also complex as it contains differing degrees of predictability, agreement, and certainty of outcomes. Stacey notes that to successfully operate in an environment of complexity, those implementing change need to maintain a high level of interaction with staff members as change in a complex adaptive system cannot be driven—it must be fostered and supported. In addition, the system has nested components that constantly interact and create complex reactions and adaptations across the organization (Brinkerhoff & Morgan, 2010). Further, the organization can be both the initiator and the subject of change (Century, 1999), and as a result, the process of change can originate and be modified from multiple points within as well as from outside the system. To improve teaching, educators and classroom teachers must undergo change whether the change involves correction, replacement, refinement, or expansion of teaching practices.

5.3 CapacityBuilding in Teaching and Learning Schools and districts respond to growth or improvement opportunities in ways that are shaped by the priorities, events, and outcomes that occur in their environments. Insight into the events and conditions that shape an organization can be used to design and build an organization that can perform expected operational and learning processes. Once an organization sets learning and operational trajectories, these insights provide powerful mechanisms for maintaining and shaping an expected growth and performance curve, especially when the operational context

remains consistent and predictable (LewisPalmer et al., 1999; Telzrow et al., 2000). A particularly challenging situation occurs when the performance and growth patterns are altered, requiring the organization to change its course of action, and learn new behaviors and skills that must be integrated into the work (Adelman & Taylor, 2007). The ability for an organization to undergo development, learn and institute a new set of behaviors, or attain new levels of performance involves a complex set of changes that include building capacity to do the work. For appropriate support and assistance to be provided, change agents and system administrators must understand the capacitybuilding process, select the types of capacity needed, determine the organization’s current status on each of the capacities, and accurately locate the entry point for organization development and capacity building. To effectively design and lead these endeavors, change agents must understand the interactive nature of teaching and learning (Protheroe, 2001), distinguish between patterns of performance in schools, determine when capacitybuilding is needed, and know how to support the capacitybuilding process.

5.3.1 CapacityBuilding as Reciprocal Processes Teaching and learning are dynamic, interactive processes. When one process is activated, the other responds. When teaching is engaging, learning is enhanced. When learning occurs, teaching is reinforced. Further, they have interlocking features that must be implemented for each process to be successfully completed. Teaching and learning are mutually dependent and ineffective without the other. Learning can occur without teaching, but when teaching is purposeful, carefully designed and executed, learning is powerful. In capacitybuilding, the two processes are naturally reciprocal. They bind to create stronger knowledge, use common constructs to attain compatible results, and focus on increasingly advanced skills in order to perform higherlevel tasks. When teaching fills gaps in knowledge and learning results in the ability to perform more accurately at a higher level, the foundation for further advancement is enlarged and capacitybuilding has occurred. When teachers, administrators, and technical assistance providers conduct capacitybuilding, they implement support activities that assist individuals and groups to perform a specific task or function more accurately and at a higher level (Adelman & Taylor, 2007; Telzrow et al., 2000). Using the reciprocal characteristics, the targeted task or function is designated and the separate steps for task completion are delineated. Gaps in knowledge and skill are identified and capacitybuilding activities are designed to model and scaffold the knowledge, skills, and processes that need to be mastered and performed. In addition, capacitybuilding, particularly for reciprocal processes such as teaching and learning, should generate additional effects that stimulate improved performance. Most successful capacitybuilding will generate three effects: serve as catalyst for growth, enable additional performance, and sustain new skills. 5.3.1.1 CapacityBuilding as a Catalyst Capacitybuilding, when successful, serves as a catalyst for growth in other performance areas. Participants often receive both internal and external feedback on the enhanced

performance area. As employees acquire the missing information, apply new processes or structures to the work, and refine the processes used in critical tasks, they experience internal satisfaction in being able to complete more rigorous functions. This enhanced performance reinforces their ability to acquire new skills and generates selfanalysis on other areas where gaps may occur. Additionally, supervisors and colleagues often experience a collateral impact of this performance on their own work. When supervisors include comments and positive feedback in evaluations and work reports, other team members are motivated to participate in relevant capacitybuilding as well. 5.3.1.2 CapacityBuilding as an Enabler Capacitybuilding activities progressively correct, refine, or enlarge the knowledge, skills, and abilities of participants. As this progression occurs, the capacitybuilding activities change as well to enable the participant to become increasingly independent in conducting the various steps of the targeted task. The activities incorporate modeling, coaching, and analytical feedback and are designed to enable successful experience, increase confidence, and generate willingness to attempt more difficult tasks. 5.3.1.3 CapacityBuilding as Sustaining When capacitybuilding correctly identifies and closes gaps in critical knowledge and skills, participants are able to complete targeted tasks and functions. In addition, participants find that the newly acquired knowledge and skills transfer to other related tasks, thereby enlarging and sustaining the application and use of the skills in the workplace.

5.3.2 Continuum of Support When schools and districts gain experience using performance patterns to determine the types of interventions required to improve underperforming areas, they also become skilled in designing and implementing improvement plan activities to strengthen teaching and learning. They find that individual supports are not universal solutions for every gap or deficiency. Instead, they learn they need an array of support processes to implement the various parts of a plan of action (Harsh, 2010b). Moreover, as teachers and administrators become skilled in guiding the action plan preparation and implementation process, they recognize when to use the various types of support to achieve specific goals. Schools and districts with a robust array of support have the resources to address multiple improvement issues. Each support process has a primary use and is most effective when used for that purpose. The support processes also have distinguishing characteristics that can be used to select the appropriate support for a specific improvement activity. Each support and its characteristics can be placed on a continuum, creating a visual display that will facilitate the selection of a support process as shown in Table 5.1. Support processes range from general support to very specific types of support. Support processes also range from those used in short duration to those used over long time frames for intense, complex issues.

Table 5.1 Continuum of support.

Type General Duration Episodic Support Information Coordination Facilitation Consultation Mediation Inspection Demonstr Negotiation Action Inform Broker Facilitate Consult Mediate Monitor Demon str Coordinate Solve Appraise Model Inspect Result or Know Outcome Train

Connect

Coordi inate

Tell Advise

Agree

Require Comply

Show

5.3.2.1 Implementing CapacityBuilding within a Continuum of Support Capacitybuilding is a specific type of support process. It is used to calibrate the extent to which a teacher, group, or organization is implementing targeted improvement activities, identifies the missing information and skills needed to conduct the work, and builds the capacity to design and implement change. Capacitybuilding closes gaps in knowledge and skill and results in empowering staff with the capacity to perform at higher levels. Support processes typically used with improvement activities include consulting, facilitating, modeling, collaborating, and coaching. Other forms of support include training, coordinating, informing, and demonstrating. Some support processes such as negotiation and mediation are used for very specific purposes and are conducted by trained, authorized staff. Other support processes are so effective in supporting the change and improvement process that they have expanded into multiple specialized processes. Coaching, for example, has expanded to include academic coaching, collegial coaching, collaborative coaching, cognitive coaching, and consultative coaching. Consultative coaching is a type of coaching that can support individuals who are developing intracognitive capacity and need assistance in gaining knowledge and technical competence in a specific area of work. Consultative coaching draws upon traditional consultation and standard coaching practices. While consultation is designed to be a oneway authoritative method of transmitting information and coaching is a clientcentered approach, they blend into a hybrid form of coaching that uses techniques from both processes. In capacitybuilding, consultative coaching allows a change agent to focus on the technical aspects of completing a task or solving a problem and to offer information and expertise. As the staff member begins to use or implement the information and skills offered through consultation, the attention and support shifts to the staff member until the next phase of expertise is needed. At that point, the process cycles back and forth between the two approaches until the staff member has reached a level where all the needed information and skills have been mastered and cognitive independence has been attained. Cognitive coaching is a coaching model that uses a set of strategies to shape a person’s

thinking and problemsolving ability, and builds the capacity of a person to modify their own thinking and behavior (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Cognitive coaching is based on the propositions that thought and perception produce all behavior, that adults continue to grow cognitively, and that to learn something new requires engagement and alteration in thought. During the coaching process, the coach assists the staff member to use resources that will enable him or her to grow and change from within. The inner resources or capacities are known as “states of mind” and are what the coach mediates so the person can become holonomous. In organization change, staff members need to be holonomous—simultaneously competent and confident as an individual in the organization and at the same time collaboratively working to ensure the effective functioning of the organization and the attainment of the organization’s targeted goals. Collaborative coaching places the coach and employee in an equal working relationship and, as a result, is frequently used with individuals who are undergoing agentic capacitybuilding. During collaborative coaching, the coach and staff member work as a team to analyze a task or problem and to jointly apply skills and expertise that will move the staff member to a new level of functioning or task completion. During the capacitybuilding process, collaborative coaching allows the staff member to be supported and mentored through the design and implementation of purposeful action. Collaborative coaching involves a partnership that includes mutual inquiry and critical reflection along with a collaborative implementation of tasks that scaffold the staff member’s ability to perform targeted functions (Anderson, 1997; Anderson & Burney, 1996). As such, collaborative coaching is an especially powerful technique that enhances staff effectiveness and success and builds the capacity to plan and act on opportunities to implement the newly developed expertise. 5.3.2.2 Implementing CapacityBuilding Using a Continuum of Support Capacitybuilding holds dual status in supporting the change process. It is a specific type of support process with its own characteristics and outcomes. Additionally, capacitybuilding is a process that uses other processes in a continuum of support to strengthen the capacity building work. For example, in one capacitybuilding activity, staff members may collaborate with an experienced teacher to align a complex portion of the curriculum. In another capacity building activity, staff members may be coached by a senior master teacher in designing and using classroom assessment to monitor student progress. Each of the support processes in a continuum of support can be embedded into a capacitybuilding activity to underscore the need to correct or implement a missing step in the teaching or learning process. Generally, change agents who use capacitybuilding will use other support processes when the work is focused on providing or correcting existing information or skills; building missing skills or correct existing skills; developing, refining, or implementing structures and processes; assessing practice; or refining and perfecting practice (Harsh, 2010b). The six focus areas in Table 5.2 are at the core of all capacitybuilding and are critical steps to developing the expertise needed to improve performance. Other support processes can be incorporated to validate the proposed changes and expected improvement outcomes.

Table 5.2 Capacitybuilding continuum of support. Focus of capacity building support

Provide missing information or correct existing information

Type of support process used

Customized training

Build missing skills or correct existing skills

Develop, refine, or implement structures designed to use targeted information and skills

Facilitation Facilitation Consultation Consultation Collaboration Modeling Modeling Mentoring Calibration Calibration Calibration Coaching Coaching Coaching

Develop, refine, or implement processes designed to use targeted information, skills, and structures

Facilitation Consultation Collaboration Modeling Mentoring Calibration Coaching

Assess practice

Refine and perfect practice

Consultation Collaboration Collaboration

Calibration Coaching

Calibration Coaching

To be effective, capacitybuilding activities must engage and involve staff as active participants in the work. Therefore, support processes are selected and used based on their ability to be inclusive and compatible with the content and message being conveyed. Because they have flexible formats, the most frequently used support processes in capacitybuilding are coaching, collaboration, facilitation, and modeling.

5.4 Build Learning Capacity to Increase Learning and Achievement The ability to learn is a singular capacity that is needed at birth and throughout the entire span of adulthood. It is the ability to fill the gap between the knowledge stored from the past and the knowledge required to address current tasks and challenges (Zack, 1999) by rearranging existing knowledge, revising previous knowledge structures, and acquiring new knowledge (DiBella, Nevis, & Gould, 1996; Dixon, 1994; Huber, 1991). When a student or a member of an organization receives new knowledge, they selectively attend to and process the information (Dixon, 1994), demonstrating wide intra and interindividual variability in the amount of change and learning that occurs (Ram, Stollery, Rabbitt, & Nesselroade, 2005). The degree of learning is in part due to a reciprocal process of individual engagement and invitational practices established in the classroom or workplace (Billet, Barker, & HernonTinning, 2002; Johnson, Perez, & Uline, 2013). In the workplace, the rate at which an organization learns is

dependent upon the level of individual learning and is affected by three factors: the proficiency of individual employees, the ability of employees to leverage the knowledge accumulated by others, and the capacity for coordinated activity inside the organization (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Reagans, Argote, & Brooks, 2003). Learning capacity is also a critical component in personal development as the two processes mature simultaneously. Individuals who are capable of reaching full potential are those who can intentionally influence life functioning and life circumstances by selfregulating their behavior, constructing, evaluating, and modifying alternate courses of action, anticipating possible outcomes of the actions considered, and overriding environmental influences (Bandura, 2001, 2006). The four core processes identified by Bandura—intentionality, forethought, selfregulation, and selfreflection—are part of a group of learned behaviors that underpin human potential (Marsh, Craven, & McInerney, 2008). These learned behaviors include selfprocesses of efficacy, resilience, motivation, determination, selfconcept, and selfregulation. They establish a foundation for learning and developing the capacity to achieve a state of success. Ultimately, achievement and superior performance depend on superior learning (Senge, 1992). Whether the process is direct instruction, professional development, mentoring, technical assistance, or capacitybuilding, achievement and performance begin and end with learning. In order for individuals to improve, they must have the capacity to learn.

5.4.1 Individual Learning Capacity Individual learning plays a tremendously important role in the change process. As a result, change agents need to understand how individual learning capacity is developed. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980) is a useful framework for understanding the development of capacity at the individual level. The model has been used to assess and support progress in developing skills and competencies (beginner, competent, proficient, and expert). According to the Dreyfus model, when individuals begin learning a skill, they first master the rules governing the situation and then how and when to apply them. As their level of skill improves, they tend to rely less and less on these rules, and can handle more complex situations. At higher levels of skill development, individuals act through intuition rather than simply applying rules and accepted standards, can perceive patterns in the situations they encounter, and know what actions are appropriate. The development of competence specified in the Dreyfus model establishes a logical progression of capabilities that can be used to build the capacity of individuals involved in change. When the model of skill acquisition is mapped against the levels of use (Hall & Hord, 2005) and the stages of adoption of an innovation (Rogers, 2003), what emerges is a set of characteristics and behavioral indicators that can be used to identify the level of capacity being developed as change unfolds. During improvement initiatives, change agents incrementally guide and scaffold the individual until a level of proficiency and competency is achieved. Capacity is not a stagnant condition; capacity can become outdated as new procedures and changes occur, requiring the individual to once again be supported until the new capacity is developed. In implementing change initiatives, change agents need to monitor the continuing needs of individuals and provide

additional support for or assistance in shaping underdeveloped or outdated skills. If a student or employee is afforded the opportunity to engage in learning activities and the new learning is valued, learning is increased. The amount of learning that occurs is determined by the level of learning capacity acquired. Individuals, groups, and organizations function at one of three orders of learning, each corresponding with a level of learning capacity (Bateson, 1972). The first level of learning capacity is labeled as firstorder learning and refers to doing more of the same within a similar boundary without examining or changing the assumptions that inform the work. Secondorder learning refers to a significant change in thinking and in what is being done. In secondorder learning, assumptions and values are examined. Most formal learning is first order, content focused, and designed to transfer information. Firstorder learning is characterized as doing things better and is focused on efficiency and effectiveness while secondorder learning is concerned with doing better things (Bateson, 1972). Thirdorder learning is characterized as deeper, more reflective, challenging, and often more permanent. In addition to advance levels of learning, students who move from low achievement to grade or ageappropriate performance have to acquire new knowledge and behaviors, abandon old practices in favor of new ones, and integrate the new state into all facets of their life in order to continuously make decisions that will sustain and maintain the new status. Students have to be open to new ways of thinking and responding to opportunities and cultivate personal capabilities that will sustain their efforts. Also, students who increase their level of learning and performance have additional factors that contribute to their success: resilience, individual anchor, efficacy, and academic potential. 5.4.1.1 Resilience Students who achieve in spite of the barriers confronting them are those that are able to “insulate” or “isolate” (Harsh & Mallory, 2013). A student who chooses to insulate creates a physical, mental, or emotional space that serves as a buffer or sanctuary from the challenging surroundings. In order to insulate, the student has to create time and a protective shield that affords the ability to reflect, think, and reconstruct a mental reality to act upon. Other students who choose to isolate create a private or protected space and find a way to leave the environment and seek a place where they can physically and mentally survive and thrive. The insulate or isolate response is one of several types of behaviors that Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) describe. They define resiliency as a process that results in positive adaptation within a context of adversity and risk factors. 5.4.1.2 Individual Anchor Students who break the cycle of low performance report that something or someone provided an anchor that allowed them to exceed a limited vision of what they could be. In some cases, the individual anchor was a member of the family; in other cases, it was a person who had no obligation to the student other than to cultivate an enhanced belief in what they could become. Students also indicated that sometimes an anchor came from deep within themselves. In these cases, students found they had the ability to rethink and reconstruct their experiences and

thereby reorient themselves. 5.4.1.3 Efficacy Efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to do a task or accomplish a goal and is an important factor in attaining and maintaining improved performance and achievement. The efficacy demonstrated in student work is more than a simple belief in one’s self. Students believe they can accomplish a goal because they have already cultivated and applied the skills to other successful endeavors. Efficacy is also defined as the belief that individuals hold about their capability to produce designated levels of performance and to exercise influence over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 2006; Hattie, 2008). Individuals with high selfefficacy approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered while individuals with low selfefficacy view difficult tasks as personal threats (Bandura, 2006). 5.4.1.4 Academic Potential Students who increase their level of performance demonstrate academic potential. Academic potential is the result of student response to opportunity as well as individual student effort to cultivate and master successful learning strategies. The key to acquiring personal competency is developing selfregulated learning skills (Zimmerman, 2008) that include three types of processes: selfdirective, covert, and motivational. Selfdirective processes include planning and goalsetting, selfmonitoring and evaluating, and environmental structuring. Covert processes include imagery and verbal selfinstruction, and motivational processes include efficacy and adaptation of specific feelings. These processes provide feedback that allows an individual to adapt to changes in the environment.

5.4.2 Organizational Learning Capacity Schools within a single district or individual departments or subdivisions within an organization will frequently perform at different levels when implementing a change initiative even though they are exposed to the same learning opportunities. The variability in performance can be explained by determining how far the unit or school has progressed along a learning cycle or stage. Dixon (1994) found that an organization goes through a fivestep cycle when it is engaged in the learning process. Each of the five steps is essential for optimal learning to occur. First, the organization encounters a stimulus that creates the need for new learning; second, staff acquire and interpret new knowledge; and third, the new knowledge is transmitted throughout the organization. Fourth, staff collectively interpret and use the new knowledge; and fifth, members of the organization document the knowledge as part of the organization’s standard operations. When an organization moves through the learning cycle, it demonstrates specific behaviors and attributes that serve as levers to increase the level of organizational learning. The levers—leadership, vision, structure, culture, and resources—are also well documented as attributes of highperforming organizations. Even when learning levers are in place, there are several factors that can affect the transfer of knowledge and level of learning that occurs.

Dibbon (1999) identified four stages of organizational learning. At stage 1, the organization is described as coping and maintaining its traditional approaches even though it needs to undergo significant change. Organizations at this stage exploit and overuse their existing repertoires of knowledge, engage almost entirely in singleloop learning (Argyris, 1976; March, 1996), and resist innovation, preferring instead to maintain the status quo. At stage 2, the organization is characterized as emerging. The organization is active, begins to accept change, and has a core group of people that engages in doubleloop or exploratory thinking (Argyris, 1976; Senge, 1992). At stage 3, the organization is referred to as a developing organization and is consciously striving to improve its learning. A stage 3 organization has developed an expanded repertoire of knowledge, although it has few procedures or structures in place to implement the practices. At stage 4, the organization is known as a learning organization, has fully developed learning systems, and demonstrates a culture of continuous learning. The ability for an organization to undergo development, or learn and institute a new set of behaviors, involves a complex set of changes for which appropriate support and assistance will need to be provided. Change agents must identify the types of capacity needed to do the new work, determine the organization’s current status on each of the capacities, and accurately locate the entry point for organization development and capacitybuilding. 5.4.2.1 Absorptive Capacity Absorptive capacity is a set of routines and processes that an organization can use to acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge and apply it to the work of the organization (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002). To increase its absorptive capacity, an organization must boost its ability to transform, implement, and use external knowledge to enhance its core competencies (Daghfous, 2004). Absorptive capacity is composed of four dimensions: acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation. Potential absorptive capacity, a precursor to absorptive capacity, has two elements: knowledge acquisition and assimilation. Knowledge acquisition is the ability to identify and acquire externally generated knowledge that is critical to system operations. Assimilation is the capability to analyze, process, interpret, and understand information obtained from external sources. Potential absorptive capacity makes the organization receptive to acquiring and assimilating external knowledge (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Zahra & George, 2002). Long gone are the days when change agents could guide school improvement by selecting and using one approach from a menu of interventions. Instead, change agents and leaders need tools and processes that will provide indepth analysis, planning, and implementation of customized support. To improve complex processes such as teaching and learning and successfully navigate the swift waters of change, leaders and change agents need to use both a microscope and a telescope to gain a full perspective on the factors involved in moving from the current context to a higher level of performance. In addition, change agents must use a gyroscope to maintain balance while change is unfolding and a kaleidoscope to identify and monitor the impact and interaction of various factors on the emerging patterns of performance. Ultimately, change agents must use a surgical scope to identify and build the capacities needed

to perform the targeted behaviors.

5.5 A Multidimensional Approach to CapacityBuilding: The MDA5 The effective implementation of targeted change at both the individual and organizational level often requires building the capacity needed to achieve the expected changes. Additionally, both change and capacitybuilding are complex tasks that need to be approached by understanding and addressing the complex and interactive nature of system operations. Because capacity building is complex, change initiatives should be designed around a full understanding of system needs and levels of capacity. In addition, capacitybuilding initiatives need to be planned, monitored, and adjusted to reflect the emerging, adaptive, and changing priorities of the system. Systemic change is especially difficult to implement because all parts of the organization are included in a change initiative, and targeted modifications are comprehensive and instituted at all operational levels. Any change made in one part of the system requires implementing changes in other parts of the system to ensure the various sections and portions of the work are coherent and supportive (Carr 1996; Harsh, 2013; Reigeluth & Garfinkle, 1994). During the change process, all parts of the system react and adapt in response to various modifications imposed by a change initiative. Further, the volume and velocity of demands originating from various points in the environment generate an unprecedented cycle of rapid change. As the complexity of the context increases, the overall complexity of the change process is compounded as well (Dehio, 2007; Dooley, 1997). As a result, any approach to change must consider and address multiple organization and individual elements. Each of the elements and dimensions interacts with other dimensions, requiring that a systems view must be developed and maintained. A multiple dimension approach to capacitybuilding recognizes that organizations are complex and require multifaceted analysis, implementation, and monitoring of the various dimensions involved in the capacitybuilding process (Land et al., 2009). Traditional approaches to capacitybuilding that do not acknowledge the complexities and adaptive nature of the system are insufficient for complex organizational transformation and renewal. Instead, capacity development should be viewed as an emergent property that involves multiple processes and attends to the complex interactions among the components of the system (LaFond & Brown, 2003; Land et al., 2009). Land indicates that external intervention can provide significant support for capacity building if the intervention is based on the right approach—one in which goals are clear to all involved, needs are integrated into the solution, and multiple aspects of capacity are considered when designing and implementing the initiative. While recognizing the need to move from a traditional to a more emergent or incremental capacitybuilding approach, Ballard ( 2005) recommended a transformational change approach for complex issues. In Ballard’s transformational approach, clients as well as facilitators work together through problems and build capacity using a cyclical process of

action, reflection, and adjustment. An additional and equally powerful approach to capacity building—a whole systems approach—underscores the importance of communication, feedback, and collaboration across the entire organization. Using a systems approach, capacitybuilding would involve understanding the structures, processes, and interactions at different organizational levels (Chapman, 2004; Senge, 1992). Regardless of the type of approach utilized, it is clear that capacitybuilding, and change itself, is not linear. Multiple dimensions of capacity and organizational operations need to be taken under consideration to ensure that capacitybuilding initiatives are appropriately matched to the needs of the organization and should be purposefully designed to cause improvement (Barber & Fullan, 2005). A framework that addresses this systems view is the multiple dimension approach to capacitybuilding, MDA 5.

5.5.1 The MDA5 Theoretical Foundation The MDA5 is based on Banathy’s threedimensional model of designing and implementing organizational change (Banathy, 1996). Banathy’s model addresses the critical dimensions that need to be considered when designing and refining systems that must function in a changing world. Banathy’s model is comprehensive in that it incorporates all possible configurations of change initiation, and is inclusive in that it considers designs that change parts of the system, change the whole system, or create a new system. Dimension A of the Banathy model addresses the context of change, whether it is a specific part or component of the system, the system as a whole, or the system as it operates in conjunction with other systems. Banathy’s context dimension correlates with the foundational dimension of capacity types (human, structural, organizational, and material). The types of capacity identify the broad context within the organization where capacitybuilding is needed. Dimension B of the Banathy model addresses the triggers for change that impact the system. The change trigger could be feedback that calls for change within the system, a desire to extend the current boundaries of the system, or the intent to change the entire system. In the multiple dimension approach, the organization’s stage of capacity is analyzed to determine whether capacity needs are at the exploration, emerging, full, or sustainability stage. Additionally, the multiple dimension approach considers the current organizational level of capacity in conjunction with its stage of capacity to determine if the system needs to have information, skills, structures, or processes in order to successfully move through the current stage and onto the next stage of capacity. Dimension C of the Banathy model addresses the organization’s focus of change—whether the organization desires to address a problem, develop a solution, or seek a novel way of operating. The focus of change in the Banathy model is addressed in the capacitybuilding outcomes dimension. In this dimension, the outcomes identify whether the system wants to accomplish a first, second, or thirdorder change. Banathy approaches system design and capacitybuilding as a multidimensional inquiry that yields multiple perspectives on the status of the organization. He believes that since complex

systems have many interacting elements, the use of multiple perspectives is essential to ensuring that judgments, decisions, and design choices are viable for making the desired organizational changes. The multiple dimension approach to capacitybuilding addresses the same need to gain a thorough understanding of the system needs in order to design and implement appropriate capacitybuilding technical assistance. The MDA5 also draws upon the research and work of the concernsbased adoption model (CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 2010, 2015). The authors of the CBAM understand the importance of attending to a deeper level of capacitybuilding. Hall and Hord found that during the change process, individual change develops according to eight levels of use (LoU). Individuals who are undergoing change need assistance and support based on the needs and concerns that are manifested at each level (Hord et al., 1987). The LoU framework identifies what individuals experience when they are going through change and helps technical assistance providers understand how to provide useful and relevant support and intervention to attain the desired goals. The LoU are one of the diagnostic dimensions of the CBAM. Another dimension is stages of concern (SoC), which addresses the feelings and perceptions that people have as they are engaged in developing new capacities. The first group of SoC stages deals with the concerns and needs of the individuals (information and skills) and the second group of stages deals with the management concerns involved in implementing an innovation (structures and processes). CBAM’s SoC identify four levels of capacity building—information, skills, structures, and processes—and provides a useful foundation for multidimensional capacitybuilding that addresses both organizational and individual capacity (Harsh, 2010a). The CBAM model recognizes that individuals need to have information about an innovation or initiative to adequately understand the desired state to be attained as the result of a change initiative. Once sufficient knowledge is gained, individuals need to acquire and use the skills necessary to implement the initiative. At the third level of capacitybuilding, the information and skills need to be integrated into a structure that will incorporate the new knowledge and give individuals a framework to use the new skills. Finally, the individual will need to develop and use new or refined processes that will operationalize the information, skills, and structures that undergird the initiative. These levels are repeated as the individual moves through each stage of capacitybuilding. New information and increasingly sophisticated skills, structures, and processes are required at each of the stages of capacitybuilding. Individuals involved in change have new needs as they move through the various LoU of an innovation and need to acquire an expanded capacity to implement the desired change. They need to have the capacity to understand the innovation (Knowing), the capacity to implement the required steps (Using), and the capacity to act on the information, skills, structures, and processes (Acting) in order for the organization to move through higher levels of use. CBAM’s LoU and SoC inform two of the four MDA5 foundation capacities (see Table 5.3). The LoU identify the progression of behaviors or actions that an individual or group exhibits during the implementation of an innovation. These behaviors describe four phases or stages of capacity that occur during the implementation process. The MDA5 uses these descriptors to

determine the current stage of capacity and to identify the actions needed to build the next stage of capacity. The SoC provide a descriptive set of concerns or issues that an individual or group must resolve to progress through the implementation process. These descriptors illustrate four levels of capacity and are used by the MDA5 to pinpoint the capacity content needed to move to the next level of implementation. Table 5.3 The alignment of the MDA5 foundation capacities and the concernsbased adoption model’s (CBAM) Levels of Use (LoU) and Stage of Concern (SoC). Levels of Use (LoU)

Level 0: Nonuse

Level 1: Orientation

MDA5 Information level of capacity

Level 2: Level 3: Level 4A: Preparation Mechanical Routine use Skills

MDA5 Exploration Emerging stage of capacity Stage of 0: 1: 2: Concern Unconcerned Informational Personal (SoC)

Level 4B: Refinement

Level 5: Integratio

Structures

Processe

Full implementation

Sustainab

3: 4: 5: 6: Management Consequence Collaboration Refocusi

5.5.2 The MDA5 Capacities The MDA5 identifies and builds capacity in five capacity dimensions: foundation, enhanced, proficiency, higher order, and learning (see Figure 5.1). The MDA5 provides a framework for determining the capacity needed to implement the necessary system transformations. The needed capacity is then developed as part of a customized approach or solution to the current challenge. While each capacity can be the focus of a capacitybuilding effort, when used in conjunction with the foundation capacities, it is possible to extend, expand, and enlarge the depth and breadth of the capacities available to conduct the targeted work.

Figure 5.1 The MDA5 capacities. 5.5.2.1 Foundation Capacity Foundation capacity, also called foundation competencies or core capabilities, involves a complex combination of attitudes, resources, strategies, and skills that allow an organization to fulfill its mission and perform effectively (Connolly, 2008; Conroy, Maddox, & Parker, 2006; Dwyer, Piontek, Seager, & Orsburn, 2000; Morgan, 2006; Sarriot, 2002). Foundation capacities allow the system to create value and sustain desired performance levels by applying specific competencies to daily operations. Foundation capacities form an enduring base for

effective organization operations and transcend rapidly changing environments. The elements that compose the MDA5 foundation capacity were specifically selected for capacitybuilding work and were used in the original multidimensional approach (Harsh, 2010a). Over time, the four foundation capacity dimensions have been especially useful in designing and implementing appropriate capacitybuilding initiatives at the school, district, and system level and have clearly identified the type, stage, level, and outcome needed to effectively complete for the targeted initiative. Type of Capacity. Educational change generally involves four types of capacity: human capacity, organizational capacity, structural capacity, and material capacity (Century, 1999). These are foundational types of capacity that define and undergird the layers of specific capacitybuilding. According to Century, human capacity has two parts—intellectual proficiency and will. Developing intellectual capacity involves increasing the knowledge, expertise, and understanding that are needed to implement the targeted change. Will refers to the interest, patience, and persistence required to conduct targeted change. Organizational capacity refers to the interaction, collaboration, and communication among individuals. Structural capacity refers to elements such as policies, procedures, and practices used by individuals. Material capacity refers to the fiscal resources, materials, and equipment needed to implement the targeted change. The four types of capacity are interdependent and growth in one area is dependent upon growth in another. Stage of CapacityBuilding . Stage theory is often used to understand and manage the process of capacitybuilding change. Stage theory takes a developmental approach to change and recognizes and honors the notion that learning and implementing new or refined skills and practices are incremental processes (Hord et al., 2006). Additionally, in most stage theories, the process of change is not linear since elements of the stage can appear or reappear in subsequent stages (Fixsen et al., 2009b). Stages or levels of capacitybuilding implementation parallel many of the stages for implementing change. An analysis of change models shows that four stages of change emerge as superordinate stages that can be applied to the process of capacitybuilding: exploration, emerging implementation, full implementation, and sustainability. Exploration. The exploration stage of capacitybuilding involves creating a readiness for change (Fixsen, Blase, Horner, & Sugai, 2009a). During this stage, the organization identifies the need for change and learns about the innovation (Fixsen et al., 2009a; Hall & Hord, 2005). Individuals within the organization are aware that a problem exists and work with others to determine a course of action (Collerette et al., 2003; Kegan & Lahey, 1984; Levin, 1951). During the exploration stage, the individual or organization identifies the need for change; determines the desired capacity; and identifies the knowledge, skills, structures, and processes that would need to be in place to achieve the desired capacity (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992; Hall &

Hord, 2005). Emerging. The emerging implementation stage of capacitybuilding involves installing needed resources and initially implementing the new skills or practices (Fixsen et al., 2009a). During this stage, personal and management concerns related to the innovation are identified (Hall & Hord, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 1984). During the emerging implementation stage, the individual or organization identifies personnel training needs, outlines specific steps in implementing and using the newly acquired skills, and begins to implement the information and skills as part of the daily operations. Full Implementation. The full implementation stage of capacitybuilding involves integrating new information and skills into a wide range of practices and refining the practices based on evaluation of the changes (Fixsen et al., 2009a; Hall & Hord, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 1984). During this stage, attention is focused on the impact and consequences of implementing the targeted capacity building innovation (Hall & Hord, 2005). Sustainability. The sustainability stage of capacitybuilding involves pervasive and consistent use of the refined skills and practices. The individual or organization demonstrates the capacity and ability to analyze and modify practices for continuous improvement and refinement of the innovation (Fixsen et al., 2009a; Hall & Hord, 2005). During the sustainability stage, individuals collaborate with others (Hall & Hord, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 1984; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992), refocus efforts to continue the desired practices, and explore alternatives to using the innovation. Levels of Capacity. Levels of capacity focus on specific dimensions inherent in capacitybuilding initiatives and attend to the personnel and system needs that must be addressed to successfully accomplish the desired level of capacitybuilding (Hall & Hord, 2005). Regardless of the type of capacity building, individuals and organizations at each stage of the process need to successfully move through each capacity level to ensure full implementation of the initiative. These levels are based on the stages of concern that Hall and Hord identified in the concernsbased adoption model (CBAM). In the CBAM, the first group of stages deals with the concerns and needs of the individuals in the organization (information and skills). The first two levels of capacity building are critical in laying the foundation for implementing change (Hall & Hord, 2005, 2010). The second group of CBAM stages deals with the management concerns involved in implementing an innovation (structures and processes). Outcomes of CapacityBuilding .

One of three types of capacitybuilding change can occur: firstorder change (developmental), secondorder change (transitional), or thirdorder change (transformational) (Ackerman, 1997; Mock & Bartunek, 1987). It is important to understand the nature of the desired change and the context in which the individual or organization functions in order to select an appropriate capacitybuilding outcome and change strategy (Ackerman, 1997). Developmental change, which can be either planned or emergent, is known as first order or incremental change. In firstorder change, the individual or organization focuses on the improvement of a skill or process. Transitional change involves moving the individual or organization from the existing state to a different desired state. Transitional change, known as secondorder change, is planned and episodic. Transformational change, also known as thirdorder change, results in significant differences and requires a shift in culture and beliefs within the individual or organization. The first, second, and third order of change are the result or outcome of the capacitybuilding technical assistance and support provided to the individual or organization. In addition to the observable changes that occur, Mock and Bartunek (1987) state that individuals undergo a change in schemata—the cognitive framework used to understand the change events. In first order change, the individual or organization implements incremental changes that are within the schemata or framework of understanding already in existence. In secondorder change, individuals have to modify the schemata to understand the needed changes, and in thirdorder change, individuals develop an enlarged schemata and capacity to act on the system or the environment as necessary when needs emerge. 5.5.2.2 Enhanced Capacity Enhanced capacity takes foundation capacity to broader levels and includes effectiveness, ambidexterity, and sustainability. Effectiveness. Organizations of all types need larger capacities to effectively respond to emerging and complex challenges, and chief among the capabilities is organization adaptability (Dyer & Shafer, 1998; Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss, 1995; Kaplan, 1999; Maira & ScottMorgan, 1996; Youngblood, 1997). The dual components of effectiveness capacity—continuous system adaptation and improvement and systemwide proficiency in core capacities—are essential for organization success in an emerging and everchanging environment and are the result of three specific abilities: ability to read the environment, quickly and easily make decisions, and mobilize a rapid response (Dyer & Shafer, 1998). Ambidexterity. Ambidexterity gives organizations maximum agility to remain effective in unpredictable and uncharted future contexts and for organizations to gain maximum agility, key organizational infrastructures must be continuously assessed, redesigned, aligned, and implemented (Banathy, 1996; Barney, 1997; Dyer & Shafer, 1998; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). This multistep process of redesigning existing infrastructures is known as selforganization and in

a fully adaptive and ambidextrous organization, all employees learn how to choose and adapt designs, modify infrastructures so resources can be activated when and where they are needed, and operate separate structures for different types of activities (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004; Greenwood & Hinings, 1998). Sustainability. Organizations with the capacity for sustainability use adaptability and ambidexterity to implement effective practices and maintain high performance by effectively adjusting key structures and operations around the strategies that attain the desired outcomes (Dyer & Shafer, 1998). Sustainability capacity gives organizations a competitive advantage in acquiring resources, decreases the risk of a performance downturn, and increases the likelihood of a positive performance trajectory. Organizations with enhanced capacity have the ability to cultivate and continuously renew competencies in decisionmaking and in diagnosing, designing, and instituting change (Barney, 1997; Dyer & Shafer, 1998; Wright et al., 1994).

5.5.3 HigherOrder Capacity Higherorder capacity moves the individual, group, or organization to higher levels of functioning. Higherorder capacities are conceptual capacities and have the same characteristics as those identified for higherorder cognition (Gardner, as cited in Brandt, 1993): the ability to handle situations that are nonalgorithmic (solutions are not specified in advance); complex (may have multiple solutions and require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation); effortful (require energy and focused attention); and require the application of multiple criteria, some of which may be conflicting criteria and new theories of action. The higherorder cognition characteristics and conceptual qualities support the MDA 5 elements of higherorder capacity: forecasting and solution finding, innovation, and metacapacity. Innovation. Innovation capacity is one of a larger set of capacities that build the capability of an organization to achieve goals, define problems, and formulate solutions (Fullan, 2006; Lusthaus et al., 1999; Maiese, 2005). Innovation capacity gives an organization or group the ability to innovate and use the capabilities of employees to recognize, assimilate, and apply innovation stimuli (Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006; Smith, Courvisanos, McEachern, & Tuck, 2001). This capacity also encourages employees’ use of the information, skills, motivation, structures, processes, and attitudes necessary to implement innovations (Flaspohler, Duffy, Wandersman, Stillman, & Maras, 2008; Wandersman et al., 2006). Forecasting and Solution Finding. Forecasting and solution finding are capacities that foster selfunderstanding and place an organization in a position to shape and guide the impact of upcoming events. Forecasting, the most progressive of the twin capacities, is conducted by maintaining longitudinal data on lagging indicators, regularly analyzing leading indicators of organization performance, and

monitoring upcoming trends and regulatory concerns that would lead to statutory, policy, or programmatic change (De Geus, 1997; Rohrbeck, 2010; Wheatley, 1999). Solution finding requires understanding the current status of the system in key performance areas, analyzing the trajectories leading to recent performance, and using the data to find the right solution to a given problem (de Bono, 1992). Metacapacity . Metacapacity, the capacity to build capacity, is one of the most advanced of the higher order capacities and involves two types of metacapacity. The first type refers to the ability to determine the types of capacity and knowledge for a given task (Clark, 2004) and, at the highest level, to gain wisdom through experience and increased knowledge of a content area (Cleveland, 1982). The second type of metacapacity is the ability to build the capacity of others and requires a level of indepth knowledge that can only be acquired through authentic application of the content. It also involves knowledge of process.

5.5.4 Learning Capacity The MDA5 learning capacities, like other MDA5 capacities, can be used in multiple contexts. The elements of organization learning capacity are especially useful in supporting change and improved performance (Crandall, Klein, & Hoffman, 2006; Feigenbaum, 1991; Lakhani & Tushman, 2012; Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; O’Mahony & Lakhani, 2011; Prieto & Gutiérrez, 2003; Tucker, Edmondson & Spear, 2002). Task Analysis. Task analysis, also known as task decomposition, is the ability to break a task into discrete elements that can be reordered, redesigned, or reconfigured to attain a better or different result (Crandall et al., 2006; Lakhani & Tushman, 2012; O’Mahony & Lakhani, 2011). The ability to perform an indepth task analysis is an essential precursor to designing and implementing complex tasks and is an invaluable skill for teachers who design learning segments for students, for administrators who engage in professional development with staff, and for leaders who wish to transform the work of an organization. While several methods can be used to conduct task analysis, the core process involves identifying the individual elements of a task, sequencing and charting each element, and analyzing the characteristics and requirements of each individual element. The elements are then grouped according to type of process or skill and the connections or dependencies between elements are identified and used to improve the work flow and end result. One method of task analysis, task decomposition, is used to break down complex tasks into subtasks and operations to gain an understanding of the overall structure of the tasks. Task decomposition is conducted using the following steps: identify the task to be analyzed; break the task down into four to eight subtasks; chart the subtasks; and create a task flow diagram showing the specific details of current work processes and highlighting areas where task processes are poorly understood, are carried out differently by different staff, or are

inconsistent with the higherlevel task structure (Crandall et al., 2006). Metaroutine. A metaroutine is a standardized problemsolving procedure used to improve existing routines or create new ones (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999) and has three elements: communication, shared investigation, and experimentation (Tucker & Edmondson, 2003). Most organizations, when faced with a problem, use shortterm measures to tide over the immediate crisis. A second step, called secondorder problem solving, is needed to investigate the process critically and find and remove the root cause to prevent a recurrence (Hayes, Wheelwright, & Clark, 1988); however, organizations rarely use the second step (Feigenbaum, 1991; Tucker & Edmondson, 2003; Tucker et al., 2002). Organizations with metaroutine capacity use secondorder problem solving to produce sustainable change and continuous improvement (Ghosh & Sobek, 2004). The metaroutine prompts staff members to validate their current contextual knowledge in a tangible way, brings individuals affected by the problem or proposed change together to validate their collective knowledge, and creates new common knowledge and consensus on a course of action. Macrostructures. Complex learning activities, such as capacitybuilding, require the person involved to understand, organize, and retain a large amount of new information. To facilitate the learning process during capacitybuilding, it is helpful for technical assistance providers to understand how knowledge is organized and understood so that appropriate support can be given to ensure that concepts and skills are accurately and fully developed as the change initiative is implemented. When individuals participate in learning activities, such as those involved in capacity building initiatives, they comprehend, organize, and remember the information by synthesizing what they read, see, and hear into a cognitive framework that Van Dijk (1990) calls a “macrostructure.” The macrostructure, or synthesized version of what a person learns, is formed from the development of two types of propositions: microproposition and macroproposition (Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Single ideas are stored as micropropositions, each idea representing a description of something and its properties. A macroproposition is the main idea that summarizes and synthesizes the detailed micropropositions. Each macrostructure contains multiple micropropositions of individual ideas, descriptions, and properties and a macroproposition that contains the main idea or synthesis of the detailed micropropositions. Once it is formed, a macrostructure is used to understand additional information, complete tasks, and answer questions or explain the concept to others (Harsh & Kincaid, 2007; Kintsch, 1987). The macrostructure that individuals develop during capacity building needs to be accurate, comprehensive, and sufficiently detailed in order for the individuals who are implementing the targeted change to build a foundation of knowledge and successfully apply the knowledge to the tasks involved in the change initiative. Metaskills.

Metaskill capacity is the ability to use overarching skills to learn other skills and includes the ability to take any skill and break it down to analyze and figure out exactly how it works (Muukkonen & Lakkala, 2009; Nurius, 1996; Saunders, Batson, & Saunders, 2000; Skills and Metaskills, 2009). Metaskill analysis provides the information needed to learn and master any other skill. For different skills, it requires a different mastery of skills analysis to break them down (Skills and Metaskills, 2009). One way to train a metaskill is to figure out the spectrum below it, and start low on the spectrum and work your way up. Skill training involves an active process of performing a skill over and over. Gradually, the subconscious takes over, allowing the individual to perform the skill with less and less conscious attention. Eventually, the subconscious completely takes over the performance of the skill, finding ways to optimize and improve the skill, going from an expert to a master. Training a metaskill is the same process except the individual has to consciously seek out new things to learn. Mastering a metaskill gives the individual more referential material from which to draw patterns and analogies. Individuals with metaskill capacity can acquire new regular skills more easily, make better use of the regular skills already in place, and proactively engage in a continuous cycle of skill development and new learning.

5.5.5 Proficiency Capacity Proficiency capacity is composed of areas of expertise and competence that allow an organization, group, or individual to do something well when compared to the performance of other persons or organizations. The capacity is acquired through training and experience and is manifested in several areas: the capability to commit and engage, the capability to carry out technical tasks, the capability to relate and to attract resources and support, and the capability to adapt and selfrenew (Banerjee, 2006; Kaplan, 1999; Ulrich & Smallwood, 2004). The capabilities are clustered around competencies that proficient individuals bring to the workplace and use to complete assigned tasks (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980): 1. Meaning competency: the ability to identify with the purpose of the organization and act from the preferred future in accordance with the values of the organization. 2. Relation competency: the ability to create and nurture connections to the stakeholders of the primary tasks. 3. Learning competency: the ability to create and look for solutions that make it possible to complete the primary tasks and reflect on the experience. 4. Change competency: the ability to act in new ways when it will promote the purpose of the organization or community and make the preferred future come to life. The abilities and competencies are manifested in advanced workplace behaviors such as consistent excellence in task completion, content expertise, summary and synthesis of complex information, and coaching others (National Institute of Health, 2009). The competencies, abilities, and advanced workplace behaviors are the capacity elements used in the multidimensional approach to capacitybuilding discussed later in this chapter.

5.5.5.1 Elements of Proficiency Capacity Individual response to each of these stages and levels shapes the capability of the person to embrace and implement the desired change and builds a foundation for the development of three abilities that are essential to the change process and the attainment of proficiency: intracognitive, holonomous, and agentic capacity. Intracognitive Ability: Knowing. Individuals with intracognitive ability have a welldeveloped internal base of knowledge that can be drawn upon to successfully implement a change initiative. By contrast, intercognitive ability is a much narrower capability and requires the individual to continually draw upon and utilize external knowledge and assistance from others to complete assigned tasks. Building the capacity to implement and sustain a change initiative requires the expansion of individual expertise and the development of intracognitive ability. Intracognitive ability can be guided by numerous perspectives, but two specific approaches are especially useful in attaining a level of proficiency. The zone of proximal development and the continuum of understanding provide an understanding of cognitive development that can inform successful capacitybuilding endeavors. Zone of Proximal Development. All learners, including adults, go through a developmental process in acquiring information and mastering new skills, and the area where new learning occurs, including capacity building, is in a zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Vygotsky described the zone as the gap between where the individual is currently operating and the individual’s potential for development. He further noted that the zone is defined according to the individual’s ability to do independent problem solving and the accompanying degree of support and guidance needed by a more capable person. In one example, the zone is an area where the individual cannot solve the problem alone but can successfully solve it under the guidance of or in collaboration with another person. It is in this zone where learning and capacitybuilding occur and individuals can be supported and guided in developing and using new skills (Marsh & Ketterer, 2005). The Continuum of Understanding. The continuum of understanding provides insight into the factors that are present when an individual “understands” a concept or idea. The ability to use appropriate knowledge for a given task is dependent upon the level of understanding that the person has about the specific topic (Clark, 2004). The more an individual understands the subject matter, the more the person is able to go beyond past experiences or context into new knowledge by absorbing, doing, interacting, and reflecting on the topic. Cleveland (1982) explains that understanding is actually a range of knowledge—one that Cleveland calls a continuum of understanding. Cleveland’s conception of understanding includes four distinct levels of knowledge ranging from data and information to knowledge and finally to wisdom. Cleveland explains that understanding data comes from research, gathering, and discovery. Data are turned into

information by being organized so the individual can draw conclusions, and while information is static, knowledge is dynamic and requires the use of information. Intracognitive capacity would occur at the knowledge level, at the intersection of understanding by doing and forming whole concepts. At the highest level of the continuum, wisdom is the ultimate result of experience and understanding. In fully developed proficiency, knowing and understanding undergird a third layer of cognition where the capacity for integrative thinking is formed. Integrative thinking capacity is defined as analyzing and synthesizing two opposing ideas and forming a third solution or idea that resolves the tension produced by opposing ideas, uses elements from both ideas, and offers an idea or solution that is superior to either of the original ones (Martin, 2007; Martin & Austen, 1999). Integrative thinking capacity gives an individual the ability to prioritize the elements of a complex situation, customize existing models and processes, and manage the myriad details of largescale change. To develop the intracognitive ability needed for proficiency, the individuals engaged in capacitybuilding would participate in tasks and activities designed around one of the approaches. Working with a collegial coach, the participants would construct a continuum around the targeted instructional strategies, create opportunities to implement each portion of the continuum, and identify the gaps where modeling and mentoring should occur. 5.5.5.2 Holonomous Ability: Using Individuals who are holonomous have the ability to work both independently and interdependently, apply appropriate dispositions and strategies to solve problems, and to use knowledge and resources to implement required tasks. Three particular dimensions of this capacity are especially useful in building proficiency capacity: states of mind, knowing–doing gap, and the change competencies gap. States of Mind. Persons who are holonomous have five active states of mind: consciousness, efficacy, flexibility, craftsmanship, and interdependence (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The five states of mind help an individual to set goals and become selfdirecting, selfmonitoring, self analyzing, selfevaluating, and selfmodifying. Additionally, the five states of mind can be used to determine how an individual is transforming in response to an organization change effort. States of mind influence human perception and shape thinking and, ultimately, the level of performance. The first state of mind, efficacy, allows a person to be resourceful, devote energy to challenging tasks, set challenging goals, and persevere when confronted with roadblocks or barriers. The second state of mind, flexibility, is critical to the work involved in organization change as individuals need to change, adapt, and expand their thinking and behavior to meet the demands of a changed system. The third state of mind, craftsmanship, is a set of capabilities that allow the person to assess his or her own performance, strive for continuous improvement, and use a repertoire of skills to complete tasks. The fourth state of mind, consciousness, is the awareness and appreciation of his or her own thoughts and opinions and how they differ from the viewpoints of others. Interdependence, the fifth state of mind, helps individuals place value on collective work and its contribution to a common goal.

The states of mind can be mediated through cognitive coaching to enable a person to embrace and contribute to the change initiatives implemented by the system. Knowing–Doing Gap. Pfeffer and Sutton (1999) also emphasize the importance of having the capacity to use and apply knowledge and skill in completing specific tasks. Even though the states of mind may be developed and activated and the person knows and understands what to do, a breakdown can occur in what is actually implemented in a given situation. Pfeffer and Sutton calls this a knowing–doing gap and indicate that this can occur when a person knows what needs to be done and thinks that the right structures and processes are in place, but has not implemented the expected changes. A number of factors contribute to this gap, factors called pseudoaction deceptions. The deceptions include thinking that knowing is sufficient for success; thinking that talking is action; thinking that measuring things is action or contributes to performance; thinking that making a decision is the same as taking action; and thinking that planning is the same as action. The gap can also occur when a task or initiative is complex and there is a lack of clarity about what specifically needs to be done. Additionally, the gap can occur when an individual is reluctant to take action, worrying that mistakes will be made or new procedures are unpredictable and as a result, falls back on precedence and procedures that have been used in the past. Change Competencies Gap. Angehrn (2005) examined the work of Pfeffer and Sutton and wrote that the vast majority of change projects fail to achieve the targeted performance improvement or to adopt and integrate the new operating system. Angehrn calls this situation a change competencies gap and explained how the gap links to the phases of adoption of a change initiative. While a group may know what to do and can develop a plan to accomplish change, individuals within the organization often do not have the competency to actually do the implementation. Collectively, the group may have ample knowledge on how to address change initiatives but the individuals involved in the change process do not have the capability to successfully translate knowledge into practice. Successful change management requires an indepth understanding of the dynamics of both diffusion and resistance of innovation, as well as practical experience necessary to effectively identify, diagnose, and design interventions that will successfully implement a change initiative. A change competencies gap can interfere with the critical development of intracognitive functioning. Although the competencies needed to implement change are acquired through experience, targeted training, specifically through simulations, can be conducted to ensure that individuals thoroughly attain the capabilities required for successful implementation of a change initiative. 5.5.5.3 Agentic Capacity: Acting Individuals who have agentic capacity are those who are proactive and intentionally make things happen through their own actions (Bandura, 2001). Agentic persons do not just react to external pressures but have the capacity to consciously act on their environment, make

reasoned choices, conceive unique events and different courses of action, and choose to execute one of them. Agentic persons also have selfregulatory capabilities and take responsibility for their actions and choices. Bandura indicates that there are core features of personal agency that enable people to develop the capacity for action: intentionality and forethought, selfregulation by selfreactive influence, and selfreflectiveness about their own capabilities. Intentionality and Forethought. The first core feature is intentionality. Intention is a representation of a future course of action to be performed. It is not simply an expectation or prediction of future actions, but a proactive commitment to bringing them about. When individuals intentionally make and implement plans, the differing outcomes are not the characteristics of agentive acts, they are the consequences of them, and as a result, actions intended to serve a certain purpose can cause quite different things to happen. In organization change efforts, it is important for individual agentic capacitybuilding to cultivate commitment to a shared intention and coordination of interdependent plans of action that are focused on common goals and intentions. Otherwise, the actions and changes that are occurring beneath the surface of an initiative can impact and change the observable work that is being conducted. Another feature of agency is forethought. Individuals set goals for themselves, anticipate the likely consequences of prospective action, and select and create courses of action likely to produce desired outcomes and avoid detrimental ones (Bandura, 2006). Forethought motivates and guides the individual to anticipate future events; however, since future events can only be represented cognitively in the present, events are converted into current motivators and regulators of behavior that are directed by projected goals and anticipated outcomes, allowing the individual to shape and regulate the present to fit a desired future. SelfRegulation . The second core feature of personal agency is selfreactiveness. An agentic person uses planning and forethought, and is a motivator and selfregulator. Agency involves not only the deliberative ability to make choices and plans, but also the ability to shape appropriate courses of action and to motivate and regulate their execution. Agentic persons monitor their own pattern of behavior and compare their performance with personal goals and standards. They create selfincentives to sustain their efforts for goal attainment, engage in activities that give them selfsatisfaction and a sense of pride and selfworth, and refrain from behaving in ways that give rise to selfdissatisfaction, selfdevaluation, and selfcensure. SelfReflectiveness . The third core feature of personal agency is selfreflectiveness. Individuals are not only agents of action, but selfexaminers of their own functioning. They have metacognitive capability to reflect upon the adequacy of their thoughts and actions and to judge the correctness of their thinking against the outcomes of their actions. In addition to personal agency, agentic persons use two additional modes of agency to influence events: proxy agency

that relies on others to act on one’s behalf to attain desired outcomes, and collective agency exercised through social coordination and interdependent efforts. There are many circumstances in which individuals do not have direct control over social conditions and institutional practices, and as a result, individuals have to attain their desired aims through proxy agency. In proxy agency, individuals try to get those who have access to resources or expertise, or who have influence and power, to act on their behalf. The third mode of agency is collective agency—a condition that surfaces when things are achievable only through socially interdependent effort. Collective proxy requires individuals to work in coordination with others to secure what they cannot attain on their own. Collective proxy is dependent upon the shared intentions, knowledge, and skills of its members as well as the interactive dynamics of their transactions. One dimension of agentic capacity is the agentic management of fortuity. While agentic persons exercise some measure of control over their circumstances, individuals still encounter events that are unintended and occur as a separate chain of events. The power of most fortuitous events is in the influences they set in motion and the opportunities that they present for additional action. Agentic capacity allows the individual to not only create and act upon predictable circumstances, but to recognize, evaluate, and act on fortuitous opportunities as they occur. To improve teaching, educators and classroom teachers need the capacity to function at a level of proficiency. At this level, teachers have the requisite knowledge and skill to perform all facets of the position and to refine the practices used to conduct the work. Proficient teachers know how to manage the instructional process to attain greater results (intracognitive), use and apply targeted strategies (holonomous), and create opportunities to implement change (agentic). Capacitybuilding involves attaining expertise in all three areas and forming a foundation for achieving proficiency.

5.6 Next Steps: CapacityBuilding Schools and Districts Capacitybuilding schools and districts are qualitatively different in many ways. They focus on building the capacity of staff to become highly proficient teachers and ensure that students have the knowledge and skills they need to master the curriculum. Capacitybuilding schools and districts engage in continuous improvement and embed selfmonitoring and self correcting strategies into daily operations. Districts and schools that understand and utilize capacitybuilding are especially strong in two areas: planning for and implementing change.

5.6.1 Planning for Change Capacitybuilding districts and schools operate in a state of readiness for change. They cultivate an appreciation for refined instructional processes and implement structures that will allow for rapid formation of guidance teams and deployment of a wide range of support services. Districts identify and train administrators on how to prepare, implement, and monitor effective improvement plans and regularly conduct assessments with improvement teams to

gauge progress in meeting performance targets. District staff conduct customized training and coaching for schools and groups of staff who struggle with implementing new content standards, course curricula, or instructional methods. Highly skilled school staff serve as coaches and mentors to colleagues who need assistance and administrators offer job embedded training throughout the school year.

5.6.2 Implementing Change Capacitybuilding districts collaborate with local, regional, and state agencies to ensure that all schools have sufficient resources to operate the instructional program. District administrators are trained in capacitybuilding and use an evidencebased model or approach when guiding schools in improving performance. The district allocates budget funds to schools based on need, consults with school staff on funding, and provides oversight of expenditures for planned improvement initiatives. District staff establish recognition programs for schools that attain targeted improvements, provide guidance on selecting improvement initiatives, and conduct consultation sessions with school teams who undertake multiple change endeavors. Capacitybuilding schools establish and use content expertise teams to model and assist teachers and collaborate with other schools to conduct a professional learning laboratory. All teachers develop a professional portfolio and periodically conduct a review and planning session with an assigned coach to create and update a customized professional development plan that will continue to build and expand capacity.

5.6.3 Building Capacity for Effective Change and Improved Performance When an education organization such as a district or school underperforms or does not meet its performance targets, staff develop an action plan that specifies the innovations and strategies to be implemented to achieve the desired level of performance. The strategies and activities require the school or district to undergo changes to the core processes of teaching and learning. The changes are complex and staff members and schools with the same training and learning experiences will vary in their ability to understand, assimilate, and apply the knowledge and skills gained. The variations in performance across staff or an organization are due to differing levels of capacity to implement change. Change agents and support providers should include capacitybuilding as one of the processes in a continuum of support for implementing change. Providers can use tools such as data analysis and analyze performance patterns to determine when capacitybuilding is needed. At both the individual and organizational level, the effective implementation of targeted change often requires building the capacity needed to achieve the expected changes. Because capacitybuilding is complex, change initiatives should be designed around a full understanding of system needs and levels of capacity, and capacitybuilding initiatives need to be planned, monitored, and adjusted to reflect the emerging and adaptive priorities of the system. The multiple dimension approach to capacitybuilding (MDA

5) identifies and builds capacity

in five capacity dimensions: foundation, enhanced, proficiency, higher order, and learning. The MDA5 provides a framework for determining the capacity needed to implement necessary transformations and builds the capacity to successfully implement complex initiatives. The analysis of capacities along multiple dimensions gives change agents a full understanding of the capabilities and conditions that foster desired change and improved performance.

References Ackerman, L. (1997). Development, transition or transformation: The question of change in organizations. In D. Van Eynde, J. Hoy, & D. Van Eynde (Eds.), Organisation development classics. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(1), 1–25. Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2007). Systemic change for school improvement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(1), 1–25. Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68. Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York, NY: Basic Books. Anderson, H., & Burney, P. (1996). Collaborative inquiry: A postmodern approach to organizational consultation. Human systems. Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 7(2–3), 171–188. Angehrn, A. (2005). Learning to manage innovation and change through organizational and people dynamics simulations. Proceedings of the International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference (ISAGA 05), Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.calt.insead.edu/Publication/conference/2005isagalearningtomanage innovation.pdf Argyris, C. (1976). Singleloop and doubleloop models in research on decisionmaking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363–375. Ballard, D. (2005). Using learning processes to promote change for sustainable development. Action Research, 3(2), 135–136. Banathy, B. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Association for Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. Banerjee, N. (2006, July). A note on capabilities that contribute to the success of non governmental organisations. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 57P). Maastricht, The Netherlands: European Centre for Development Policy Management. Barber, M., & Fullan, M. (2005). Trilevel development: It’s the system. Education Week, 24(25), 34–35. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/03/02/25fullan.h24.html Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Biech, E. (2007). Thriving through change: A leader’s practical guide to change mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Billett, S., Barker, M., & HernonTinning, B. (2002). Coparticipatory practices at work . Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies of Education, University of Toronto. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55. Retrieved from http://www.aib.wiso.tuuenchen.de/neu/eng/lehre/Pennings/Ambidexterity.pdf Brandt, R. (1993). On teaching for understanding: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 445–468. Bridges, W. (1998). Leading organizational transitions. Retrieved from www.wmbridges.com Brinkerhoff, D., & Morgan, P. (2010). Capacity and capacity development: Coping with complexity. Public Administration Development, 30, 2–10. Bruch, H., Gerber, P., & Maier, V. (2005). Strategic change decisions: Doing the right change right. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 97–107. Carr, A. A. (1996). Distinguishing systemic from systematic. TechTrends, 41(1), 16–20. Century, J. (1999, April). Determining capacity within systemic educational reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Chapman, J. (2004). System failure (2nd ed.). London, UK: Demos. Clark, D. (2004). Understanding. Retrieved from http://nwlink.com/~donclark/performance/understanding.html

Cleveland, H. (1982, December). Information as a resource. The Futurist, 34–39. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. Collerette, P., Schneider, R., & Legris, P. (2003, January/February). Managing organizational change—Part 4: Adapting to change. ISO Management Systems, 59–67. Connolly, P. (2008). The four core capacities model. TCC Group. Healthcare Georgia Foundation. Conroy, K., Maddox, M., & Parker, L. (2006). Enhanced customer experience: A benchmark study. Cisco Systems, Inc. Retrieved from http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2006/eKits/benchmark_study_080106.pdf Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon. Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Daghfous, A. (2004). Organizational learning, knowledge and technology transfer: A case study. The Learning Organization, 11(1), 67–83. de Bono, E. (1992). Serious creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. New York, NY: HarperBusiness. De Geus, A. (1997). The living company. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dehio, C. (2007). A systemic approach to organizational change: The Lufthansa Systems Solution. Velocity (Strategic Account Management Association), 12(4). Dibbon, D. (1999). Assessing the learning capacity of schools. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education, University of Toronto. DiBella, A., Nevis, E., & Gould, J. (1996). Understanding organizational learning capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 361–379. Dixon, N. (1994). The organizational learning cycle. London, UK: McGrawHill. Dooley, K. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(1), 69–97. Dreyfus, S., & Dreyfus, H. (1980). A fivestage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Washington, DC: Storming Media. Retrieved from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc? AD=ADA084551&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Dwyer, C., Piontek, M., Seager, A., & Orsburn, C. (2000). What it takes: 10 capacities for

initiating and sustaining school improvement at the elementary level. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ten_cap/10_Capacities.pdf Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. (1998). From human resource strategy to organizational effectiveness: Lessons from research on agile organizations. In P. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau, & G. Milkovich (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Suppl. 4: Strategic Human Resource Management in the 21st Century). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Feigenbaum, A. (1991). Total quality control. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2009a, February). Intensive technical assistance (Scalingup Brief No. 2). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute, State Implementation and Scalingup of Evidence based Practices. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2009b, February). Readiness for change (Scalingup Brief No. 3). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute, State Implementation and Scalingup of Evidencebased Practices. Flaspohler, P., Duffy, J., Wandersman, A., Stillman, L., & Maras, M. (2008, February). Unpacking prevention capacity: An intersection of researchtopractice models and communitycentered models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 182–196. Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 745–752. Ghosh, M., & Sobek, D. (2004). Effective metaroutines for organizational problem solving. Bozeman, MT: Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, Montana State University. Gilbert, C., & Bower, J. (2002, May). Disruptive change: When trying harder is part of the problem. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 94–101. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2967.html 1/26/2010 Gill, P., & Griffith, A. (2004). Examining a model of evolutionary educational systemic change within existing societal systems. World Futures, 60(3), 241–252. Goldman, S., Nagel, R., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1998). Organizational design types, tracks, and the dynamics of

strategic change. Organization Studies, 8(9), 293–316. Hagel, J., Brown, J., & Davison, L. (2009, July–August). The big shift. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/hbrmain/resources/pdfs/comm/fmglobal/thebig shiftmeasuringforcesof change.pdf Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2005). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2010). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harsh, S. (2010a, April). Gaining perspective on a complex task: A multidimensional approach to capacity building. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center at Edvantia. Harsh, S. (2010b, October). Results by design: The technical assistance continuum. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center at Edvantia. Harsh, S. (2013, July). Building capacity for systemic change. Fairfax, VA: ICF International. Harsh, S., & Kincaid, E. (2007). Global education strategies: Developing macrostructures for understanding complex information. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(2), 15–19. Harsh, S., & Mallory, M. (2013). The future of education: Building capacity for success. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(1), 16–25. Hattie, J. (2008). Processes of integrating, developing, and processing self information. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Selfprocesses, learning, and enabling human potential: Dynamic new approaches (pp. 51–86). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hayes, R., Wheelwright, S., & Clark, S. (1988). Dynamic manufacturing: Creating the learning organization. New York, NY: Free Press. Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005, June). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121–151. Hord, S., Rutherford, W., HulingAustin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling, L., & Hall, G. (2006). Taking charge of change. Austin, TX:

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Horton, D. (2002). Capacity development in planning, monitoring, and evaluation: Results of an evaluation (Briefing Paper No. 51). The Hague, The Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning, the contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science, 2(1), 88–115. Johnson, J., Perez, L., & Uline, C. (2013). Teaching practices from America’s best urban schools: A guide for school and classroom leaders. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Kaplan, H. B. (1999). Toward an understanding of resilience: A critical review of definitions and models. In M. D. Glantz & J. R. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (1984). Adult leadership and adult development: A constructivist view. In B. Kellerman (Ed.), Handbook on socialization theory and research (pp. 199–229). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Kintsch, W. (1987). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kotter, J. (1995, April). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. LaFond, A., & Brown, L. (2003). A guide to monitoring and evaluation of capacitybuilding interventions in the health sector in developing countries (MEASURE Evaluation Manual Series, No. 7). Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Lakhani, K., & Tushman, M. (2012). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: The impact of task decomposition and knowledge distribution on the locus of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 90(5). Land, T., Hauck, V., & Baser, H. (2009). Capacity change and performance: Capacity development: Between planned interventions and emergent processes. Implications for development cooperation (Policy Management Brief No. 22). Maastricht, The Netherlands: European Centre for Development Policy Management. Retrieved from www.ecdpm.org/pmb22 Lane, P., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477. Levin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper. LewisPalmer, T., Sugai, G., & Larson, S. (1999). Using data to guide decisions about program implementation and effectiveness: An overview and applied example. Effective

School Practices, 17(4), 47–53. Light, P., & Hubbard, E. (2004). The capacity building challenge part 1: A research perspective. Retrieved from http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/practicematters_07_paper.pdf Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M., & Perstinger, M. (1999). Capacity development: Definitions, issues, and implications for planning, monitoring, and evaluation (Universalia Occasional Paper No. 35). Retrieved from http://www.universalia.com/files/occas35.pdf Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. Maiese, M. (2005, August). Capacity building: Beyond intractability. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Conflict research consortium. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/capacity_building/ Maira, A., & ScottMorgan, P. (1996). The accelerating organization. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Mansfield, J. (2010). The nature of change or the law of unintended consequences. London, UK: Imperial College Press. March, J. (1996). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. G. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 101–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marsh, G., & Ketterer, J. (2005, Summer). Situating the zone of proximal development. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(2). Marsh, H., Craven, R., & McInerney, D. (Eds.). (2008). Selfprocesses, learning, and enabling human potential: Dynamic new approaches. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Martin, R., & Austen, H. (1999). The art of integrative thinking. Rotman Management, 12(17), 4–9. Mock, M., & Bartunek, J. (1987). Firstorder, secondorder, and thirdorder change and organizational development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483–500. Morgan, P. (2006). Study on capacity change and management: The concept of capacity. Maastricht, Netherlands: European Center for Development Policy Management. Muukkonen, H., & Lakkala, L. (2009). Exploring metaskills of knowledgecreating inquiry in higher education. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning , 4(2), 187–211.

National Institute of Health (NIH). (2009). NIH proficiency scale. Bethesda, MD: Author. Nikolaou, I., Gouras, A., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2007). Selecting change agents: Exploring traits and skills in a simulated environment. Journal of Change Management, 7, 291–313. Nurius, P. (1996). Critical thinking: A meta skill for integrating practice and information. Journal of Technology and Human Services, 12(1/2), 109–126. Olson, E., & Eoyang, G. (2001). Facilitating organizational change: Lessons from complexity science. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass/Pfeiffer. O’Mahony, S., & Lakhani, K. (2011). Organizations in the shadow of communities. In C. Marquis, M. Lounsbury, & R. Greenwood (Eds.), Communities and organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 33). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.

Pennington, G. (2003). Guidelines for promoting and facilitating change. LSTN Generic Centre. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/database/id296_Promoting_and_facili Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). The knowing–doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Prajogo, D., & Ahmed, P. (2006). Innovation stimulus and innovation capacity: Integrating the human and technological sides of innovation management—An Australian study. R&D Management, 36(5), 499–515. Prieto, I., & Gutiérrez, E. (2003, June). How learning capacity influences organizational performance: An empirical evidence. Presented at the 5th International Conference on Organizational Learning and Knowledge at University of Valladolid, Spain. Prochaska, J., & DiClemente, C. (1992). Stages of change and the modification of problem behaviours. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification. Sandhurst, UK: Sycamore Press. Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C. (1994). Changing for good. New York, NY: Avon Books. Protheroe, N. (2001). Improving teaching and learning with databased decisions: Asking the right questions and acting on the answers. CTS Spectrum, 19(3), 4–9. Ram, N., Stollery, B., Rabbitt, P., & Nesselroade, J. (2005). Cognitive performance inconsistency: Intraindividual change and variability. Psychology and Aging, 20(4), 623–633. Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2003). Individual experience and experience working

together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Pittsburgh, PA: Center for Organizational Learning and Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University. Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rohrbeck, R. (2010). Corporate foresight: Towards a maturity model for the future orientation of a firm. New York, NY: Springer. Sarriot, E. (2002). The Child Survival Sustainability Assessment (CSSA), for shared sustainability evaluation methodology in child survival interventions. Maryland: CORE – CSTS. Saunders, N., Batson, T., & Saunders, G. (2000, April 24–28). The impact of instructional strategies on the development of metaskills in the adult learner . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Senge, P. (1992). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. (1997). Communities of leaders and learners. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 30– 31. Skills and Metaskills. (January 3, 2009). Retrieved from http://www.xamuel.com/metaskills/ Smith, A., Courvisanos, J., McEachern, S., & Tuck, J. (2001). Building innovation capacity: The role of human capital formation in enterprises—A review of the literature (NCVER Occasional Paper Series). Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Stacey, R. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Pittman. Telzrow, C., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2000). Fidelity of problemsolving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443– 461. Tucker, A., & Edmondson, A. (2003). Why hospitals don’t learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55–72. Tucker, A., Edmondson, A., & Spear, S. (2002). When problem solving prevents organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 122–137. Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2004). Capitalizing on capabilities. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 119–127.

Van Dijk, T. (1990). Social cognition and discourse. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Social%20cognition%20and%20discourse.pdf Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wandersman, A., Chien, V., & Katz, J. (2012). Toward an evidencebased system for innovation support for implementing innovations with quality: Tools, training, technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 460–461. Wandersman, A., Clary, E., Forbush, J., Weinberger, S., Coyne, S. M., & Duffy, J. (2006). Community organizing. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 182–196. Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., & Stillman, L. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181. Wandersman, A., Imm, P., Chinman, M., & Kaftarian, S. (2000). Getting to outcomes: A resultsbased approach to accountability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 389–395. Weick, K. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 223–242). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler. Wright, P., McMahan, G., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resourcebased perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 301–326. Yee, J. (1998). Forces motivating institutional reform (ERIC Digest ED 421179). Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/19991/reform.html Youngblood, M. (1997). Life at the edge of chaos: Creating the quantum organization.

Dallas, TX: Perceval Publishing. Zack, M. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125–145. Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203. Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating selfregulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Journal of American Education, 45(1), 166–183.

6 Implementing and Sustaining Language Curriculum Reform in Singapore Primary Schools Jason Loh and Foong PohYi National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Ministry of Education, Singapore

6.1 Introduction This chapter sheds light on how Singapore has developed, implemented, and sustained its current English Language curriculum (i.e., 2010 EL syllabus) after several evolutions of its English Language (henceforth EL) syllabi since attaining selfgovernance in 1959. The current 2010 EL syllabus is particularly significant, because it is implemented through a national EL literacy reform program. Before it was rolled out nationwide in 2010, it was piloted and phased in over four years (i.e., 2006–2009). It is thus the most comprehensively supported EL program/curriculum in Singapore’s history. This chapter will first outline the EL education of Singapore in general, and then examine the evolution of its EL syllabi from 1959 to its current iteration. After which, it will describe the national literacy reform program, its implementation approach, and current state. Finally, it will end with a discussion of its success factors, its challenges, and its future plans.

6.2 English Language Education in Singapore Singapore is a highly urbanized island citystate, of land size 719.1 square kilometrers, with a resident population of 3,902,690 and a population density of 7,697 per square kilometer (Department of Statistics, 2015). It is made up of three main ethnic groups: 74.3% Chinese, 13.3% Malays, and 9.1% Indians. The rest of the population, about 3.3%, are categorized as Others. Due to its diversity in its ethnic makeup and in the number of mothertongue languages, the government chose English, one of the four official languages, as the working language and also the main medium of instruction, from primary to tertiary education. All subjects in schools are taught using English; the only exception is that of the subject of mother tongue when one of the three main mothertongue languages are used (i.e., Chinese Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil). There are about 186 primary schools, 150 secondary schools, 14 junior colleges, and 18 mixedlevel schools. 1 (See Ministry of Education [MOE], 2016, for more information about the Singapore education system.) In the past decade, Singapore has done consistently well in all the international benchmark studies such as Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the 2011 PIRLS, Singapore had the largest percentage of students (24%)

reaching the PIRLS Advanced International Benchmark with an international median at 8% and the fourth highest (62%) reaching the PIRLS High International Benchmark with an international median at 44%. It was one of the six countries that had shown improvements at all four international benchmarks over the last decade (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012). In the previous 2006 PIRLS, Singapore similarly had the largest percentage of students (19%) reaching the PIRLS Advanced International Benchmark with an international median at 7% and was the nation with the third highest percentage of students (58%) reaching the PIRLS High International Benchmark with an international median at 41% (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007). Similarly, when Singapore took part in its first Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) PISA survey in 2009, it was one of the top performing countries, ranking fifth in reading (OECD, 2010a) out of 65 countries and economies that took part, with the second highest proportion (12.3%) of students who are top performers in all three domains of reading, mathematics, and science with an average percentage among OECD countries at 4.1% (MOE, 2010). In the OECD’s (2010b) report on Singapore, it states that: Singapore was rated as one of the best performing education systems in a 2007 McKinsey study of teachers (Barber & Mourshed, 2007), and was rated first in the 2007 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (IMD, 2007) for having an education system that best meets the needs of a competitive economy. (p. 160)

Even though Singapore’s students’ reading abilities at the primary 4 level2 were above the international average (Mullis et al., 2007; Mullis et al., 2012), observations by employers, schools, and students themselves suggest that “there is a wide range of language abilities and language use” (MOE, 2006, p. 4). It was revealed through the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review that there were varying standards of competence and fluency in both oral and written skills among Singaporean students. English is considered to be of utmost importance for the economic survival of Singapore, and it is coincidentally tied to one of the twentyfirstcentury competencies (i.e., communication) that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has focused on for the national curriculum. Its importance in the curriculum is undisputed, as was echoed by the founding father of the Republic of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew: “If one is to succeed, he or she will need a mastery of English because it is the language of business, science, diplomacy and academia” (Lee, 2011, para. 13). Hence, a review of the language curriculum was called for by the MOE and a literacy reform program was enacted to ensure that English is mastered at a competent level by the next generation of Singaporeans.

6.3 EL Syllabi in Singapore (1959–2010) There have been six EL syllabi since Singapore attained selfgovernance in 1959 and gained independence in 1965: (1) 1959 EL syllabus, (2) 1971 EL syllabus, (3) 1981 EL syllabus, (4) 1991 EL syllabus, (5) 2001 EL syllabus, and (6) the current 2010 EL syllabus. The major curriculum changes in each revision are discussed in this section.

6.3.1 The 1959 EL Syllabus The very first published EL syllabus was the Syllabus for English in Primary English Schools. This was issued to all primary schools in 1959. Two years later in 1961, the Syllabus for English in Secondary English Schools was published. The mainstay of the primary syllabus was grammar; the other accompanying components were “reading, written English, speech training, poetry, drama, storytelling, spelling and dictation, and oral English activities” (Lim, 2004, p. 376). Grammar rules were taught explicitly, with repetition and drill practice accompanying it (Chew, 2007). Grammatical accuracy and mastery were also similarly emphasized in the secondary syllabus. There were three components: language structure (which essentially is the study of grammar and syntax), appreciation (which consisted of comprehension, enjoyment of literature, and detailed analysis and criticism), and communication. It can be said that the focus was grammar, which was integrated with the study and enjoyment of literature (Lim, 2004). The textbooks used were imported from Britain, especially since the goal in secondary schools was to prepare the students to sit for the examinations administered by the Cambridge Examinations Syndicate.

6.3.2 The 1971 EL Syllabus The second syllabus to be published was the 1971 Syllabus for English. It provided detailed guidelines and suggestions for teachers in the teaching of grammar. To ensure that the students were able to master grammar, repetition and drill exercises were emphasized. The syllabus even stated that at the end of the six years of primary education, the students had to master 129 sentence patterns, with 56 sentence patterns taught orally in the lower primary.3 This emphasis on mastery of grammar can be seen in the syllabus: Just as in building a house, we are concerned not only with the bricks but with the ways in which those bricks are cemented together, so in teaching English we need to consider not only the words of the language but the ways in which these words are joined together to form meaningful sentences. This latter is what we call the structure of the language. (Cited in Lim, 2004, p. 378)

Prescriptivism, an approach where rules are strictly adhered to (particularly in the teaching of grammar), was the de facto teaching philosophy. However, there was a balance in the form of the enrichment component in the syllabus—storytelling, poetry, and educational drama (Lim, 2004); the syllabus stipulated that teachers were to plan for some activities from the enrichment component every day. During this period the MOE launched the Primary Pilot Project (PPP), the purpose of which was to produce English Readers for the lower primary, flashcards, worksheets, teaching charts, and lesson plans. Commercial publishers took the cue from the MOE and started hiring experienced teachers to write textbooks and workbooks, aligned to the requirements of the syllabus. As such, the EL textbooks were increasingly written by Singaporeans and published in Singapore (Chew, 2007). This was the start of the localization of EL teaching materials. Due to the influence of audiolingualism, language laboratories were built in all primary and secondary schools; this was the place where teachers took the students to practice dialogues and oral drills (Chew, 2007).

6.3.3 The 1981 EL Syllabus In 1979, the MOE put in place the New Education System. As a result, a number of policy changes were introduced with the most important one being the streaming of the students according to their proficiency in EL and their mother tongues. In 1981, the English Syllabus for the New Education System (Primary 1–6 Normal Course, Primary 4–8 Extended Course, and Primary 4–8 Monolingual Course) and the English Language Syllabus (Sec 1–4 Special/Express Course) were published. The aims of the two syllabi had narrowed to acquiring functional literacy and a basic proficiency so that students were able “to learn the content in Mathematics, Science and other subjects in the curriculum” (cited in Lim, 2004, p. 379). This syllabus was considered a “reductive” one because the two components of speech activities and literary enrichment found in the 1971 syllabus were taken out. It did not integrate language learning with the other literary components (i.e., storytelling, poetry, speech, and drama) (Lim, 2004). This was a response to the highly influential Goh Report (Goh & Education Study Team, 1979) that was produced in August 1978 when the then deputy prime minister, Goh Keng Swee, led a team of systems engineers from the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Defense to identify problem areas in Singapore’s education system and propose solutions for them. The government decided on this move because of the rapidly changing social and economic needs of the country; the MOE had to produce a literate workforce expediently, because the newly independent nation had to attract multinational corporations to invest and set up factories in Singapore. The solutions in the resulting report, which proposed ability grouping by classes so that lowerprogress students could learn at a pace slower than that for higherprogress students, were recommended for the nation’s economic survival. As a result, the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) was created in June 1980. With the setting up of CDIS, there was full local autonomy and production of the following teaching materials:

Packages for the Primary Level Primary English Project (PEP) for primary 1–6 New English Series for Primary Education (NESPE) Correct Use of English (CUE) for Primary 4–6 Learning Activity Program (LEAP) for monolingual students of low academic ability learning only one language

Packages for the Secondary Level Correct Use of English (CUE) Course on Learning and Using English (CLUE) Supplementary English Language Program (SELP) Errors in Written English: supplementary materials for primary to preuniversity level

(Lim, 2004, p. 382) The packages listed above were “strikingly more comprehensive, cohesive and well coordinated,” with each “comprising a collection of course book, phonics book, practice books and audiovisual materials” (Chew, 2007, p. 152). This was a huge contrast to previous years, where only a textbook was provided as a teaching resource, for the teachers. Grammar continued to be emphasized, together with reinforcement exercises for mastery. The teaching approach was still prescriptive and teachercentered. However, due to the communicative language movement, the Active Communicative Teaching (ACT) program for primary 4 to 6, the Reading and English Acquisition Program (REAP) for primary 1 to 3, and the Project to Assist Secondary Schools in English Skills (PASSES) were conceived and implemented from the mid1980s in many primary and secondary schools. These programs emphasized a printrich environment, where reading started off the unit of study, and accompanying it was a plethora of communicative activities and extensive reading time (Chew, 2007). Schools were introduced to teaching strategies such as the shared reading and language experience approach, but phonics was discontinued in favor of a topdown approach to teaching of reading (Chew, 2012).

6.3.4 The 1991 EL Syllabus The English Language Syllabus (Primary) and the English Language Syllabus (Secondary) published in 1991 stated for the first time the status of EL in Singapore’s curriculum: “English has the status of a first language in the national school curriculum. Since 1987, it has been the medium of instruction for all subjects” (as cited in Lim, 2004, p. 383; emphasis added). The communicative language movement heavily influenced the 1991 EL syllabus and the teaching materials (Primary English Thematic Series and New Course on Learning and Using English). Themes were used to organize the teaching materials, and four domains of language learning were introduced: communication and language development thinking skills learning how to learn language and culture Due to the presentation of the four domains (specifically communication and language development), and the fact that grammar did not have its own domain, it gave the teachers an impression that grammar was no longer emphasized as much as in the previous EL syllabi. The 1991 EL syllabus no longer had a prescribed list of grammar items that teachers must teach their students; it seemed to emphasize fluency more than accuracy, and grammar was somewhat subsumed under communication. The grammar items were supposed to be taught as and when necessary in different communicative functions; the prescriptive approach gave way to teacher autonomy in this 1991 syllabus. But due to the fact that teachers were not trained to choose the appropriate grammar features, nor were they taught communicative functions, this new

approach became a burden for the teachers (Lim, 2004). In addition, writing was no longer seen as a mere product, but a process of drafting and redrafting. And there was a marked increase in the need for students to engage in communicative group work activities. The teacher was now supposed to be a facilitator of the students’ learning, rather than a repository of knowledge (Chew, 2007). The movement to this approach was too sudden for teachers, who themselves were not familiar with this approach and were not trained to use such an approach. Furthermore, because the terms of reference had changed, teachers were unsure if they should continue using strategies such as the shared reading and language experience approach; as such, they became casualties in this syllabus change. In addition, due to the fact that the new CDIS textbooks and worksheets produced for the 1991 syllabus were not fully aligned to the students’ examination needs, schools and teachers started preparing extra worksheets. The “worksheet syndrome” proliferated and spread as a result during this period (Cheah, 2004).

6.3.5 The 2001 EL Syllabus In 2001, the syllabus was for the first time conceptualized as a single document—English Language Syllabus 2001: For Primary and Secondary Schools. The intent was to allow teachers from both primary and secondary sectors to have an overview of what was taught from primary 1 to secondary 4, and hence encourage language teaching continuity (Lim, 2004). The key features of the 2001 EL syllabus were: (1) language use, (2) learning outcomes, skills, and strategies, and (3) text types and grammar. Learning from the 1991 syllabus, the developers did not leave the selection and coverage of the grammar items to the teachers. They were now embedded within the texts and tasks of each unit of study, according to the areas of language use (i.e., language for information, language for literary response and expression, language for social interaction) and text types. The study of text types, with its textual features and grammatical features, was the key feature of the 2001 EL syllabus. The place of grammar was positioned clearly within the different text types (MOE, 2001). Explicit teaching of grammar was fronted once again; it was now taught in context. Hence, both fluency and accuracy were equally emphasized (Chew, 2012). Due to the supposed “reemphasis” of grammar in the curriculum, teachers were sent for a compulsory 60hour inservice course for teaching grammar and text types, but there was no followup support after the training. The MOE assumed the teachers were able to transfer this new knowledge to their classrooms. This assumption was proven wrong (Goh & Tay, 2008). Because the CDIS was closed in December 1996, commercial publishers were contracted to produce textbooks and workbooks for both primary and secondary schools. Experienced teachers and teacher educators were commissioned to write these materials. As a result, in the primary sector, four different textbooks were produced for the schools to select from, so as to meet the different needs of their student population; similarly, the secondary school sector had three textbooks to choose from. However, Heads of Departments (HODs) were now at a loss as to which to choose, since they did not have a choice in the past, and material selection was not part of their teacher education curriculum (Cheah, 2004).

6.3.6 The 2010 EL Syllabus

In its effort to provide highquality education, as well as a response to the twentyfirst century competencies framework (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, n.d.), MOE called for a curriculum review. The English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (ELCPRC) was thus established in September 2005. Their main task was “to undertake a comprehensive review of the teaching and learning of the English Language (EL) in Singapore schools” (MOE, 2006, p. 2). The tasks of the ELCPRC were to review syllabus structure and content, pedagogical approaches, instructional materials, assessment, and teacher training and development (MOE, 2006). Due to the changing profile of the students, with more students speaking English at home (e.g., in 1996, about 35% of primary 1 [P1] students came from homes where English was the predominant home language; in 2006, the percentage had gone up to 50%), there was a need to ensure that the national EL curriculum and the schools’ pedagogical approaches take the changing student profile into account. The ELCPRC found, through both student achievement and observations by employers, schools, and students themselves, that standards of oral and written communication of Singapore students were very varied; this suggested that there was a wide range of language abilities and language use (MOE, 2006). Employers revealed, through focus group discussions, that Singaporean employees in frontline positions were not able to communicate well, and that “there had been a decline in oral fluency and writing skills” (p. 5). The ELCPRC was also particularly concerned with the quality of textbooks, the lack of sound instructional practices in the classroom, and the unevenness in teacher capacity. These observations were made based on their visits to schools and on their discussions with EL HODs (E. S. Pang,4 personal communication, June 20, 2016). As a result of the findings, a number of recommendations for improvement were made. One of the key recommendations was crafting a curriculum customized to Singapore’s needs. Because there was a diverse range of EL learners, the new curriculum should adopt “not just a first or second language approach, but a principled blend of both” (MOE, 2006, p. 6). It was also recommended that this curriculum should have a focus on two key aspects: (1) a contextualized approach to EL learning, using rich materials, and (2) structured, systematic, and explicit grammar instruction (MOE, 2006). This new curriculum was recommended to build on the strengths of the previous 2001 EL syllabus (i.e., its focus on a systematic learning of grammar). In addition, this new curriculum “will be accompanied by the appropriate use of more holistic methods to contextualise language learning, especially through opportunities to speak English, and extensive reading and writing” (p. 6). A brand new curriculum team was formed, to initiate and coordinate a pilot run of the national literacy reform program, STrategies for English Language Learning And Reading (STELLAR®), which is fully aligned with the new curriculum, 2010 EL syllabus. Uniquely, for the very first time in Singapore’s educational history, a national literacy reform program was positioned as the national EL curriculum. Schools, by virtue of implementing the program, were following the national EL curriculum—the 2010 EL syllabus. A summary of the EL syllabi over the years is found in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 EL syllabi and key features (1959–2010).

Key Names of the EL syllabi year 1959 1. Syllabus for English in Primary English Schools (published in 1959) 2. Syllabus for English in Secondary English Schools (published in 1961)

Distinguishing features Two separate documents for primary and secondary levels Explicit grammar teaching Emphasis on appreciation of literature and communication Use of textbooks imported from Britain

1971 1. Syllabus for English (Primary) 2. Syllabus for English (Secondary)

Two separate documents for primary and secondary levels Explicit grammar teaching with emphasis on drill exercises Emphasis on enrichment component together with grammar Building of audiolingualisminfluenced language laboratories Use of teaching and learning resources produced by MOE and local commercial publishers

1981 1. English Syllabus for the New Education System (Primary 1–6 Normal Course, Primary 4–8 Extended Course, and Primary 4–8 Monolingual Course) 2. English Language Syllabus (Sec 1–4 Special/Express Course)

Two separate documents for primary and secondary levels Explicit grammar teaching with emphasis on drill exercises Focus on functional literacy (i.e., literary enrichment/appreciation was excluded) Communicativelanguageinfluenced programs started in second half of the 1980s [ACT (Pri. Four to Six), REAP (Pri. One to Three), and PASSES (Sec.)] Use of teaching and learning resources fully produced by CDIS

1991 1. English Language Syllabus (Primary) 2. English Language Syllabus (Secondary)

Two separate documents for primary and secondary levels Official status of EL as first language of

national curriculum Deemphasis of grammar as a stand alone domain, unlike previous syllabi Grammar subsumed under domain of communication due to communicative language movement Proliferation of “worksheet syndrome” Use of teaching and learning resources fully produced by CDIS 2001 1. English Language Syllabus 2001: For Primary and Secondary Schools

One document for both primary and secondary levels Explicit grammar teaching, embedded within text types Adoption of genreapproach influenced emphasis on language use Use of multiple commercial publishers of teaching and learning resources (i.e., four for Pri. & three for Sec.)

2010 1. English Language Syllabus 2010: Primary and Secondary (Express/Normal [Academic]) 2. English Language Syllabus 2010: Primary (Foundation) and Secondary (Normal [Technical])

One document for both primary and secondary levels Two separate documents for students in the mainstream and lower progress stream Emphasis on explicit and contextualized grammar teaching Emphasis on use of rich materials for teaching Emphasis on the use of researchbased pedagogy Implementation of EL curriculum through STELLAR® program (Primary only) Use of teaching and learning resources produced by STELLAR® Unit as well as sourced internationally and reproduced for primary schools

Use of commercial publishers of teaching and learning resources (Secondary)

6.4 The STELLAR® Program: A National Literacy Reform This section will elaborate on the key features of the STELLAR® program, and concomitantly, the key tenets of the 2010 EL syllabus. First, the overall pedagogical approach of the program will be examined. Then a typical STELLAR® lesson and the programmatic support structures will be described.

6.4.1 The STELLAR® Approach The primary aims of the STELLAR® program are to strengthen the students’ oral language, grammar, and reading skills (Shanmugaratnam, 2007). This is done through utilizing “engaging and interactive lessons leveraging on project work, speech and drama, oral presentation as well as a range of other innovative pedagogies” (Lui, 2008, para. 4). Instead of textbooks, students are taught using ageappropriate big books (both narrative and nonnarrative) in the lower primary, rich texts (both narrative and nonnarrative) in the middle and upper primary, and a variety of language resources. A textdriven approach, where a bank of interesting and engaging texts are first collected, and then selected for use in the curriculum, was hence utilized (Tomlinson, 2003). Through the reading of these stories and texts, an enjoyable and purposeful language learning environment is built. Moreover, through an employment and a structured organization of researchbased teaching strategies, the STELLAR® program advanced a systematic way of bringing together a vast array of teaching approaches and strategies in the language curriculum. Some of these strategies (nonexhaustive) include: Shared reading (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Holdaway, 1982), where students are read to by the teacher using a big book, akin to bedside reading with the aid of a pointer to direct the students’ attention to the sound–print correspondence. Language experience approach (Dorr, 2006; Stahl & Miller, 1989), where students are given a concrete experiential task, and then led to write about it, as the relevant schema about the topic would have been activated though the task. Sustained silent reading (Garan & De Voogd, 2008; Krashen, 2004), where 10 minutes at the start of every EL lesson is allocated for the teachers and students to engage in free voluntary reading of a book of their own choice. Supported reading—a reading comprehension strategy based on guided reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, 2012), where a teacher helps to deepen the students’ comprehension of the text, whether narrative or nonnarrative, through a scaffolded discussion of a text, which probes for students’ deeper thinking; comprehension strategies such as inferring, synthesizing, analyzing, and critiquing are often embedded within the scaffolded

discussions. Retelling—a comprehension strategy to strengthen the children’s understanding of what they have read when they are actively reconstructing the main elements of the story in their own words (Gambrell & Dromsky, 2000; Morrow, 1985). Writing process cycle—an amalgam of the curriculum cycle (Derewianka, 1990), where the learners are led through four stages of writing (i.e., building the field, modeling the text type, joint construction, and independent writing) and the process approach, derived from the work of Donald Graves (1994), where teachers and students view writing as a process, with many drafts and editing, rather than as a product. The use of this array of studentcentered pedagogical strategies and approaches is meant to encourage students to discuss and share their views with their teachers and peers (MOE, 2012).

6.4.2 A STELLAR® Lesson In a typical STELLAR® lesson, the teacher would start a unit of study with reading aloud a big book for the lower primary or a text for the upper primary. Before such a text was read for the upper primary, 10 minutes of time was allocated for sustained silent reading. During the reading of the big book or text, the teacher asks a series of questions, corresponding to Ruddell’s (1999) four levels of questioning—factual, interpretive, applicative, and transactive. Over the span of the unit of study, which typically spreads over two weeks, the students are taught the various language components (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension, writing of various text types, and phonics) using the big book or text as a platform for contextualization of examples. This is a break from the previous norm, where teachers “dish out” a plethora of examinationdriven worksheets and assessment books for the students to learn from and practice. At the end of each unit of study, teachers are encouraged to use differentiated instruction, in the form of individuals, pairs, small groups, or learning centers, so that remedial support within the class curriculum can be given to students who need it. Learning is reviewed and reinforced for the average learners, and extended for the highprogress learners. In addition, curriculum space is allocated within the program for teachers to use existing schoolbased curriculum and/or teacherproduced resources to reinforce their students’ language development and learning needs.

6.4.3 STELLAR® Support Previously, the MOE merely provided the EL syllabus, a oneoff professional development (PD) workshop, and a briefing for the HODs as well as producing/evaluating the textbooks for use. One of the most frequently reported problems, cited by both primary and secondary teachers, in the implementation of the 2001 EL syllabus was “a lack of useful teaching materials” (Goh, Zhang, Ng, & Koh, 2005, p. 96). This was also the support most needed (i.e., provision of teaching and learning resources), as cited by the teachers, followed by training on

the implementation of the syllabus (Goh et al., 2005). As such, in order to ensure that there was a more effective and successful implementation of the 2010 EL syllabus, a systematic and comprehensive programmatic support structure was put in place with funding and provision of resources, professional development and mentoring, local facilitation, and ongoing support. 6.4.3.1 Funding and Provision of Resources The MOE provides funding through the STELLAR® program to schools annually to purchase the teaching resources and materials for its implementation. The amount of funding is dependent on the student enrollment of the schools. Schools are provided with recommended lists, but are not required to adhere strictly to these; they can purchase resources within the budget, with justification. In general, the funds are used to purchase physical resources such as big books and readers for the lower primary, easels, butcher paper for writing, classroom bookshelves, storybooks for the class libraries, headphones and CD players for the listening posts, and so on. In addition, funds are given to the schools to purchase materials for use in experiential learning activities and books for the school libraries. Furthermore, rich texts, general teaching method guidelines, unitspecific teaching guidelines, scope and sequence charts, learning sheets, presentation slides, and video and audio recordings for the entire program are all provided to the schools. If schools need more or newer copies after a few years of use, they can request them from the MOE. All these learning materials help to ensure that the STELLAR® program is fully supported at the school level. 6.4.3.2 Professional Development and Mentoring In addition to these resources, professional development (PD) activities are provided for the EL teachers. Teachers from each level are sent for PD workshops at one of the schools in the cluster of schools. Singapore schools are grouped into clusters; the purpose of the clusters is for networking, sharing of resources and best practices, and for mutual collaboration. As the clusters of schools are usually situated in areas that are near one another, the teachers do not have to travel far for their PD workshops. These workshops are conducted via a “justin time” model—the workshop for a specific teaching method is conducted in the school term (i.e., 10 teaching weeks) that requires the teachers to use that method. The teachers practice the method and a STELLAR® mentor is assigned to a school to observe and guide the teachers in the use of that method for that term. This process is termed an “advisory visit.” The nonevaluative observation, the reflection, and the discussion that transpires after the advisory visit are kept confidential between the mentor and the teacher. The teachers are hence more willing to share their worries and concerns during these developmental sessions. Each school is assigned one STELLAR® mentor, who acts as the liaison between the school and the STELLAR® Unit, and also provides the curricular support, coaching, and mentoring that the school needs. This implementation support model ensures that the teachers are not overwhelmed at the beginning with the reform. There is space for reflection and sharing of doubts and concerns. This is similar to Korthagen’s (2004) conceptual change model, where the teacher is “encouraged to reflect on a concrete experience” (p. 89), helped to become aware of his or her

implicit teaching beliefs, and led to examine those beliefs. These cycles of “justintime” professional development are conducted by level, starting from the lowest level (i.e., primary 1) to the highest level (i.e., primary 6). Schools thus implement the program, using a cascade model, where one level is fully trained and the program is fully implemented before the next level is trained and implemented. Consequently, professional development and developmentalmentoring support for the schools last for six years. 6.4.3.3 Local Facilitation Schools are also encouraged to nominate two EL teachers to be the STELLAR® Teacher Mentors (STMs)—one for the lower primary (primary 1 to first half of primary 3) and one for the upper primary (second half of primary 3 to primary 6). These STMs look after and oversee the implementation of the program locally. They are given extra training and support from the STELLAR® Unit so that they are able to assist, support, and partner the STELLAR® mentors in the nonevaluative developmental cycles. Kelly ( 2004) posits that one of the key reasons for the failure of curriculum implementation is that it is directed externally. Hence, with schools given the autonomy to nominate their own teachers whom they feel are able to mentor and lead by example, the reform has a higher chance of being accepted. Teachers are more likely to follow the advice of “other teachers they trust and respect” and “who can demonstrate convincingly that a new curriculum works in their classroom” (Walker, 2003, p. 304). 6.4.3.4 Length of Support In addition to the fact that two experienced teachers guide the rest of the teaching staff in the implementation of the program, at least six years of support are given by the STELLAR® Unit. With such a length of support, there is a greater chance of institutionalization occurring. Institutionalization, as defined by Miles and Ekholm (1991), happens when an educational change is seen as fully legitimate and valuable by the key people involved; it is working in a routine, stable way; it is a natural, normal part of life, expected without doubt to continue; it may be “invisible,” taken for granted; allocations of time, material and personal resources are routinely made for it; these and other organizational supports are stable, and do not depend on specific persons for their continuance. (p. 7)

Institutionalization is a process whereby a new configuration, idea, or practice is accepted, embedded, and integrated within a corresponding existing system. As such, curricular reforms are said to be institutionalized when teachers no longer see them as an “addon,” but as an essential and central part of the curriculum. Institutionalization is important because it allows an organization to secure stability, while adjusting and incorporating the changes that characteristically accompany a reform. This implies that for the reform to be effectively implemented and institutionalized, it must be accepted, practiced, and valued by a growing number of teachers. With the longterm support structure being set up both externally and internally, the STELLAR® program has a greater chance of success than previous reforms.

6.5 National Implementation Approach The STELLAR® program, based on the EL 2010 syllabus, was conceived, put together, and piloted in 10 schools in 2006. The program was then slowly phased in utilizing an optin model from 2007 to 2009; these were considered the pilot phases (i.e., Phase 1 to Phase 4). Full implementation to all 190 primary schools5 was achieved in 2010. From the start, STELLAR® was positioned as the national EL curriculum, rather than an optional “addon” program, to safeguard against a situation where a large number of schools decline to adopt the program. Furthermore, to ensure that STELLAR® was more effectively implemented and sustained for a longer period than the previous 2001 EL syllabus, an unprecedented level of support for the schools was given: a minimum of six years of programmatic support from the STELLAR® Unit, multiple teacher development workshops throughout the year, extensive resource and material support, external and internal change facilitation, comprehensive teaching guidelines, flexibility in the use of guidelines, onsite onetoone mentoring, and ongoing monitoring through feedback gathered from teachers. This was a marked departure from the implementation of the previous EL curriculum, where there was a lack of a coordinated effort and support from all concerned, which led to a fragmentation of the implementation (Goh & Tay, 2008). Goh and Tay (2008), a senior faculty member of the National Institute of Education (NIE)6 and a senior curriculum specialist who had studied the implementation of the previous 2001 EL syllabus, suggested that there should be “one body” to oversee the “process and outcomes of the implementation” (p. 98), and that MOE needed to “reassess the effectiveness” of the previous “cascade strategy used for dissemination” (p. 98). In addition, they also suggested that for future dissemination, a “multi level approach could be considered” (p. 98). These suggestions were subsequently taken into consideration for the implementation of the STELLAR® program (E. S. Pang, personal communication, June 20, 2016). At this point in time, STELLAR® is the de facto primary EL curriculum for all schools. Even though there are a small number of schools which choose not to adopt the program, they have nonetheless accepted the resources provided by the STELLAR® Unit. In fact, they have incorporated the resources and the idea of a structured suite of researchbased teaching strategies into their own schoolbased EL curriculum. As such, it is safe to state that almost all schools have some configuration of STELLAR® as their pedagogical approach for the teaching of EL. However, it is the extent of their use of the program (i.e., the program configuration) that differs.

6.6 Current State of Affairs 6.6.1 Preliminary Evaluation A summative evaluation study was carried out by the MOE over a period of six years (2007– 2012). The study tracked a group of 160 students from 10 STELLAR® pilot schools and a group of 160 students from 10 control schools. The variables of socioeconomic status and

home languages of the students were held constant. The socioeconomic backgrounds and academic performance in the annual national examinations of the 20 schools were also comparable. The study examined the reading, writing, grammar, listening, and speaking skills of these 320 students. A prepost, quasiexperimental, longitudinal research design was adopted for this study. The 16 students from each school were randomly sampled from across all classes for that level. A pretest was conducted for all 160 students at primary 1; over the next six years, these same students were tested on the aforementioned language skills. The results revealed that students in the STELLAR® pilot schools performed significantly better across the language skills, particularly for reading and speaking (for the statistical details of the evaluation study, see Pang, Lim, Choe, Peters, & Chua, 2015).

6.6.2 Results from First National Examination In 2010, the STELLAR® program was implemented nationwide; in 2015, the first batch of the students who were taught using the program from primary 1 to primary 6 sat for the national primary 6 leaving examination (PSLE). MOE announced in a press release that a total of 38,610 students (or 98.3%) were eligible for secondary school (AsiaOne, 2015); this was higher than 2014’s 97.6% and 2013’s 97.5% who made it to secondary school (AsiaOne, 2014). However, since 2012, MOE stopped revealing the top PSLE scorer and score in a bid to reduce emphasis on academic results. As such, no data are publicly available for comparison with the nonSTELLAR® batches of students.

6.6.3 Ongoing Professional Development and Review As the majority of the lower primary teachers (i.e., primary 1 to primary 3) in the 190 primary schools have been trained and mentored in the use of the program, the focus currently is to complete the training and mentoring of a small number of upper primary teachers (i.e., primary 4 to primary 6), as well as completing the focused training of a small number of upper primary STMs. The next iteration of the EL curriculum and the accompanying program is targeted to be launched in 2020. As such, toward the end of 2015, the STELLAR® Unit started its review of both the syllabus and the program. Surveys collected from the teachers during the various workshops over the years, feedback given by the STMs during the focused group discussions, feedback from the teachers on the STELLAR® teaching guidelines and materials, feedback given by HoDs (EL) during the annual meetings since the nationwide implementation in 2010, and feedback given by teacher trainers from the NIE during focused group discussions are currently being used for the program’s review and refinement. With its extensive support on multiple fronts, widespread implementation across the nation, as well as a positive showing in the results in the first national examination, STELLAR® has managed to achieve systemwide reform. These key strategies, which enabled it to achieve its current success, could be considered and possibly adopted by the other subject departments within the MOE, and possibly other states’ education ministries, when they choose to roll out reforms. Reforms are never easy; implementing them is even more difficult (Cuban, 2013;

Hall, 2013). There is always a plethora of factors that affect the implementation, and even though STELLAR® has achieved systemwide change, there are a number of factors that may negate its impact in the long run. The next section elaborates on some of these factors.

6.7 Challenges Facing the Program Over the last five decades, Singapore has been through a series of curriculum reforms. Each has built on what was learned from the previous cycle. These earlier efforts contributed to the systemic and longerterm focus in the development and implementation of STELLAR®. At this point, STELLAR® has been the required/expected/supported curriculum for all primary schools. It has been relatively successful in its implementation due to its comprehensive support model. Its preliminary program evaluation studies and the first national examination results have demonstrated its positive effects. However, there are a number of key challenges facing it, and these may detract, to a greater or lesser degree, from the credibility of the program.

6.7.1 Challenge 1: Perception of Rigidity The first key challenge facing STELLAR® is the “service recovery” of schools which were assigned retired school teachers (who had implemented REAP) as their STELLAR® mentors. A number of these mentors had their own views on what the program meant. While they wanted the program to be successful, they did not allow the teachers to make any adaptations in the use of the materials or strategies in the implementation of the program. Even though one of the critical success factors mentioned by the developers was the “flexibility exercised to allow for adaptations to meet specific local needs” due to an intentional design of the pedagogic framework to “invite principled adaptation of the curriculum” (Pang et al., 2015, p. 117), some of these mentors did not think so. They insisted on the strict adherence of the program’s guidelines by the teachers, and discouraged teachers from veering from the guidelines (Loh, 2010). Teachers make curricular adaptations all the time; in fact, Snyder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) surmised that variation in curriculum implementation is inevitable. Reforms are implemented very differently across schools and classrooms because teachers adapt them to meet their contextual requirements (Datnow, Borman, & Stringfield, 2000; Elmore & Sykes, 1992; Loh & Renandya, 2015). As such, even though the program has great value and potential, the schools and teachers who were assigned such mentors felt that the program was too rigid and did not cater to the needs of their students. Hence, many teachers resisted the complete adoption of the program, and stuck to their own ways of teaching. As a result, heads of department explored the use of commercial literacy programs or expanded the use of the examinationdriven school curriculum. This challenge is easily addressed. The STELLAR® Unit needs to make explicit the flexibility of the program to a certain extent. It needs to communicate the parts of the program that schools and teachers can freely adapt, and parts of the program that cannot be modified, as that will

compromise the integrity of the program. And that leads us to the second challenge.

6.7.2 Challenge 2: Lack of Communication Regarding Critical Components The program developers understand the need for schools to make adaptations, so as to meet the learning needs of the students from different schools. However, the developers believe that there must be a “strong focus on the fidelity of implementation” and that the adaptations made to the program must be “principled” (Pang et al., 2015, p. 117). In this situation, there are two interrelated issues: (1) fidelity versus adaptation and (2) adaptations according to certain principles. From the perspective of fidelity, for a reform to be successfully implemented, there needs to be congruence in the way it was conceived and the way it is being employed (Dunst, Trivette, & Raab, 2013; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). A factor that thwarts the close correspondence required of a fidelityoriented implementation is that of adaptation. Adaptations are considered divergences and departures from the intended reform. In fact, variation in curriculum implementation is considered to be inevitable by some (Datnow et al., 2000; Snyder et al., 1992). Such adaptations are necessary to benefit the students’ learning, as the classroom environments and situations vary from school to school, and even from class to class within the same school and level. But there is a real fear that developers have when they allow or encourage adaptations—teachers modifying a reform so much that it leads to program drift, i.e., entering the “zone of drastic mutation” (Hall & Loucks, 1978, p. 18). There is value in allowing some form of adaptations—it instills in the teachers a sense of ownership and thus they are more amenable to accepting and embracing the reforms (Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Walker, 2003). In order to ensure that the adaptations do not enter into the “zone of drastic mutation,” a useful move might be for the curriculum planners to explicitly articulate the critical components and principles of the reform program. Thus, with a welldefined understanding of the essence of the program, schools and teachers alike can then focus on reforming practice by adhering to the critical components, while freely adapting the peripheral or related components, i.e., components which are not essential to the reform but which are recommended by the developers (Hall & Hord, 2015; Hord, Stiegelbauer, Hall, & George, 2006). This issue is thus easily resolved through an explicit communication of the critical components and core principles of the program. Concomitantly, it would be useful for the developers to equip the teachers with the skills to make adaptations in a principled way, rather than a haphazard way. Hence, inservice professional development courses that guide teachers to identify principles and systematic procedures for making curricular adaptations are essential (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2004).

6.7.3 Challenge 3: Internal Change Agents’ Lack of Influence For a program to be sustainable, it is necessary for institutionalization to occur. Institutionalization happens when an educational change “is seen as fully legitimate and valuable by the key people involved,” so that the program becomes “a natural, normal part of

life, expected without doubt to continue,” and “allocations of time, material and personal resources are routinely made for it” by the organization (Miles & Ekholm, 1991, p. 7). For this to occur, the “key people” within the school (i.e., the school management team) must value the innovation and ideally lead the change management. However, one of the key strategies for the program’s sustainability, the STM scheme, does not have this level of influence. STMs tend to be EL teachers from the rank and file. Even though they may be passionate about the program, and are most willing to coach the other teachers across the levels, the other teachers may not see the pedagogical change to be of value, if the “key people” value other pedagogical approaches or retain the dominant focus on examination results, rather than teaching (Loh & Hu, 2014; Loh & Renandya, 2015). Their influence, as ambassadors for the program, is curtailed because they are normally not part of the school management team; hence, they are not able to influence the EL department’s pedagogical decisions. Furthermore, many STMs, while given the extra responsibility to see to the sustainability of the STELLAR® program, are often not offloaded in other areas. As such, they have a rather heavy workload to juggle, and thus struggle to carve out time to coach and mentor their colleagues. A way forward for this challenge is to appoint a key member of staff 7 from the EL department as one of the two STMS with the other being the school’s senior/lead teacher.8

6.7.4 Challenge 4: Lack of National Recognition The first three challenges are related to how STELLAR® is perceived internally. The next challenge is the perception of STELLAR® nationally. Recognizing schools with good practices in the STELLAR® program was listed as one of the key ways to operationalize sustainability (Pang et al., 2015). These are schools which have been identified by the developers as role models in their use of the STELLAR® program, i.e., “strong support from school management and good student outcomes” (p. 115). Even though these schools have been “earmarked” for international visiting delegates, and were encouraged to present at “large scale meetings, seminars and events organised by MOE,” they are still relatively unknown to the majority of the school leaders and teachers across Singapore. If schools and teachers are to be confident in continuing with their use of the program, these earmarked schools need to be given more avenues and platforms for sharing their success stories and good practices (presumably with examples of principled adaptations that are useful for other schools to learn from). It is only when such schools are positively cited by and commonly known to other schools and teachers as being accomplished in their implementation of STELLAR® that others would see the value of the program and seek to follow more assuredly.

6.8 Future Plans The seemingly successful and widespread adoption of the program has led the MOE to consider extending it to both the preprimary and secondary levels. The MOE is piloting a new early childhood EL curriculum based on the STELLAR® program in the MOE

kindergartens (Pang et al., 2015). This effort will provide a more seamless and aligned EL curriculum where learning gaps between the early childhood and primary interval are more effectively identified and bridged. Research has shown that it is only by looking at the implementation that curriculum developers can confirm (or disconfirm) that the reforms have been successful (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Hall & Hord, 2015). With this knowledge of the implementation process, the developers are then able to pinpoint the specific aspects of the implementation that need to be improved or addressed. Such implementation data can also help developers explain the differences in outcomes across schools, even though all schools are using the same STELLAR® program. Implementation conditions in one school may differ markedly from another. With such data, curriculum developers can determine the favorable contextual conditions across schools, and ensure that such conditions are put in place so that the reform can be effectively implemented. Without such data, it cannot be assumed that all schools implement the reform evenly, even though they may be given the same level of support and resources from the curriculum developers. The variable is in the implementation; hence, outcomes will vary according to the variations in implementation. Thus, it is crucial to study the implementation to conclusively attribute the academic outcomes to the reform program (Dusenbury et al., 2003). Furthermore, such specific implementation data can aid curriculum developers in communicating the value, efficacy, and progress of the reform to the schools and the larger international educational community. As such, the curriculum developers have embarked on a research study with the National Institute of Education/Nanyang Technological University to study the implementation of the STELLAR® program across a sample of 14 national government schools over a two year period (2016–2017) using the concernsbased adoption model (Hall & Hord, 2015). The implementation data will be used by the developers to review and refine the program for its next iteration. A future plan that the developers could consider is to make incremental changes to the national assessment so that it is even more aligned to the national curriculum. The program’s main aims are to “strengthen children’s language and reading skills” (STELLAR, n.d.). Its explicit goals are not to prepare the children for the national examination. Rather, the children will be prepared to sit for the national examination if the teachers use the program with a focus on fidelity (Pang et al., 2015). While recent changes have been made to the national assessment in order to achieve alignment with the national literacy curriculum, many teachers continue to have the perception that the STELLAR® program is merely to inculcate the joy of learning the English language and reform teaching practices, and there is still a premium placed on examinationdriven pedagogies. If there is even closer alignment made between the program and the national examination, and this alignment is made more explicit and public, perhaps there is a real chance that more teachers will choose to relinquish their overemphasis on examination preparation during their daytoday teaching. And that will indeed be a successful pedagogical reform.

References

AsiaOne. (2009). New appointments to strengthen teachers’ career paths. Retrieved from http://news.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090917168297.html AsiaOne. (2014). 2014 PSLE results: 97.6 per cent of pupils make it to secondary schools. Retrieved from http://news.asiaone.com/news/education/976centpupilsmakeit secondaryschools#sthash.ykAvzBn0.dpuf AsiaOne. (2015). PSLE 2015 results: 66.2% of pupils qualify for express stream. Retrieved from http://news.asiaone.com/news/education/psle2015results662pupilsqualify expressstream#sthash.0AcDL0uI.dpuf Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of readingaloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10–20. Cheah, Y. M. (2004). English language teaching in Singapore today. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and practices (2nd ed., pp. 353–374). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Chew, P. (2007). The history and the policy of English education in Singapore. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies. Seoul, South Korea: Asia TEFL. Chew, P. (2012). Language teaching methods in Singapore primary schools: An historical overview. In B. Spolsky & Y. I. Moon (Eds.), Primary school English—Language education in Asia: From policy to practice (pp. 38–58). New York, NY: Routledge. Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 1–32. Datnow, A., Borman, G., & Stringfield, S. (2000). School reform through a highly specified curriculum: Implementation and effects of the Core Knowledge sequence. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 167–191.

Department of Statistics, Singapore (DOS). (2015). Population trends 2015. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/defaultdocument library/publications/publications_and_papers/population_and_population_structure/population2015.p Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Sydney, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association. Dorr, R. E. (2006). Something old is new again: Revisiting language experience. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 138–146. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Raab, M. (2013). An implementation science framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing fidelity in early childhood intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 85–101. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the

influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256. Elmore, R., & Sykes, G. (1992). Curriculum policy. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 185–215). New York, NY: Macmillan. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2012). Guided reading: The romance and the reality. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268–284. Gambrell, L. B., & Dromsky, A. (2000). Fostering reading comprehension. In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing (pp. 143–153). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Garan, E. M., & De Voogd, G. (2008). The benefits of sustained silent reading: Scientific research and common sense converge. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 336–344. Goh, C. C. M., & Tay, M. Y. (2008). Implementing the English language syllabus 2001 in Singapore schools: Interpretations and reinterpretations. In D. E. Murray (Ed.), Planning change, changing plans: Innovations in second language teaching (pp. 85–107). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Goh, C. C. M., Zhang, L. J., Ng, C. H., & Koh, G. H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus implementation: A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Singapore: National Institute of Education. Goh, K. S., & Education Study Team. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore: Singapore National Printers. Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hall, G. E. (2013). Evaluating change processes. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 264–289. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1978). Innovation configurations: Analyzing the adaptations of innovations. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 189 074) Holdaway, D. (1982). Shared book experience: Teaching reading using favorite books. Theory

into Practice, 21(4), 293–300. Hord, S. M., Stiegelbauer, S. M., Hall, G. E., & George, A. A. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: Innovation configurations. Austin, TX: SEDL. Kelly, A. V. (2004). The curriculum: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97. Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lee, K. Y. (2011). Speech by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, former Minister Mentor and current Senior Advisor to Government of Singapore Investment Corporation at the launch of the English Language Institute of Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2011/09/06/speechbymrleekuanyewat elislaunch.php Lim, S. C. (2004). Developments in the English language syllabuses in Singapore. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and practices (2nd ed., pp. 375–393). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Loh, J. (2010). Reflecting, shaking and being shook: Resistance in a primary classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(3), 160–168. Loh, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Subdued by the system: Neoliberalism and the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 14–21. Loh, J., & Renandya, W. A. (2015). Exploring adaptations of materials and methods: A case from Singapore. European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 4(2), 93–111. Lui, T. Y. (2008, November 10). Speech by Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Education, at the Marshall Cavendish Learning Curves Awards Presentation Ceremony. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/11/10/speechbyradmnsluituckyew 24.php Miles, M. B., & Ekholm, M. (1991). Will new structures stay restructured? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2001). English language syllabus 2001: For primary and secondary schools. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default source/document/education/syllabuses/englishlanguageandliterature/files/english primarysecondary.pdf Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2006). Executive summary: Report of the English language curriculum and pedagogy review. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2010). International OECD study affirms the high quality of Singapore’s education system. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/me dia/press/2010/12/programmeforinternationalstudentassessment2009.php Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2012). Learning of English to develop 21st century competencies. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2012/09/learningofenglishtodevelop.php Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2016). Education system. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/educationsystem Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 646–661. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/PDF/P06_IR_Ch2.pdf OECD. (2010a). PISA 2009 rankings. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf OECD. (2010b). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf Pang, E. S., Lim, F. V., Choe, K. C., Peters, C., & Chua, L. C. (2015). System scaling in Singapore: The STELLAR story. In C. K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 105–122). Singapore: Springer. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/ourwork/p21framework Ruddell, R. (1999). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an influential teacher (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Shanmugaratnam, T. (2007, November 17). Speech by Minister for Education at the District 80 SemiAnnual Toastmasters Convention . Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2007/sp20071117a.htm Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402–435). New York, NY: Macmillan. Stahl, S. A., & Miller, P. D. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for

beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 87–116. STELLAR. (n.d.). The STELLAR vision. Retrieved from http://www.stellarliteracy.sg/ Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing materials for language teaching. London, UK: Continuum. Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2004). Developing language course materials. RELC Portfolio Series, 11. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Notes 1 Mixedlevel schools are schools that offer multiple educational levels, namely primary and secondary or secondary and junior college. 2 In Singapore, elementary schools are known as primary schools, and grade levels are denoted by primary and secondary levels, e.g., grade 1 = primary 1, grade 4 = primary 4, grade 7 = secondary 1, grade 10 = secondary 4, and so on. 3 Lower primary: The levels of primary 1 and primary 2. 4 Dr. Elizabeth Pang is the Program Director (Literacy Development) and Principal Specialist in the Curriculum Planning and Development Division, MOE, Singapore, and member of the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Steering Committee. 5 This number includes the mixedlevel schools with a primary section. 6 National Institute of Education (NIE) is the faculty of education of the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. It is also the sole teacher education institute in Singapore; as such, all teachers in Singapore are trained and certified by NIE. 7 In Singapore schools’ management structure, the EL department leaders comprise the head of department (HOD) and two level heads (LHs), who are assistants to the HOD. Usually there are two LHs in the EL department—one to oversee the upper primary levels (primary 3 to 6) and one to oversee the lower primary levels (primary 1 and 2). 8 Senior/lead teachers are official appointments in the MOE Teaching Track. Teachers who are assessed to be excellent teachers will be appointed as senior teachers to serve as role models and mentor the other teachers, so as to raise the professional capability of their colleagues in schools; lead teachers are “lead Senior Teachers and partner school leaders to build professional capacity within the school in the areas of subject content, pedagogy

and assessment” (AsiaOne, 2009, para. 10).

Part 2 Learners and Learning Since the people we teach are at the core of learning, it is impossible to separate learners from what and how they are expected to learn in twentyfirstcentury schools. The chapters in this section take a multifaceted look at the variety of twentyfirstcentury learners, the range of approaches to learning, tools learners can use to enhance their learning, and the ways standardization of curriculum has influenced the circumstances of learning. In “Educational Neuroscience: Are We There Yet?”, Almarode and Daniel address the many myths that have infiltrated the educational landscape with the potential to obfuscate rather than enlighten learning. They also discuss the potential of neuroscience to inform educational practices and subsequently support learning. Dover and Schultz, in “Turning Toward Students: Adopting a StudentCentered Stance in MandateCentered Times,” discuss the effects of a studentcentered approach on learning and identify ways teachers can use individual learners’ characteristics to reshape the learning process even in times of external control, mandates, and testing. Their timely suggestions emphasize the potential of beginning learning from where the learner is, and the power of communication to enhance learning. In “Learning Anytime, Anywhere through Technology: Reconsidering Teaching and Learning for the iMaker Generation,” Green and Donovan offer a temporal overview of technology in teaching and learning and the teaching practices that are most likely to enhance the learning of students comprising the iMaker generation. The authors pose questions related to changes in teaching practices and suggest what might occur to accommodate these learners. Grieshaber and Ryan, in “The Place of Learning in the Systematization and Standardization of Early Childhood Education,” lead us in understanding past practices and current initiatives in teaching young learners and to contemplate what is possible through innovative practices. They offer a global view of the motivation to address the education of the youngest members of society and question restraints to early childhood curriculum that may not consider learners’ engagement and response. The authors also examine the possibilities inherent in teachers and early learners constructing individualized curricular approaches. In “Exceptional Education is Special,” Slanda and Little present a historical view of the ways the learning of students with disabilities has been shaped through policy and reform movements. Requirements of integration of students with disabilities into the standardsbased curriculum to prepare them for college or the workforce are discussed. The authors offer strategies to support the teaching of students with disabilities and describe ways the learning of these students can be enhanced through differentiated curriculum and problembased learning. As Mortimer Adler stated years ago, “If it’s good for the best, it’s good for the rest.” In “Nevada’s English Language Learner Strategy: A Case Study on Policymaking and

Implementation,” Martinez presents a detailed look at the involvement of legislators, administrators, and teachers in creating curriculum and pedagogical frameworks for English language learners (ELL) in a single state. The author frames the case study with national data as well as describing the challenges and successes inherent within a specific population. Descriptions are given of the individual groups involved in the process of establishing a “pulpit” for ELL and literacy interventions, curriculum, and pedagogical frameworks to serve students who are ELL. It is clear that “What Happens in Vegas” doesn’t always stay in Vegas.

7 Educational Neuroscience: Are We There Yet? John T. Almarode and David B. Daniel James Madison University Educators are interested in neuroscience because they are changing people’s brains and they want to know more. SarahJayne Blakemore

Educational applications of brain science may come eventually, but as of now neuroscience has little to offer teachers in terms of informing classroom practice. John T. Bruer

If you see the term “BrainBased,” run! David B. Daniel

7.1 Introduction When invited to contribute to this volume on the topic of neuroscience and education, there was trepidation on the part of one of the authors. Despite being the managing editor of the journal Mind, Brain, and Education for over a decade, David Daniel does not believe that neuroscience has had much to offer the classroom. To him, neuroscience, while promising, is not yet ready to responsibly pivot into the complex world of the classroom. In fact, he has argued, what most people view as the impact of neuroscience in education is really the resurrection or reframing of preexisting ideas in cognitive science wrapped in vaguely related neuroscience through a process he calls braincarnation. He still challenges any stakeholder in education or neuroscience to find one educational practice that has its origins in neuroscience rather than existing educational strategies rationalized, often erroneously, by neuroscience. The first author of this contribution, an author of several books and articles attempting to apply neuroscience to education, is much more optimistic about the present role of neuroscience. John Almarode has argued that, while the complexities of the brain are only beginning to be unveiled, there are already a number of important findings and principles that could inform the practice of teaching, when carefully considered. This author takes the perspective that teaching is about adapting and adjusting the educational environment to the hereandnow of the complex classroom. Thus, having a good understanding of how the brain learns gives the classroom teacher the greatest probability that his or her adaptations and adjustments will not simply be trial and error. The views of both authors are supported in the literature, although the economic advantage of the latter makes it seem more prominent, and certainly more ubiquitous. In fact, neuroscience is already out there and being used by a number of teachers and districts to support curricular

decisions, at least metaphorically. With these two opposing viewpoints and the popularity of brainbased teaching and learning, this chapter seeks to articulate arguments on both sides and let the reader decide. The chapter will clearly outline some of the potential issues surrounding the popularization of neuroscience in education and the potential for misuse, arguing for an informed skepticism for educators. Once framed accordingly, the authors will share some general findings that have been demonstrated to have potential positive impact for classroom teaching. The chapter ends with the presentation of a model that provides a framework for responsibly bringing these two fields together. Formally, the intentions of this chapter are to: (1) describe possible findings from neuroscience that may be beneficial for teachers to know, or at least be aware of; (2) describe the perils of knowing this information as it relates to classroom and instructional decisions; and (3) explain and apply a framework for responsibly bridging neuroscience and education.

7.1.1 Neuroscience is Here In what context does the combining of neuroscience and education exist? In education, the age of accountability has prompted classroom teachers to seek the best approaches to produce the best outcomes in their students. These outcomes include behavioral, emotional, and cognitive outcomes. For example, the educational literature is replete with research on positive behavioral interventions and support, and programs for promoting socialemotional development, along with a robust body of research on factors that increase student learning and academic achievement (e.g., Hattie, 2009, 2012; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Sanders, Wright, & Horn, 1997; Scheerens, 2016). One such area that has gained significant attention in the last few decades is neuroscience, or research on the brain, as it may apply to educational interventions. On its surface, the rationale for focusing on neuroscience as an area to inform education is quite simple: race car drivers must know how their car works, cardiologists must know how the heart works, and, thus, teachers must know how the brain works. This rationale is not without challenges and critics (e.g., Bowers, 2016; Bruer, 1997, 1998, 1999; Devonshire & Dommett, 2010; Willingham, 2009; Willingham & Lloyd, 2007). For example, Bowers (2016) argues that any reported successes in the field of educational neuroscience are: (1) obvious and do not need neuroscience research to support the specific educational practice (e.g., there is no age limit on learning); (2) drawn from research in the cognitive and behavioral science, not neuroscience (e.g., the testing effect); and (3) derived from misconceptions (e.g., learning styles or rightbrain, leftbrain learning). It is on Bowers’s ( 2016) second point that Bruer (1997), Willingham and Lloyd (2007), Willingham (2009), and Devonshire and Dommett (2010) agree. Neuroscience seeks to understand the brain while education seeks to develop an effective practice for teaching and learning in the classroom (Devonshire & Dommett, 2010). However, other scholars in the fields of neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, and the learning sciences have identified potential utility between neuroscience and educational practices (Ansari, Coch, & De Smedt, 2011; Blakemore & Frith, 2005; Goswami, 2006; Knox, 2016; Varma, McCandliss, & Schwartz, 2008). These scholars argue that the impact of neuroscience on education can be facilitated by collaboratively developing common goals for intellectual

pursuit. Specifically, Goswami (2006) argues that neuroscientists should work collaboratively with teachers to develop research questions that are relevant to education and can also be addressed by neuroscientists. With these views on the perils and promises of neuroscience and education, the individuals caught in the middle are the ones who may benefit most from the promises, and those who might experience the greatest setbacks from the perils: classroom teachers. That is, finding clarity on these opposing views is imperative as those caught in the middle, by either no choice of their own or as innocent consumers of literature on the latest fads in education, are the classroom teachers and, by proxy, young learners. Through this lens we address the following question with regard to the bridge between neuroscience and education: Are we there yet?

7.2 Why Neuroscience? The Allure of the Sexy Brain Neuroscience is popular. Brain science has moved from the laboratory and scientists’ attempts to unlock the biology of the mind to being used to support everything from political decisions, to marketing strategies for soft drinks, to educational environments, to life outcomes. Yet, very little of the fascinating corpus of what we are learning about the brain has direct implications to practice, medicine being one of the few exceptions. Why, then, are references to the brain so common? Quite bluntly, it sells. Neuroscience sells books, supplements, software, and even water. There is something persuasive, almost comforting, about having a tangible, physical basis to describe the working of the mind. Images and models from fMRI and other imaging technologies seem tantalizing and bring the perception of credibility to any individual referencing these pictures (McCabe & Castel, 2008; Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). Like a model in a magazine, however, we often fail to recognize that the pictures are airbrushed, taken from just the right angle, in just the right light, and may not accurately represent what is really there. For example, the brain doesn’t “light up” when we process information or think. If the brain did, we would merely need to concentrate on something and open our mouths to see in the dark! The images are, after all, models. In the classroom, just like in popular culture, models about teaching and learning can be misleading (e.g., the use of drill and kill, naturalistic approaches to reading, learning styles, leftbrain and rightbrain learning). Models convince us to do things, buy things, and even say things that may not be in the best interest or even be correlated to our end goals in teaching and learning. Similarly, researchers have found that images of the brain are used quite often to persuade us to do or believe something, whether or not the information is accurate and whether or not the images of the brain are necessary for the actual argument (McCabe & Castel, 2008). In a provocative study by Weisberg et al. (2008) participants were given good or valid arguments along with bad or invalid arguments. Participants were then asked to rate the accuracy of each argument. The researchers, however, added one additional component to this study. Some participants were shown images of the brain to support the explanation, while others were not shown these images. As shown in Figure 7.1, the presence of brain images leads to a much greater acceptance of the arguments, the bad ones in particular!

Figure 7.1 The presence of brain images leads to a greater acceptance of bad arguments or explanations. Source: Weisberg et al. (2008).

Similar results are found even without pictures: including irrelevant neuroscience information in articles, even without images of the brain, sways judgment of scientific reasoning (Weisberg et al., 2008). As we continue to be active consumers of science to inform teaching and learning in our classrooms, we must be aware of the potential for scientific information to lend the illusion of credibility to questionable arguments, neuroscience in particular. In part because of the persuasiveness of neuroscience, there is great excitement about the potential for neuroscience to inform educational practice. This enthusiasm has spurred an industry of books, conferences, blogs, and professional speakers specializing in communicating various, at times reckless and at other times promising, interpretations of neuroscience for education. Not surprisingly, others in the field, especially neuroscientists, urge caution about rushing to classroom implications and interpretations that move beyond the available data or practical implications that are derived from studies not designed to address what is referred to as particular levelsofanalysis (e.g., studies designed to localize brain functioning being used to rationalize classroom techniques).

7.3 LevelsofAnalysis Scientists study human behavior and learning from a variety of vantage points. Even in neuroscience, scientists can study the neurons associated with learning, the networks of interconnected neurons associated with that learning, or the parts of the brain that are recruited to perform a certain task. Different groups of scientists study each domain from a slightly different vantage point, and they seldom overlap. As researchers move from a single neuron to networks of neurons, the landscape gets more complex, with different variables or factors working in different ways, than at the single neuron level. Scientists do this in order to isolate specific mechanisms around which to develop expertise, theory, and deep knowledge at a given level. Put differently, if scientists seek to understand a complex problem, they often first isolate various components of that problem to narrow in on a solution. Otherwise, there is simply too much noise, limiting the ability of researchers to find a viable solution. This same challenge applies to neuroscience and education. Does it make sense to take what we know about molecules and make specific educational policy based on that, or is that too big of a leap? This issue, often termed levelsofanalysis, is extremely relevant when it comes to evaluating what is good evidence to influence, or even inform, educational practice as shown in Figure 7.2. The level of complexity increases at each levelofanalysis due to the progression from isolated events (e.g., a single physiological response in the brain in an isolated and controlled context versus the behavior of a 5year old child with immeasurable social interactions across multiple contexts).

Figure 7.2 The progression of the levelsofanalysis in the study of human behavior with increasing levels of complexity. Teachers are most often concerned with behavior. Behavior is easily observed in the classroom and, thus, easier to measure (e.g., positive behavioral interventions and supports, classroom walkthrough protocols). However, behavior is much more difficult to analyze and derive meaning from. The levelofanalysis directly beneath behavior, in terms of dependence and complexity, is cognition. In other words, cognition is more closely linked to behavior and behavior is more closely linked to what an educator can measure in his or her classroom. Therefore, cognition may be a fruitful area from which to draw recommendations from practice as it is directly related to the observed and measured behaviors (Bruer, 1999). Moving between the levelofanalysis of the brain and the cognitive level can also be fruitful in drawing conclusions (Willingham & Lloyd, 2007). However, the movement between these two levels is not without taking into consideration the complexity of the human brain and the associated cognitive processes. Specifically, the brain works as a distribution processor in that no part of the brain does just one thing nor does it by itself at the level of cognition. In other words, a number of parts of the brain have to work together for all but the most elemental of processing. This becomes even more complex when we jump to the level of behavior.

Observable and measurable behavior in the classroom involves cognition, emotion, motivation, and their entire constituent processes simultaneously and reciprocally interacting to influence student behavior. This highlights the idea and cautions associated with the levels ofanalysis. As researchers and consumers of research move up in the levelsofanalysis, the result is an increase in complexity and, when it comes to educational research (i.e., classrooms and students), messiness. Jumping over levelsofanalysis, directly from brain research to classroom, teacher or learners’ behavior, for example, risks the oversimplification of the complexity of the originating level and overlooks the reality that cognition, emotion, motivation, and their constituent processes simultaneously interact in a dynamic fashion to influence behaviors of interest.

7.4 Analogies, Not Data To address this increased complexity, very often the influence of neuroscience on education is done by analogy, rather than from data, to the classroom. Plasticity, the ability of the brain to change due to experience, is often cited as one of the primary examples of the relevancy of neuroscience and education. Note, though, that the physical actions of the brain associated with plasticity are ignored in this generalization. Rather, it is the message that experience can encourage structural changes in the brain that is leveraged by educators as a physical analogy linking brain research to classroom practice (Dubinsky, 2010; Dubinsky, Roehrig, & Varma, 2013; Dweck, 2006). Further, such analogies and metaphors are seldom accurate at the higher levelsofanalysis in which we hope to apply them. Take, for example, the analogy that the brain is like a muscle. This is often used to imply the more you work at it, the more adapted or “fit” your brain gets on a particular task. However, the brain is not like a muscle in many important ways. It does not get bigger as you “exercise” it, and the skulls of smart people do not expand as they acquire new skills and knowledge. Rather than grow larger, the brain becomes more organized, efficient, and connected. Such faulty mental models are quite often the result of the oversimplification needed to apply lower levelsofanalysis to those above them.

7.5 Do Teachers Need to Know about the Brain? The answer is yes and no. Despite the pleas of many neuroscientists for caution, educators are flocking to neuroscience in everincreasing numbers. Armed with this new information, many educators are returning to their classrooms invigorated and eager to deploy new methods and ideas. Yet, as described above, few of the recommendations trickling down to educators are directly implied by the research. In fact, most of it is metaphorical. Why, then, might these techniques yield shortterm results? There is some evidence that the enthusiasm and/or knowledge developed from exposure to neuroscience might influence a teacher’s classroom performance or engagement, especially when teaching about the brain. Dubinsky and colleagues (2013) provided training on the brain to teachers and observed increases in teacher engagement and pedagogical practice. The

effects, however, could not be tied directly to the content of the training, according to the authors, as the pedagogical techniques of the training could have also encouraged changes in teaching. The authors also point out that the focus of the training was on the concept of plasticity, as opposed to learning about the brain and how it functions in other ways. Other studies have found that being exposed to the concept of plasticity, or the brain’s ability to change due to experience, is a powerful metaphor for both teachers and students (Dweck, 2006). Belief in this metaphor, buoyed by concrete representations, can change a teacher’s perspective and practice. In other words, the intervention was not neuroscience based. It was attitude based. Analogy and metaphor are not neuroscience, but the building of a body of knowledge and understanding via the accumulation of evidence is and should be for both education and neuroscience.

7.6 EvidenceBased or Evidence Demonstrated: Hypotheses for Practice While specific pedagogical practices are not likely to be derived directly from neuroscience, or the science of learning for that matter, findings and implications from research can serve as sources of hypotheses for practice. For example, if research on the default mode of the brain implies important neural activity related to learning occurs when a person is at rest (e.g., ImmordinoYang, Christodoulou, & Singh, 2012), it may be the case that welltimed breaks, mind wandering, or recess may enhance the durability and depth of certain types of knowledge as suggested by Almarode and Miller (2013) and Almarode and Almarode (2008). However, this implication is a researchbased hypothesis and must be verified through behavioral studies within the context of a classroom, not laboratory, to have practical utility. Welltimed breaks, mind wandering, and recess are often cited as evidencebased practices. However, if not tested, the implementation of these specific pedagogical practices can subvert, rather than support, learning (Daniel, 2012). The terms “scientificbased,” “researchbased,” and “evidencebased” are frequently used in conversations about what works in classrooms. Furthermore, these terms are used interchangeably without careful consideration as to the meaning and implications behind such terms and the classroom practices they are used to support. The term evidencebased is used far too often in education when there is no specific evidence that a particular pedagogical practice works in specific classrooms matching a specific context. Instead, many practices reported as evidencebased are simply arguments derived from a larger body of research studies, not from a researchbased hypothesis verified through behavioral studies within the context of a classroom. Therefore, it is imperative that the field of education formally test these implications to move them from evidencebased hypotheses or an argument based upon a collection of research, to evidencedemonstrated through direct evidence that practice implications have the desired impact in contexts representative of those in which they will be deployed (i.e., the classroom). Consider the work of Greenough and Chang (1989) who found changes in rat brains,

specifically dendritic branching, increased blood vessels, brain weight, cortical thickness, and improved behavioral learning, when they were placed in complex environments, rich in social and active stimulation. These studies are often cited as the evidence base that complex classroom environments will grow dendrites, increase the density of blood vessels, increase the brain weight of their students, enhance cortical thickness, and improve behavioral learning. However, there is a paucity of evidence that these outcomes have been observed within the context of classroom learning. When something is cited as researchbased, this reference implies a specific argument or line of thought regarding a piece of information. Researchbased indicates that an instructional strategy or intervention has been extrapolated from a particular research finding or collection of findings without specifically assessing the effectiveness of the strategy or intervention in a context related to the one in which it is referenced. Thus, educators should engage in the consumption of the translation of neuroscience to classroom practice through adapting the findings to their specific context and seeking evidence demonstrating that the particular finding had an impact on student learning. In fact, the opening editorial in the first dedicated journal in this area, Mind, Brain, and Education, highlighted the promise and caution of integrating neuroscience into a multidisciplinary effort to improve educational practice (Fischer et al., 2007). This editorial argued for the need to first develop the infrastructure within which neuroscience and other disciplines could eventually converge and reciprocally encourage more complex and complete science as well as more effective practice. The brain is one of nature’s most complex achievements and we need to respect it as such. Despite the wonderful technological advances that allow neuroscientists to study aspects of biological functioning, these efforts are in their infancy. Our ability to comprehend the complex and multilevel interactions of the human brain as they pertain to all but the most simple of processing is seldom sufficient, by itself, to confidently make pedagogical recommendations. In fact, we would argue, it is this complexity of this dynamic system that fascinates us and draws educators to consume brain research. It is ironic that the corollary impulse for some is to reduce this complexity to simplistic explanations. That does not mean the neuroscience has no utility in education. Rather, it implies that neuroscience may have much more to offer in the future than it does now, as models and technology encourage deeper insights into the workings of the human brain. In light of this discussion, are there a number of important findings and principles that could inform the practice of teaching, when carefully considered?

7.7 What Do Teachers Need to Know about the Brain? Learning is about adapting (Mayer, 2011). As a learner, you have to force your brain to adapt to different contexts. By the very nature of this definition, a classroom teacher who is focused on student learning or befuddled by an achievement gap in his or her classroom may find seeking answers from brain science very enticing. Specific to education, if a classroom teacher is tasked with facilitating learning and supporting learners as they force their brains to adapt to

a different context, an understanding of how the learning is accomplished seems like a helpful body of background knowledge to possess. However, this can also work against the classroom teacher (e.g., Dekker, Lee, HowardJones, & Jolles, 2012; Gleichgerrcht, Lira Luttges, Salvarezza, & Campos, 2015). Educational researcher Graham Nuthall (2007) argues that teaching requires a highly refined skill for monitoring and adjusting to hereandnow circumstances of the classroom and individual students. Teachers who lack the underlying principles behind educational or instructional decisions will be limited in their ability to make those adjustments as these educational or instructional decisions will be viewed as discrete methods that can and should be dropped into their classroom. “Unless [teachers] have a good understanding of how the technique or resource is supposed to affect student learning, [their] adaptations can only be trial and error” (Nuthall, 2007, p. 14). Learning, in both a behavioral and a biological sense, requires change. Thus, the following five findings and principles from neuroscience provide the best chance, presently, for teachers to make appropriate adjustments to the hereandnow circumstances in their classrooms.

7.7.1 Complex Networks It would be valuable for teachers to know and understand that the brain functions as a complex system and not isolated or compartmentalized areas responsible for discrete tasks or functions. Classroom vignette. A fourthgrade teacher decides to set up her mathematics learning centers so that students who are rightbrained versus leftbrained will have the opportunity to engage in mathematics learning that aligns with their strengths. Similarly, there are stations set up for students who are leftbrained learners. The above vignette brings to light the belief that the brain is composed of discrete isolated parts or components that have a primary responsibility and involvement in specific tasks. Although the brain does have two hemispheres, separated by a fissure and connected via the corpus callosum, this physical characteristic does not translate into the two hemispheres or sides having isolated and specific tasks. The right hemisphere does not isolate or restrict itself to creativity and the arts just as the left hemisphere is not restricted to logical and sequential learning. This is an oversimplified view of the human brain and does not incorporate findings that the brain is a system of complex networks. The brain functions as a system of complex networks (Sporns & Betzel, 2016). Recent research in neuroscience, pioneered by Olaf Sporns and his colleagues, suggests that our brains are organized as highly integrated networks and not isolated or compartmentalized areas responsible for a discrete list of functions (Kim et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2016; Nigam et al., 2016). Put differently, the brain is not composed of isolated areas that are responsible for reading, writing, and arithmetic. Thus, every experience or action in the classroom is not the result of, say for example, the hippocampus, Broca’s area, the prefrontal cortex, the motor cortex. Instead, the complexity modeled by Sporns and his colleagues points to complexity well beyond the isolated model that nurtures such neuromyths as rightbrain, leftbrain learning. What is going on in the minds and brains of students in the classroom is far more

complex and integrated, with knowledge and understanding represented in the brain as a neural network of brain cells (neurons and glia cells) and brain chemicals like dopamine, serotonin, melatonin, norepinephrine (Abel & Lattal, 2001; Cambon et al., 2004; Elgersma & Silva, 1999; Silva, 2003; Sylwester, 2005). Two examples of how teachers can leverage the idea of complex networks is through priming and prior knowledge. The ability, and thus the success, of a student to attend to and retain the most relevant information from instructional experience is strongly correlated with his or her ability to link the new learning with his or her own prior knowledge (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1994; DeWitt, Knight, Hicks, & Ball, 2012; Schneider, 1993; Tobias, 1994). For example, when individuals have low background knowledge on a specific topic or content they will also be limited in their ability to activate related networks and associations around that specific topic or content. Research suggests that these individuals will have difficulty identifying and assimilating relevant information into their preexisting knowledge (Kim et al., 2016). The brain’s processing capacity is dependent upon our working memory system (e.g., see classic studies like Miller, 1956; Peterson & Peterson, 1959) and several brain structures like the hippocampus (Laroche, Davis, & Jay, 2000; Manns, Hopkins, & Squire, 2003; Squire, 1992). Neuroscience research that looks at the levels of activation in regions of the brain responsible for learning and memory enables scientists to study how these levels vary when prior knowledge exists or when priming is used (e.g., Buckner, Koutstaal, Schacter, & Rosen, 2000; Buckner et al., 1995; Squire et al., 1992; Tulving & Schacter, 1990; Wagner, Desmond, Demb, Glover, & Gabrieli, 1997). These studies suggest that if the student has the necessary prior knowledge at his or her fingertips or has been primed, then the activation of prior knowledge and the association with better encoding, retention, and recall will occur. This has been well studied for decades (e.g., Alexander et al., 1994; DeWitt et al., 2012; Schneider, 1993; Tobias, 1994).

7.7.2 Plasticity It would be valuable for teachers to know and understand that the brain is plastic in that the human brain possesses the capacity for continuous alteration in response to experiences, both positive and negative. Classroom vignette. An eighthgrade language arts teacher laments over her classroom roster for the upcoming school year. Nothing about any specific student stands out, but it is the overall recognition of the significant amount of growth expected of her during the upcoming school year. In the midst of holidays, snow days, and other events in the school calendar, is this a realistic expectation of growth for one school year? As previously pointed out, Richard Mayer (2011) defines learning as change. This change is attributed to an individual’s experience and is inferred by observable and measurable outcomes around the individual learner’s performance (Mayer, 2008, 2009, 2011). For teachers, the predominating, sometimes taboo, question is, can we really foster and nurture this change in our classrooms? Further, does what we do alter the physical structure of the brain?

From the human brain perspective, the potential for this change is an inherent feature of the human brain. The human brain possesses the capacity for continuous alteration in response to both good and bad experiences. Neuroscientists agree that there are two major categories of plasticity: experienceexpectant and experiencedependent plasticity (Fu & Zuo, 2011; Galvan, 2010). Considering experienceexpectant plasticity, there are stimuli or environmental experiences that, as a result of our evolution, are specieswide and, as a result, the human brain has come to expect (e.g., visual cues, sound, and movement). Experienceexpectant plasticity, then, refers to the type of alterations in networks that occur as a result of these specieswide, common experiences that human beings have come to expect. Without these experiences, the deprivation of these stimuli results in stunted or inhibited plasticity (Brito & Noble, 2014; Galvan, 2010). Relevant to the classroom is the body of research on children who grow up in an impoverished environment (e.g., Barch et al., 2016; Brito & Noble, 2014; Jednoróg et al., 2012; Luby et al., 2013). On the other hand, the human brain does not have the capacity to anticipate every experience it will encounter during the span of its lifetime. Thus, our brain has evolved to have a significant level of adaptability based on the unexpected experiences it encounters outside of the womb. This is called experiencedependent plasticity. Experiencedependent plasticity is the necessary condition or characteristic of the brain needed for learning. The human brain has no evolutionary reason for expecting to encounter stimuli related to academic content. However, experiencedependent plasticity provides the potential for the continuous alteration in response to experiences. This is learning. Given that no two individuals have the same experiences in life or in the classroom, differences among brains due to plasticity are the norm, not the exception (Blakemore, 2012; Casey & Jones, 2010; Choudhury, 2010; Powell, 2006; Schenk, 2011). However, the plasticity of the human brain suggests that learning, and thus the growth of one year per individual, is a realistic expectation in our classrooms regardless of the diversity in the classroom.

7.7.3 Novelty It would be valuable for teachers to know and understand that novelty strongly influences the attentional systems of the brain. Classroom vignette. Getting and keeping the attention of her students often seems like an insurmountable task to a high school algebra teacher. She frequently bemoans the fact that she must compete with twentyfirstcentury teenager distractions to get her students to attend to solving linear inequalities in her afternoon algebra class. Daniel Willingham (2010) states in his bestselling book, Why Don’t Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom, that memory is the residue of thought. In other words, students, and all humans for that matter, only remember what they think about. Thus, for the classroom teacher, one of the biggest challenges is getting students to do the work of learning to think about the content he

or she intends for them to learn. The logical step preceding this is for teachers to first get students’ attention if they ever stand a chance of getting them to think about the content. The brain seeks novelty. Novelty gets the brain’s attention. Therefore, when the human brain detects novelty, it responds by activating several areas and a certain chemical of the brain responsible for attention and focus (McGaugh, 2004; Nieoullon & Coquerel, 2003; Posner & Dehaene, 1994; Raz & Buhle, 2006). The areas are the reticular activating system, the prefrontal cortex, the amygdala, and the cingulate gyrus, and the chemical is the neurotransmitter dopamine (Posner & Dehaene, 1994; Posner & Peterson, 1990). Each of these brain areas is involved in corralling the attention of your students and, more important, helping them to decide what to pay attention to and what to disregard as irrelevant stimuli. Studies have observed an association between novel tasks and the arousal of the reticular activating system or RAS (Raz & Buhle, 2006; Shirey, 1992). When tasks are routine, the RAS is less active and diminishes our ability to decide what to attend to and what to ignore. It is in this brain situation that our students are more likely to attend to something that is irrelevant than to the task at hand. However, when a task is novel, the RAS becomes more active and increases our ability to decide what to attend to and what to ignore. If the novelty is associated with the topic or content of the lesson, our students are more likely to attend to the lesson (Braver, Reynolds, & Donaldson, 2003; Raz & Buhle, 2006). For a classroom teacher, awareness of this may be extraordinarily helpful as teachers strive to engage their learners. As teachers, we ask students to attend to stimuli in the classroom by providing activities centered on the topic or content of the lesson. At the same time, we are competing against irrelevant stimuli such as afterschool events, personal issues, the hum of the projector, and the sound of the heating or airconditioning. These competing stimuli represent the downside of novelty and the brain. Just as educators can leverage novelty to capture student attention, our brain’s desire for novelty works against the classroom teacher at the same time. Put differently, a chalkboard, textbook, and the Pythagorean theorem are not novel in and of themselves.

7.7.4 Behavioral Relevancy It would be valuable for teachers to know and understand that the human brain seeks relevancy, behavioral relevancy. Classroom vignette. A thirdgrade teacher is disheartened by the fact that her students constantly raise their hands and ask, “Why do we have to know this?” Occasionally she gets the question, “is this going to be on the test?” or “why do I have to do this?” On each occasion, she is taken aback by the fact that already, at ages 8 and 9, these students seem to have lost the desire to be lifelong learners. A highly integrated system involving the nucleus basalis and the chemical acetylcholine responds specifically to a behaviorally relevant task or experience. The nucleus basalis is a collection of neurons in the middle of the brain that becomes very active when something is judged to be behaviorally relevant (Chiba, Bucci, Holland, & Gallagher, 1995; Kilgard &

Merzenich, 1998; McGaughy, Dalley, Morrison, Everitt, & Robbins, 2002; Sarter, Bruno, & Givens, 2003; Waite, Wardlow, & Power, 1999). When the nucleus basalis is activated, this collection of neurons triggers the release of an abundance of acetylcholine (Kilgard & Merzenich, 1998; Mesulam, Mufson, Wainer, & Levey, 1983; Phillis, 1968; Rasmusson, 2000). Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that is absolutely essential in the formation of the types of memories we rely on in the classroom (Klinkenberg, Sambeth, & Blokland, 2011; Rasmusson, 2000). When something is deemed to be behaviorally relevant, a neurophysiological chain of events is set into motion that actually increases the potential formation of memories associated with the behaviorally relevant event (Butt & Bowman, 2002; Butt & Hodge, 1997; Butt, Noble, Rogers, & Rea, 2002; Cabrera, Chavez, Corley, Kitto, & Butt, 2006; De Bartolo et al., 2008; Kilgard & Merzenich, 1998). Instead of striving to convince a room full of 8 and 9yearolds that the information they are learning in science, social studies, mathematics, or language arts will be relevant when they are adults, teachers should focus on making each and every learning experience relevant in the hereandnow.

7.7.5 Emotion and the Dopamine Reward System It would be valuable for teachers to know and understand that emotions and rewards are associated with changes in the human brain, making it more conducive to learning and remembering. Emotion and cognition are linked. Classroom vignette. A sixthgrade science teacher notices that his students are more engaged and better retain information when they have the opportunity to participate in a gamelike experience with inconsequential competition (i.e., no true winner). As part of the brain’s survival system, the brain has specific structures and chemicals that determine whether the novel task that just grabbed our attention is high or low priority or is not a lifeordeath situation that requires the fightorflight response. For example, the amygdala is an almondshaped structure found deep in the brain. This dopaminepacked structure found in your limbic system has the very important task of monitoring all incoming stimuli, especially novel stimuli, for uncertainty or unknown factors and, in extreme conditions, making the decision about fight or flight (Gonen, Admon, Podlipsky, & Hendler, 2012; HarmonJones & Van Honk, 2012; Lindquist, Wager, Kober, BlissMoreau, & Barrett, 2012). Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that has been associated with memory retention and information processing. Studies strongly suggest that when the brain is enriched with a surge of dopamine, working memory capacity increases, mood regulation improves, and memory retention goes up (Berry, CervantesSandoval, Nicholas, & Davis, 2012; Schicknick et al., 2012; Whalley, 2012). The amygdala is thus involved in the processing of emotions, both positive and negative (Breiter et al., 1996; Hennenlotter et al., 2005; Somerville, Kim, Johnstone, Alexander, & Whalen, 2004). When the amygdala processes an emotional event, it releases a surge of dopamine into the brain (Cahill & McGaugh, 1995; Nieoullon & Coquerel, 2003). John Medina (2008) likens this function of the amygdala to using sticky notes on experiences. Just as you and I use sticky notes to help us remember things, when an experience

and the accompanying stimuli include high emotional content—positive or negative—the amygdala places a dopamine sticky note on the experience so that the brain will flag the experience for later recall (Dolcos, LaBar, & Cabeza, 2004). However, it is worth reiterating that the brain functions as a complex system and not isolated or compartmentalized areas responsible for discrete tasks or functions. As spotlighted as the very first thing teachers need to know about the brain, the subsequent ideas not only identify additional ideas teachers need to know about the brain, but continue to highlight the complexity of the human brain. For example, activity in the RAS and the amygdala are associated with novel experiences, the brain must recruit higherorder processing centers to incorporate these experiences into working memory and then longterm memory storage. Two areas that have been linked to this higherorder processing are the cingulate gyrus and prefrontal cortex. The cingulate gyrus can be viewed as the personal liaison between the emotional, often irrational, parts of the brain and the area of the brain responsible for rational or executive functioning (Friedenberg & Silverman, 2012). As the personal liaison, the cingulate gyrus assimilates the emotional component of the experience provided by the amygdala and other members of the limbic system and communicates this information to the prefrontal cortex or PFC (Friedenberg & Silverman, 2012). As previously mentioned, these five findings and principles from neuroscience may provide the best chance, presently, for teachers to make appropriate adjustments to the hereandnow circumstances in their classrooms, but this is not without caution.

7.8 The Yellow Belt Problem In teaching and learning of martial arts, it is not uncommon to have a student come to class the week after being promoted from white belt (beginner level) to yellow belt (a little less of a beginner level) having gotten into a fight shortly after the accomplishment. The promotion to yellow belt often leads to the illusion of greater facility than is the case. The same can be said for many types of knowledge: from the student who comes home on winter break after one psychology class eager to diagnose the entire family, to the person who fixed his or her own car one time and is now an expert on all cars. This illusion of knowledge can lead to pedagogy and attitudes that subvert learning. For example, belief in the certain concepts of learning styles can lead to practices that actually encourage less learning in the classroom (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008; Riener & Willingham, 2010; Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2014). Yet, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent each year by educators for training in concepts for which there is high enthusiasm but scant, or even contrary, scientific evidence (Pashler et al., 2008; Pasquinelli, 2012; Sylvan & Christodoulou, 2010). The Yellow Belt Problem also applies to the application of neuroscience to education. With regard to neuroscience and education, studies in several countries point to the existence of a number of neuromyths (Bruer, 1999; Geake, 2008; Gleichgerrcht et al., 2015; Goswami, 2006; HowardJones, 2014; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD],

2002; Purdy, 2008). Briefly, neuroscience has been used to support a number of erroneous ideas that have permeated education around the world (see Table 7.1). The vast majority of these erroneous conclusions are the result of faulty mental models based upon simplistic analogies describing elementary brain functioning and sometimes innocent overgeneralizations. Much has been written debunking neuromyths (Dekker et al., 2012; OECD, 2002), yet they persist. Importantly, neuromyths are more prevalent in educators who report greater knowledge and exposure to neuroscience (Dekker et al., 2012; Gleichgerrcht et al., 2015). This is a classic example of the Yellow Belt Problem and stands in the way of neuroscience successfully informing teaching and learning in today’s classrooms. Table 7.1 Neuromyths in the field of education. 1. Individuals learn more efficiently and effectively if the instruction matches their individual learning style. 2. Some learners are rightbrain learners, while others are leftbrain learners. This explains why some learners are strong in mathematics and others are better at the arts. 3. Humans only use 10% of their brains. 4. There are windows of opportunity in early childhood. Once these windows close, the learning of specific tasks or skills is no longer possible. 5. “Brain breaks” that require students to “cross the midline” improve communication in the brain between the left and right hemispheres. 6. The human brain remembers everything. However, we cannot always access the information when it is needed. 7. Learners have specific intelligences (e.g., musical, visualspatial, logical mathematical). 8. With regard to learning, male and female brains are very different. 9. The brain is static or unchanging.

7.9 How Do We Get There Responsibly? There is no paucity of journals for scholars, scientists, and researchers to publish scientific research in their field of study. For some journals, the focus is on the practitioner, and attempts are made to translate scientific research into specific strategies or what are called classroom ready ideas. Additionally, there is no want for conference venues for these individuals to present evidencebased practices to audiences of educators. Whether perusing the latest journals or attending a conference, educators have access to an abundance of ideas that are packaged as researchbased, scientifically based, or evidencedbased. In light of the argument and perspective presented in this chapter, how can educators become responsible consumers of research on the human brain, maximizing the promises that neuroscience offers to

the teaching and learning of students while at the same time avoiding the perils that have historically plagued the field of education (e.g., rightbrain versus leftbrain, specific intelligences, and learning styles)? The information on the brain in the preceding sections exemplifies some of the more common and most utilized brainbased findings leveraged in texts purchased by educators. It should be noted, however, that most of the primary neuroscientific findings are descriptive. In other words, they express a relatively reliable relationship: when someone does x, it is correlated to activity in brainpart y. This relationship gives us a tiny glimpse into how the brain and the constituent components may function for specific tasks. Tasks which, by the way, are extremely simplified in the lab in order to allow us to zero in on such simple relationships in the midst of a very complex and busy brain. As neuroscience and technologies mature, we will refine, expand, and even discard many of our current notions about the brain and learning. This is how science is supposed to work. However, the need to educate in the most impactful and informed manner is ever present. While science can take years, decades, or even centuries to carefully plod toward useable knowledge, educators do not have that luxury. We find this issue in the historical tension between chemistry, biology, and medicine. The field of medicine, faced with a similar problem, has had to develop methods for identifying promising findings in basic science and then safely and responsibly translate them for the good of humankind. These methods, such as randomized clinical trials and the field of translational medicine, are constantly being refined and under significant scrutiny through peer review, public policy, and government oversight. They exist and provide a more responsible and efficient route from lab to patient than solely relying upon the necessarily pedantic and evernuanced plodding of basic science. There are no similar processes in education. Thus, a finding in a rat or petri dish need merely be packaged properly to imply an educational consequence: quite a leap, indeed! In light of the discussion around the allure of the brain, levelsofanalysis, analogies for understanding, the presentation of the five principles and findings in neuroscience, as well as the Yellow Belt Problem, how do educators assimilate this information in a way that informs the practice of teaching, without engaging in practices that subvert learning? Neuroscientific data, in their present form, may benefit education only so far as they spur the development of testable hypotheses for practice. For example, if a teacher believes that the information about the RAS in the previous section implies that teaching and learning may be facilitated in a certain way, then he or she should develop a hypothesis for practice, implement the practice, and obtain data that determine if the hypothesis can be evidencedemonstrated. However, there is also a risk that this may have nothing really to do with the RAS. But, that is fine. At present, this is a useful role for neuroscience in education: a source of hypotheses rather than a source of pedagogy. Educating is ultimately a practical pursuit. So, while this may yield potentially effective pedagogies, it may not enrich our knowledge of how people learn or how the brain supports learning. Until the field of education develops translational methods and systems of proof that could lead to responsible translation of scientific findings to the classroom and from the classroom to scientific inquiries, a reflective teacher in a representative context must determine the utility of any recommendations derived from

neuroscientific data. Again, educators should engage in consumption of the translation of neuroscience to classroom practice through adapting the findings to their specific context and seeking evidence demonstrating that the particular finding had an impact on student learning. This endeavor requires the collaboration between researchers in neuroscience, researchers in education, and classroom teachers.

7.9.1 Role of the Researcher in Hypotheses of Practice To provide solid research from which hypotheses of practice can be generated, the process requires an explicit and concerted effort by researchers to translate findings into potential applications or lines of inquiry that can be unpacked by cognitive neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, and other fieldbased researchers. These potential applications and lines of inquiry generate sources for teacher inquiry and other stakeholders in the educational community to propose hypotheses of practice that align with current needs in classrooms. Thus, each hypothesis for practice can be traced back to findings and principles from neuroscience that have been established and continue to unfold in the field. However, instead of directly linking the neuroscience to a fourthgrade literacy lesson, eighthgrade physical science classroom, or high school world history class, researchers should work to translate the findings into guiding principles for additional pursuits of inquiry. Furthermore, this approach addresses the issue of different goals held by the fields of neuroscience and education (Bruer, 1997; Devonshire & Dommett, 2010; Willingham, 2009; Willingham & Lloyd, 2007). Through this approach, each of the guiding principles from neuroscience has the potential to be supported by an evidence base composed of a large amount of studies with similar findings across different classroom contexts. At the same time, this approach will facilitate the elimination of myths related to using neuroscience in educational settings. To cross this threshold, the guiding principles would need to be supported by a large body of scientifically based studies, making them evidencedemonstrated rather than just a single study or small number of studies cited as evidencebased. However, these ideas cannot simply be copied and pasted into classrooms by researchers in neuroscience or education. At this point the classroom teacher plays a vital and absolutely necessary role in the assimilation of neuroscience and education as highlighted by Goswami (2006).

7.9.2 Role of the Teacher in ContextDependent Adaptation The role of the classroom teacher is to identify needs, questions, or lines of inquiry that align with hypotheses of practice. Once a particular need, question, or hypothesis has been identified, the classroom teacher must adapt or modify the practice to fit into his or her specific classroom environment. This contextdependent adaptation recognizes and accommodates the highly complex nature of a classroom, the learning trajectories, prior knowledge, and prior experiences of each student, as well as the experiences and dispositions of the classroom teacher. That is, use of novelty in one classroom may look fundamentally different when compared to another classroom in the same hallway, across different grade levels, and/or across different schools. This is not to say that the guiding principle, novelty, is different. Instead, the look and feel are adapted to reflect the contextdependent nature of learning.

The approach described here sets up the synergistic collaboration between classroom teachers and researchers. Once the guiding principles have been translated by researchers, adapted by classroom teachers, and implemented in the contextdependent setting of a classroom or school, this implementation should be used to provide evidence demonstrating that the promise was fulfilled or fell short in the particular environment. The generation of evidence demonstrated practices should take the form of teachers measuring the impact of a particular practice on student learning. Take, for example, the work of Professor John Hattie (2009) and Robert Marzano et al. (2001) and their use of effect sizes to show student growth. Both of these researchers study the effectiveness of specific strategies or classroom practices based on measured growth in learning outcomes. As stated in the opening of this chapter, teaching is about adapting and adjusting the educational environment to the hereandnow of the complex classroom. Thus, having a good understanding of how the brain learns gives the classroom teacher the greatest probability that his or her adaptations and adjustments will not simply be trial and error. Likewise, the application of understanding of how the brain learns also cannot be trial and error. This requires all stakeholders in education to have patience and patients, both types. First, educators must have patience, with a “ce,” as the field of neuroscience advances forward. Patience as we learn more about the brain and learning. Patience as new technologies and scientific research push the frontiers of brain science. Second, educators must have patients, with a “ts.” Classroom teachers should not take findings from laboratories that look at amphibian, mice, rat, and primate brains and extrapolate them to a classroom full of fifth graders. Instead, have patients—in this case the patients are students—to test out hypotheses and develop evidencedemonstrated practices that are derived from neuroscience research. Then, and only then, the promising findings in neuroscience can responsibly pivot into the complex world of the classroom. What would having patience look like in today’s classrooms? Guiding principles, described above, would be available to classroom teachers. Classroom teachers would then propose a particular context in which they would like to investigate due to an achievement gap or other relevant issue in the classroom. In collaboration, researchers and teachers would select and adapt a guiding principle that could inform the practice of teaching in that specific context, as well as a means for evaluating the impact of such principle. Before, during, and after the intervention, both stakeholders would collect meaningful data to answer the simple question: did it work? This continuous process would generate the much needed evidence base. Even when the complexities of the brain are only beginning to be unveiled, the growing number of important findings and principles that could inform the practice of teaching can be carefully considered.

References Abel, T., & Lattal, K. M. (2001). Molecular mechanisms of memory acquisition, consolidation and retrieval. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 180–187.

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subjectmatter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313–337. Almarode, J., & Almarode, D. (2008). Energizing students: Maximizing student attention and engagement in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 75, 32–35. Almarode, J. T., & Miller, A. M. (2013). Captivate, activate, and invigorate the student brain in science and math grades 6–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? In K. E. Patten and S. R. Campbell (Eds.), Educational neuroscience (pp. 37–42). Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell. Barch, D., Pagliaccio, D., Belden, A., Harms, M. P., Gaffrey, M., Sylwester, C., … Luby, J. (2016). Effect of hippocampal and amygdala connectivity on the relationship between preschool poverty and schoolage depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(6), 625– 634.. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15081014 Berry, J. A., CervantesSandoval, I., Nicholas, E. P., & Davis, R. L. (2012). Dopamine is required for learning and forgetting in drosophila. Neuron, 74(3), 530–542. Blakemore, S. J. (2012). Imaging brain development: The adolescent brain. NeuroImage, 61(2), 397–406. Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain: Lessons for education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(5), 600–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025 Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during taskswitching. Neuron, 39, 713–726. Breiter, H., Etcoff, N. L., Whalen, P. J., Kennedy, W. A., Rauch, S., Buckner, R. L.,…Rosen, B. R. (1996). Response and habituation of the human amygdala during visual processing of facial expression. Neuron, 17, 875–887. Brito, N. H., & Noble, K. G. (2014). Socioeconomic status and structural brain development. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8(276), 1–12. Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26, 4– 16. Bruer, J. T. (1998). Let’s put brain science on the back burner. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 9–19. Bruer, J. T. (1999). In search of…brainbased education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 648. Buckner, R. L., Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D. L., & Rosen, B. R. (2000). Functional MRI

evidence for a role of frontal and inferior temporal cortex in amodal components of priming. Brain, 123, 620–640. Buckner, R. L., Petersen, S. E., Ojemann, J. G., Miezin, F. M., Squire, L. R., & Raichle, M. E. (1995). Functional anatomical studies of explicit and implicit memory retrieval tasks. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 12–29. Butt, A. E., & Bowman, T. D. (2002). Transverse patterning reveals a dissociation of simple and configural association learning abilities in rats with 192 IgGsaporin lesions of the nucleus basalis magnocellularis. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 77, 211–233. Butt, A. E., & Hodge, G. K. (1997). Simple and configural association learning in rats with bilateral quisqualic acid lesions of the nucleus basalis magnocellularis. Behavioral Brain Research, 89, 71–85. Butt, A. E., Noble, M., Rogers, J. L., & Rea, T. E. (2002). Impairments in negative patterning, but not simple discrimination learning, in rats with 192 IgGsaporin lesions of the nucleus basalis magnocellularis. Behavioral Neuroscience, 116, 241–255. Cabrera, S., Chavez, C., Corley, S., Kitto, M., & Butt, A. E. (2006). Selective lesions of the nucleus basalis magnocellularis impair cognitive flexibility. Behavioral Neuroscience, 120, 298–306. Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (1995). A novel demonstration of enhanced memory associated with emotional arousal. Consciousness and Cognition, 4(4), 410–421. Cambon, K., Hansen, S. M., Venero, C., Herrero, A. I., Skibo, G., Berezin, V., … Sandi, C. (2004). A synthetic neural cell adhesion molecule mimetic peptide promotes synaptogenesis, enhances presynaptic function, and facilitates memory consolidation. Journal of Neuroscience, 24(17), 4197–4204. Casey, B. J., & Jones, R. M. (2010). Neurobiology of the adolescent brain and behavior: Implications for substance use disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 1189–1201. Chiba, A. A., Bucci, D. J., Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (1995). Basal forebrain cholinergic lesions disrupt increments but not decrements in conditioned stimulus processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 7315–7322. Choudhury, S. (2010). Culturing the adolescent brain: What can neuroscience learn from anthropology? Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3), 159–167. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post16 learning: A systematic and critical review . London, UK: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Daniel, D. B. (2012). Promising principles: Translating the science of learning to educational

practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 251–253. De Bartolo, P., Leggio, M. G., Mandolesi, L., Foti, F., Gelfo, F., Ferlazzo, F., & Petrosini, L. (2008). Environmental enrichment mitigates the effects of basal forebrain lesions on cognitive flexibility. Neuroscience, 154, 444–453. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., HowardJones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(429), 1–8. Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable applications in education? Neuroscientist, 16, 349–356. DeWitt, M. R., Knight, J. B., Hicks, J. L., & Ball, B. H. (2012). The effects of prior knowledge on the encoding of episodic contextual details. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 251–257. Dolcos, F., LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2004). Interaction between the amygdala and the medial temporal lobe memory system predicts better memory for emotional events. Neuron, 42, 855–863. Dubinsky, J. M. (2010). Neuroscience education for prekindergarten–12 teachers. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(24), 8057–8060. Dubinsky, J. M., Roehrig, G., & Varma, S. (2013). Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. Education Research, 42(6), 317–329. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Elgersma, Y., & Silva, A. J. (1999). Molecular mechanisms of synaptic plasticity and memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, 209–213. Fischer, K. W., Daniel, D. B., ImmordinoYang, M. H., Stern, E., Battro, A., & Koizumi, H. (2007). Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 1–2. Friedenberg, J. D., & Silverman, G. (2012). Cognitive science: An introduction to the study of the mind (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fu, M., & Zuo, Y. (2011). Experiencedependent structural plasticity in the cortex. Trends in Neuroscience, 34(4), 177–187. Galvan, A. (2010). Neural plasticity of development and learning. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 879–890. Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50, 123–133. Gleichgerrcht, E., Lira Luttges, B., Salvarezza, F., & Campos, A. L. (2015). Educational neuromyths among teachers in Latin America. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 170–178.

Gonen, T., Admon, R., Podlipsky, I., & Hendler, T. (2012). From animal model to human brain networking: Dynamic causal modeling of motivational systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(21), 7218–7224. Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 406–411. Greenough, W. T., & Chang, F. F. (1989). Plasticity of synapse structure and pattern in the cerebral cortex. In A. Peters & E. G. Jones (Eds.), Cerebral cortex (Vol. 7, pp. 391–440). New York, NY: Plenum Press. HarmonJones, E., & Van Honk, J. (2012). Introduction to a special issue on the neuroscience of motivation and emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 1–3. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Hattie, J. A. C. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Hennenlotter, A., Schroeder, U., Erhard, P., Castrop, F., Haslinger, B., Stoecker, D.,… CeballosBaumann, A. O. (2005). A common neural basis for receptive and expressive communication of pleasant facial affect. NeuroImage, 26(2), 581–591. HowardJones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817–824. ImmordinoYang, M. H., Christodoulou, J. A., & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness: Implications of the brain’s default mode for human development and education. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 352–364. Jednoróg, K., Altarelli, I., Monzalvo, K., Fluss, J., Dubois, J., Billard, C., … Ramus, F. (2012). The influence of socioeconomic status on children’s brain structure. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42486. Kilgard, M. P., & Merzenich, M. M. (1998). Cortical map reorganization enabled by nucleus basalis activity. Science, 279, 1714–1718. Kim, D. J., Davis, E. P., Sandman, C. A., Sporns, O., O’Donnell, B. F., Buss, C., & Hetrick, W. P. (2014). Longer gestation is associated with more efficient brain networks in preadolescent children. Neuroimage, 100, 619–627. Kim, D. J., Davis, E. P., Sandman, C. A., Sporns, O., O’Donnell, B. F., Buss, C., & Hetrick, W. P. (2016). Children’s intellectual ability is associated with structural network integrity. Neuroimage, 124, 550–556. Klinkenberg, I., Sambeth, A., & Blokland, A. (2011). Acetylcholine and attention. Behavioural Brain Research, 221, 430–442.

Knox, R. (2016). Mind, brain, and education: A transdisciplinary field. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(1), 4–9. Laroche, S., Davis, S., & Jay, T. M. (2000). Plasticity at hippocampal to prefrontal cortex synapses: Dual roles in working memory and consolidation. Hippocampus, 10, 438–446. Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., BlissMoreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A metaanalytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 121– 202. Luby, J., Belden, A., Botteron, K., Marrus, N., Harms, M. P., Babb, C., … & Barch, D. (2013). The effects of poverty on childhood brain development: The mediating effect of caregiving and stressful life events. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(12), 1135–1142. Manns, J. R., Hopkins, R. O., & Squire, L. R. (2003). Semantic memory and the human hippocampus. Neuron, 38, 127–133. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Researchbased strategies for increasing student achievement . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Prentice Hall. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. New York, NY: Pearson. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgements in scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352. McGaugh, J. L. (2004). The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 27, 1–28. McGaughy, J., Dalley, J. W., Morrison, C. H., Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2002). Selective behavioral and neurochemical effects of cholinergic lesions produced by intrabasalis infusions of 192 IgGsaporin on attentional performance in a fivechoice serial reaction time task. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 1905–1913. Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press. Mesulam, M. M., Mufson, E. J., Wainer, B. H., & Levey, A. I. (1983). Central cholinergic pathways in the rat: An overview based on an alternative nomenclature (Ch. 1–Ch. 6). Neuroscience, 10, 1185–1201.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. Nieoullon, A., & Coquerel, A. (2003). Dopamine: A key regulator to adapt action, emotion, motivation and cognition. Current Opinions in Neurology, 2(S), 3–9. Nigam, S., Shimono, M., Ito, S., Yeh, F. C., Timme, N., Myroshnychenko, M., … Beggs, J. M. (2016). Journal of Neuroscience, 36(3), 670–684. Nuthall, G. (2007). The hidden lives of learners. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2002). Understanding the brain: Towards a new learning science. Paris, France: Author. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist? Mind, Brain, and Education, 6, 89–96. Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Shortterm retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198. Phillis, J. W. (1968). Acetylcholine release from the cerebral cortex: Its role in cortical arousal. Brain Research, 7, 378–389. Posner, M. I., & Dehaene, S. (1994). Attentional networks. Trends in Neuroscience, 17(2), 75–79. Posner, M. I., & Peterson, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42. Powell, K. (2006). Neurodevelopment: How does the teenage brain work? Nature, 442(24), 865–867. Purdy, N. (2008). Neuroscience and education: How best to filter out the neurononsense from our classrooms? Irish Educational Studies, 27(3), 197–208. Rasmusson, D. D. (2000). The role of acetylcholine in cortical synaptic plasticity. Behavioural Brain Research, 115, 205–218. Raz, A., & Buhle, J. (2006). Typologies of attentional networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 367–379. Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32–36. Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2014). Matching learning style to instructional

method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67. Sarter, M. F., Bruno, J. P., & Givens, B. (2003). Attentional functions of cortical cholinergic inputs: What does it mean for learning and memory? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 80, 245–256. Scheerens, J. (2016). Metaanalyses of school and instructional effectiveness. In J. Scheerens, Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness: A critical review of the knowledge base (pp. 175–223). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Schenk, J. (2011). Teaching and the adolescent brain. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Schicknick, H., Reichenbach, N., Smalla, K. H., Scheich, H., Gundelfinger, E. D., & Tischmeyer, W. (2012). Dopamine modulates memory consolidation of discrimination learning in the auditory cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35(5), 763–774. Schneider, W. (1993). Domainspecific knowledge and memory performance in children. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 257–273. Shirey, L. L. (1992). Importance, interest and selective attention. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 281–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Silva, A. J. (2003). Molecular and cellular cognitive studies of the role of synaptic plasticity in memory. Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 224–237. Somerville, L. H., Kim, H., Johnstone, T., Alexander, A. L., & Whalen, P. J. (2004). Human amygdala responses during presentation of happy and neutral faces: Correlations with state anxiety. Biological Psychiatry, 55(9), 897–903. Sporns, O., & Betzel, R. F. (2016). Modular brain networks. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 613–640. Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review, 99(2), 195–231. Squire, L. R., Ojemann, J. G., Miezin, F. M., Petersen, S. E., Videen, T. O., & Raichle, M. E. (1992). Activation of the hippocampus in normal humans: A functional anatomical study of memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 89, 1837–1841. Sylvan, L. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2010). Understanding the role of neuroscience in brain based products: A guide for educators and consumers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4, 1–7. Sylwester, R. (2005). How to explain a brain: An educator’s handbook of brain terms and

cognitive processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 37–54. Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247, 301– 306. Varma, S., McCandliss, B. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 140–152. Wagner, A. D., Desmond, J. E., Demb, J. B., Glover, D. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1997). Semantic repetition priming for verbal and pictorial knowledge: A functional MRI study of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 714–726. Waite, J. J., Wardlow, M. L., & Power, A. E. (1999). Deficit in selective and divided attention associated with cholinergic basal forebrain immunotoxic lesion produced by 192 Saporin; Motoric/sensory deficit associated with Purkinje cell immunotoxin lesion produced by 0X7 Saporin. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 71, 325–352. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477. Whalley, K. (2012). Learning and memory: Becoming a habit: A role for NMDA receptors. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 72. Willingham, D. T. (2009). Three problems in the marriage of neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45, 544–545. Willingham, D. T. (2010). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Willingham, D. T., & Lloyd, J. W. (2007). How educational theories can use neuroscientific data. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 140–141.

8 Turning Toward Students: Adopting a Student Centered Stance in MandateCentered Times Alison G. Dover1 and Brian D. Schultz2 1 California State University, Fullerton 2 Miami University

8.1 Introduction It’s a complex time to be a teacher. Social media and new technology enable our students to be active participants in—and creators of—rapidly changing, intensely personalized environments outside of school, while their inschool experiences reflect an increasing number of externally defined controls, curricular mandates, and accountability measures. Collectively, these policies can make it challenging for teachers to implement curriculum and pedagogy that reflects the localized, nuanced, and contextually specific needs of students in their classrooms. The pressure to standardize curriculum and pedagogy is immense. However, by adopting a studentcentered stance, educators can both nourish and provoke educational experiences that honor the full humanity of children within and despite a highly regulated educational landscape. In this chapter, we examine the obstacles to, opportunities for, and implications of turning toward students, drawing upon diverse teachers’ strategies for transforming the classroom into a studentdriven space.

8.2 Adopting a StudentCentered Stance Studentcentered teaching is not merely a curricular or pedagogical strategy, but rather a philosophical orientation that values students’ authentic interests, curiosities, and priorities as critically important to any instructional process. Contemporary emphases on student centeredness draw from an array of educational philosophies, including democratic education (e.g., Apple & Beane, 2007; Ayers, 2010; Dewey, 1916; Knoester, 2012; Meier, 1995/2000), constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), multicultural education (e.g., Banks, 1994; Gollnick & Chinn, 2017; Nieto & Bode, 2011; Sleeter & Grant, 2007), and culturally responsive pedagogy (e.g., Gay, 2000; González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Irvine & Armento, 2001; LadsonBillings, 1995a, 1995b; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). While each of these has distinct features and sociopolitical emphases, collectively they emphasize the importance of teaching in ways that respond to the unique features of learners in a given classroom. In its simplest form, student centered teaching requires teachers to learn about and value their students’ personal, academic, and cultural assets, and use this fluency to create engaging, reflexive, and academically rigorous experiences. At its most ambitious, studentcentered teaching fundamentally reshapes schooling as a process through which students, in collaboration with their teachers and other adults, identify, examine, and meaningfully engage with critical social issues as part of a

broader fight for justice (e.g., Cobb, 2011). This emphasis on student engagement evolved in response to educational practices that have historically focused more on the act of teaching than that of learning. Like other forms of top down education policy, where policymakers use funding to encourage or require states to adopt specific curricular standards (e.g., the Race to the Top initiative), teachercentered schooling reinforces the separation between those who create and those who receive curriculum. It also begs the questions about whose knowledge is of most worth and who gets to decide. In teachercentered classrooms, teachers (or administrators or even policymakers) predetermine instructional objectives, prioritized content, learning processes, and desired outcomes, using extrinsic factors such as grades or rewards to motivate students. It is then the students’ responsibility to learn the assigned content by participating fully in the required instructional activities, and demonstrating mastery by performing well on “objective” assessments. Studentcentered teaching shifts this paradigm by centering students’ authentic curiosities, needs, and priorities as a primary goal and topical starting point for instruction and curriculum making; the role of the teacher is not to evaluate whether students met external objectives, but to support students in determining, deepening, and directing their own learning experience. Brazilian educator Paulo Freire theorized about this vision of engaged, participatory learning by examining how teachercentered processes reinforce disenfranchisement among learners. He characterized teachercentered instruction as similar to a banking transaction, in which teachers “deposit” knowledge into their students. Freire argued that teachercentered approaches stifle student creativity and intellectual freedom by discouraging authentic inquiry and undermining student voice. In banking model education, Freire notes: the teacher teaches and the students are taught; the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing; the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; the teacher talks and the students listen—meekly; the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply; the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it; the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students; the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects. (Freire, 1970/2000, p. 73)

By contrast, studentcentered teachers reframe the purpose of their work as primarily responsive to the interests and needs of learners, rather than the priorities of teachers, administrators, or other external forces. They create personalized and flexible learning experiences that reflect the authentic interests of students, use intrinsic motivation to engage students (as students want to participate in learning activities that they find important, worthwhile, and meaningful), and assess student learning through a meaningful, embedded evaluation of students’ interactions and artifacts. While some of these practices can be implemented without fundamentally altering the nature of

teaching and learning, the act of turning toward students can also elicit a transformative change in educational processes. By interrupting notions of teaching as primarily the direct transmittal of knowledge from teacher to student, we echo Freire’s reconceptualization of a collaborative partnership between critical coinvestigators exploring mutually resonant questions. Under this approach, which Freire terms problemposing education , the teacherofthestudents and the studentsoftheteacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacherstudent with studentsteachers. The teacher is no longer merely theonewhoteaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow.… Here, no one teaches another, nor is anyone selftaught. People teach each other, mediated by the world. (Freire 1970/2000, p. 80)

This vision provides the foundation for many contemporary educational emphases, including critical pedagogy (e.g., DuncanAndrade & Morell, 2008; McLaren, 2014), inquirydriven instruction (Wagner, 2012), project and problembased education (e.g., Buck Institute for Education, n.d.; Illinois Math and Science Academy [IMSA], 2012; Torp & Sage, 2002), social action curriculum (e.g., Oyler, 2012; Schultz, 2017; Schultz, McSurley, & Salguero, 2013), teaching for social justice (e.g., Agarwal, Epstein, Oppenheim, Oyler, & Sonu, 2010; AgarwalRangnath, Dover & Henning, 2016; Dover, 2013b; Schultz, 2008b; Sleeter, 2015), and students as curriculum (Schubert & Schultz, 2015). Most educators expect their students to be actively engaged in the learning process, and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 2012), International Reading Association/National Council of Teachers of English (1996), and National Council for the Social Studies (2002), for example, all reference the importance of cultivating studentled inquiry within their disciplinary standards for teachers. The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE), which was formerly the National Middle School Association (2010), calls for studentdirected learning as a critical component of developmentally appropriate practice. In addition to an overarching emphasis on “active, purposeful learning” and “challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant” curriculum, AMLE highlights the importance of studentled processes, arguing that When students routinely assume the role of teacher, and teachers demonstrate that they are still learners, the conditions of a genuine learning community are present. Teachers participate actively in learning activities rather than just being observers of students at work. Such collaboration leads to increased achievement, demonstrates democratic processes, and furthers meaningful student–teacher relationships. (p. 19) Studentcentered teaching is supported by this robust research base, which underscores its positive impact on students’ academic, behavioral/motivational, and attitudinal outcomes. However, despite the popularity of studentcentered methods within colleges of education and academic literature alike, there are many K12 schoollevel barriers that inhibit teachers’ ability to authentically share authority and power with their students (e.g., Pace & Hemmings, 2006; Schultz & Oyler, 2006). There is an increasing emphasis on externally defined, high stakes assessments of student learning, and growing pressure to standardize curriculum and

pedagogy across disparate school contexts (Crocco & Costigan, 2007). This can make it difficult for teachers to translate their vision of justiceoriented, studentdirected learning into classroom practice, especially in heavily regulated classrooms (e.g., AgarwalRangnath et al., 2016; Dover, 2013a; Schultz, 2017; Schultz et al., 2013; Wade, 2007). In the next section, we examine structural issues that inhibit studentcentered approaches, before examining concrete strategies for negotiating these challenges.

8.3 Defining the Challenge: Standards, Standardized Tests, and Curricular Mandates Curricular standards have a long history in the United States. Beginning with the National Education Association’s Committee of Ten which, in 1893, issued a prescriptive set of curricular guidelines designed to promote educational equity regardless of students’ postsecondary plans (Mirel & Angus, 1994), and continuing through the present day, different stakeholders have always had different ideas about what students should know and be able to do. These debates have only intensified in light of accountabilitydriven policies such as No Child Left Behind (now the Every Student Succeeds Act) that use students’ performance on standardsaligned highstakes tests as the primary measure of student learning. Even in the relatively untested field of social studies, for example, Ross, Mathison, and Vinson (2014) found more than 10 competing sets of social studies standards issued in the past 25 years, authored by six separate entities. They argue that divergent ideological lenses result in dramatically different curricular priorities, from an emphasis on the transmission of historical knowledge to the preparation of students to critically question and act upon social phenomena. Other researchers have conducted similar analyses of the conceptual foundations of standards for science (e.g., Doeber, 2002) and English language arts (e.g., Bomer & Maloch, 2011). Common throughout these debates is the tension across who gets to define the content of schooling, and the degree to which it should reflect the interests of policymakers, university faculty, corporate entities, teachers, community members, or students themselves. Before the 2010 introduction of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics, most debates about standards were conducted at the local level. However, the Common Core Standards—and the Obama administration’s efforts to tie school funding to the adoption of those standards through its Race to the Top initiative—brought these controversies into the public eye. Touted as a part of a national effort to increase educational equity by establishing rigorous criteria for student learning, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been widely criticized for undermining local control and prioritizing economic interests over academic ones (e.g., Au, 2013; Hagopian, 2014; Leahey, 2013; Ross et al., 2014). Some educators argue that the CCSS themselves aren’t the problem: they are designed as a set of flexible learning targets to support teachers in ensuring all students are ready for postsecondary success. In the words of the developers, the standards don’t prescribe what to teach, leaving it up to “teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how these

goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed” (National Governors Association, 2010, p. 4). However, in practice, many states and districts have turned toward packaged curricular materials marketed as aligned to the demands of the Common Core rather than using them to support local curriculum development (Brooks & Dietz, 2012/13). Critics argue that this is not accidental: the standards were developed through a public–private partnership with significant participation by corporate and philanthropic education “reformers,” and the curricular materials in use in participating states are frequently published by the very same companies that hold state standardized testing contracts (Brooks & Dietz, 2012/13). Indeed, David Coleman, one of the leading architects of the Common Core State Standards, was an executive at McGrawHill just before the Race to the Top initiative began incentivizing the adoption of the standards. Trends like these have led some scholars to argue that the purpose of the standards was to develop business for educational publishing companies and educational consulting nonprofits, rather than address an actual educational need (see also Pennington, Obenchain, Papola, & Kmitta, 2012). Regardless of developers’ stated intent, the standards have led to increased requirements that teachers focus classroom instruction and assessments on the priorities of the new standards (e.g., Au, 2013; Berliner, 2011; Ross et al., 2014). In addition to a growing number of high stakes standardized tests designed to measure student progress toward the standards, many districts now require students and teachers to participate in periodic diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ likely performance on the highstakes exams (e.g., see Hagopian, 2014). Collectively, these mandates undermine teachers’ autonomy in the classroom and limit their ability to organically center students’ learning goals (Anderson, 2012). Research suggests this is especially true in underresourced communities of color, which are disproportionately the targets of neoliberal education reforms, including fasttrack alternative certification programs and scripted curriculum packages (Lipman, 2015; Milner, 2013). However, increasing standardization is affecting most public school classrooms, even those with a long history of progressive, studentcentered practice. Winnetka, Illinois, offers a compelling example of the reach of these mandates. An affluent suburban school district just north of Chicago, Winnetka traces its commitment to progressive education back to 1919, when superintendent Carlton W. Washburne created “The Winnetka Plan.” In a vision informed by the work of Colonel Francis Parker and John Dewey, Washburne defined a system that embodied progressive educational philosophies including “individualized instruction, handson learning, attention to the development of the whole child, a focus on research and development of curriculum materials, and a thoughtful and comprehensive program of staff development” (Winnetka Public Schools, n.d.). For much of the twentieth century, Winnetka served as a national model of public progressive education; however, even teachers in districts like Winnetka are feeling the pressure associated with accountabilitydriven reforms (Barone et al., 2014) as evidenced by current superintendent Trisha Kocanda’s recent dissemination of a “warning letter” advising parents and community stakeholders about the negative impact of new staterequired tests (Strauss, 2015). Giroux (2013) describes the onslaught of external reforms and mandates as part of an unprecedented war against teachers who have less and less influence in their own

classrooms. Many recommendations that have emerged in the current debate across the world either ignore the role teachers play in preparing learners to be active and critical citizens or they suggest reforms that ignore the intelligence, judgment, and experience that teachers might offer in such a debate. Where teachers do enter the debate, they are objects of educational reforms that reduce them to the status of high level technicians carrying out dictates and objectives decided by experts far removed from the everyday realities of classroom life … Not only do students not count in this mode of schooling, teachers are also stripped of their dignity and capacities when it comes to critically examining the nature and process of educational reform. (pp. 460–461) In addition to the tremendous impact of these reforms on public school students and teachers, accountabilitydriven education reforms also dramatically propel educational stratification across public and private school settings. While students in public schools, which are required to meet federal and state mandates regarding standardized testing, are increasingly subject to educational conditions where “state tests, not teacher professional opinion … become the primary influence in instructional planning” (Anderson, 2012, p. 117), students in elite educational settings reap the full benefit of their teachers’ professional expertise, often as part of a wider commitment to empowering educational practice. Additionally, as tuitiondriven systems, private schools are primarily focused on internal accountability (that is, accountability to their students, families, and community members) rather than accountability to external testbased and curricular mandates. That many of the policymakers who establish public education mandates are themselves alums of independent schools (see Winerip, 2011) only reinforces the disconnect between those who create and those who receive educational reforms. Even more troubling is the potential for a longitudinal impact of standardization: many beginning teachers came of age during the era of No Child Left Behind, and may struggle to envision an educational system in which students, rather than external mandates, drive instructional processes. Given this landscape of neoliberal topdown reforms and outside mandates, particularly in large urban areas like New York and Chicago, we are left considering Dewey’s (1907) oftcited adage of “what the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy” (p. 19). What does it mean when students from historically marginalized communities become the “targets” of externally conceived education reform? In addition to the practical demands associated with state and districtlevel mandates, teachers also face professional and economic pressure to focus their instruction on the specific curriculum prioritized by state entities and featured on standardized assessments. This begins during their preservice training, as a growing number of candidates are required to participate in delocalized, highstakes preservice assessments as a condition of licensure (for discussion, see Berlak, 2010; Dover & Schultz, 2016; Dover, Schultz, Smith, & Duggan, 2015; Madeloni & Gorlewski, 2013). Such assessments require teachers to define learning goals and

pedagogical strategies in advance of instruction, thus requiring candidates who adopt a problemposing, critical approach “in which the learning goals are not predetermined … to compromise his or her pedagogical assumptions to complete the edTPA” (Sato, 2014, p. 430). Moreover, these assessments function as part of a wider standardization and monitoring of teacher practice, culminating in efforts to tie teacher pay to students’ test scores (e.g., see Kumashiro, 2015). In the race to rapidly cover content in anticipation of a highstakes assessment, even those teachers with an ideological commitment to studentcentered teaching can inadvertently prioritize the delivery of information over inquirydriven practices (CochranSmith et al., 2009; Picower, 2011, 2012). Collectively, the emphasis on prescriptive curriculum, standardized testing, and highstakes accountability creates an environment that teachers describe as deprofessionalizing and disempowering (Agarwal, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2015; Weingarten, 2014; Willis & Sandholtz, 2009). In response, teachers—and especially teachers in historically marginalized poor, urban communities of color—are leaving the field at increasingly high rates, with dramatic implications for student learning (Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013; Skinner, Garreton, & Schultz, 2011). In New York City middle schools, for example, twothirds of teachers leave within their first five years (Marinell & Coca, 2013); nationwide, fiveyear turnover rates in highpoverty schools are estimated at 40 to 50% (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Hemphill & Nauer, 2009; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2013). Teacher turnover is highest in lowachieving schools populated primarily by lowincome students of color (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2013; Simon & Johnson, 2015). However, this lens can be somewhat misleading, as it implies that student demographics and school context are responsible for teachers’ exodus from urban schools, rather than foregrounding systemic issues that push teachers out of urban classrooms (Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Simon & Johnson, 2015). A growing body of scholarship suggests an array of schoollevel social factors, including collegial relationships, principal leadership, instructional autonomy, and school culture, have a significantly greater impact on teacher turnover than either demographic or resourcerelated factors (Johnson et al., 2012). It isn’t that teachers leave urban schools because of their students or even the welldocumented lack of resources, but rather because restrictive mandates are disproportionally impacting teaching and learning in urban classrooms. For new teachers, and especially those teachers in heavily regulated classrooms, the barriers to studentcentered practice can be overwhelming. But teachers are resilient, and many do find ways to rise to this challenge by working collaboratively with students, colleagues, and community members to implement studentcentered curriculum that meets the contextually specific and nuanced requirements of their classrooms. There is a growing countermovement (DuncanAndrade & Morell, 2008; Ritchie, 2012) of teachers who have found ways to use their position in the classroom to foster studentcentered, justiceoriented teaching. While contemporary scholars often refer to this work as “teaching against the grain” (Cochran Smith, 1991, 2001), “teaching in the cracks” (Schultz, 2017; Schultz et al., 2013), “inverting the curriculum” (Schultz, 2008a), or “teaching for social justice” (e.g., Agarwal, 2011; AgarwalRangnath et al., 2016; Dover, 2013a, 2013b; Picower, 2011; Sleeter, 2015), the idea

that teachers should use their social location to forge educational change is not new. Indeed, in 1895, John Dewey emphasized the importance of teacher agency, arguing that the teacher should understand, and even be able to criticise [sic], the general principles upon which the whole educational system is formed and administered. He is not like a private soldier in an army, expected to merely obey, or like a cog in a wheel, expected merely to respond to and transmit external energy; he must be an intelligent medium of action. (McLellan & Dewey, 1895, pp. 14–15)

In the remainder of this chapter, we highlight some of the ways teachers use studentcentered practices to not only embody this vision of teachers as change agents, but to also prepare their students for roles as collaborative partners in social and educational transformation.

8.4 Rising to the Challenge: Adopting a Student Centered Approach There are as many approaches to studentcentered teaching as there are students and teachers, and individual teachers’ strategies necessarily reflect both their unique educational philosophy and the demands of their context. Some studentcentered acts require relatively small changes on the part of teachers, and can be easily implemented in any classroom. Others invite teachers to radically rethink their definition of curriculum, approach to decisionmaking, or the structure of the school day itself. In the following section, we present a range of visions of studentcentered teaching that reflect everything from minor curricular adaptations to a comprehensive redefinition of schooling writ large. We encourage teachers to consider which of these resonate for their current teaching context, and to also strategize how they might progressively foster increasingly studentdirected learning. In practice, studentcentered teaching often forces teachers to grapple with significant questions of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, as they consider how their instructional approach elicits or marginalizes student voice. In her analysis of studentcentered teaching in higher education, Weimer (2002) conceptualizes this process as requiring five critical changes as educators interrupt teachercentered structures in the classroom, including (1) shifting the balance of power from teachers to students; (2) seeing the function of content as a means of facilitating changes in how students think and understand; (3) decentralizing the role of the teacher; (4) helping students develop into responsible lifelong learners; and (5) providing evaluation and assessment that emphasizes process and promotes learning. While Weimer’s analysis is specific to postsecondary settings, we find her model a useful springboard for exploring philosophical questions associated with studentcentered teaching. In Figure 8.1, we use Weimer’s framework as inspiration to consider practical and ideological implications of progressively studentled pedagogy.

Figure 8.1 Studentcentered teaching in action. Source: Adapted from Weimer (2002).

While all of the approaches in Figure 8.1 are on the continuum of studentcentered teaching, those to the far right require a greater interruption of normative practices in standardsdriven, mandatecompliant classrooms. We recognize that this interruption is neither easy nor without risk, especially in the context of neoliberal, accountabilitydriven reform. However, as teachers begin to listen more closely to their students, they are able to better create learning environments and experiences that reflect and engage their students’ authentic curiosities, intellectual priorities, and academic needs. Moreover, we echo calls for teachers to use their professional expertise, situated insight, and professional agency to “take active responsibility for raising serious questions about what they teach, how they are to teach, and what the larger goals are for which they are striving” (Giroux, 2013, p. 463). In the remainder of this chapter, we examine the diverse approaches to studentcentered

teaching, drawing examples from multiple points of entry, contentareas, and instructional contexts. We invite readers to consider where they currently locate themselves in relationship to each of these questions, and how such positionality reflects a complex constellation of philosophical, political, and contextual factors that facilitate or inhibit students’ ownership of their educational experiences. What would it require—of teachers, of curriculum, of schools— to empower students as educational decisionmakers? As coconstructors of curriculum? What questions might your students pursue? How might students use in and outofschool learning to transform their worlds? What does education look like outside the schoolhouse doors? How might they surprise you? As we explore the diverse ways studentcentered teachers build, enact, and witness curricular processes, we encourage readers to imagine bringing these practices to their own classrooms. What are the potential risks and rewards for teachers, students, and society?

8.4.1 Interrupting Teaching as Usual In teacherled classrooms, teachers (or other adult authorities) establish learning objectives. These objectives typically reflect dominant disciplinary discourse regarding what is worth knowing, as determined by or interpreted through state curricular standards and schoollevel scope and sequence documents. While teachers may choose—or be required—to operationalize standards through the use of “studentfriendly language” such as “I can” statements, ultimately students have little role in determining the scope or focus of the objectives. Teachers then design learning activities to support students in meeting the objectives, using formative and summative assessment to evaluate student learning throughout the educative experience. Often referred to as “backwards design,” this approach to teaching describes teachers as “designers … crafting curriculum and learning experiences to meet specified purposes” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 13). Under the backwards design model, teachers identify contentspecific essential questions and “enduring understandings” likely to engage students in meaningful inquiry regarding key concepts. Students then grapple with these questions through a process of uncoverage as they investigate and substantiate their findings. However, throughout this process, teachers define the scope of curriculum and the objectives of instruction. Brookhart’s (2012) analysis of a presumably fictitious mathematics lesson provides insight into a common approach to objectivedriven design: Students need to know what they’re trying to learn. Learning targets are studentfriendly descriptions—through words, pictures, actions, or some combination of these—of what you intend students to learn or accomplish in a lesson. They’re connected to a performance of understanding—something the student actually does to pursue the target—as well as to accompanying criteria for good work that students use to gauge their progress toward the goal. (p. 26) Brookhart then describes a lesson in which secondgrade students are learning about congruence as part of their work toward one of the Common Core Standards for Mathematics, in this case, 2.G.A.1: Recognize and draw shapes having specified attributes, such as a given number of angles or a given number of equal faces. Identify triangles, quadrilaterals,

pentagons, hexagons, and cubes. Based on this standard, the teacher creates a series of lessons about geometric shapes; one of these lessons defines the learning target as “I can draw a figure that’s exactly the same size and shape as an example” (p. 26). Brookhart describes the successful scaffolding of learning toward that target as follows: The teacher shows students their learning target … Then she engages students in a performance of understanding. Using grid paper, students are to exactly reproduce two irregular polygons and receive feedback from a partner about whether their figures are the same as the examples. Then each student must create an original irregular polygon on grid paper for his or her partner to replicate. Students turn in their final work with explanations for why their figures are exactly the same as the examples provided. Notice that the teacher told the students what the learning target was (using the Ican statement) and showed the students what the learning target was (using the correct and incorrect examples). Then the students had the opportunity to show themselves what the learning target was and how they were doing. (p. 26, italics in original) While this example describes a lesson that effectively supports students in meeting the teachers’ established learning goals, it also offers an excellent counterexample to student centered curriculum. Studentcentered curriculum, broadly defined, reflects the authentic, contextual interests and learning goals of the students in the classroom. Gutstein (2007), for example, describes his use of studentcentered Freirian pedagogy and “realworld” math projects to engage seventh and eighthgrade students in investigations of contextually relevant mathematical dilemmas. In describing one of 17 such projects he did with students, Gutstein illustrates how studentcentered teachers balance instructional objectives with their commitment to studentdriven inquiry: The essence of the project was for students to use mathematics to begin to understand the dynamics of gentrification because realestate developers coveted Morningside [the community in which Gutstein taught] due to its proximity to downtown. A developer wanted city permission to pave over a tiny park for secured parking for condos he was developing just at Morningside’s edge. Students read about the plan in a newspaper article and located the park on a map. They then computed how long it would take to drive from the park to the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago, at 25 mph, with no red lights. This was mathematically difficult because they had to use two maps with different scales and had to accurately measure on the maps, plan a driving route, convert the fractional distances to miles, and finally determine the travel time given the driving speed – all without specific instructions on how to do each part. (p. 428) Like Brookhart (2012), Gutstein articulates standardsaligned mathematical objectives, and provides structured guidance to support students in learning the mathematical processes necessary to meet those objectives. However, by grounding mathematical objectives in authentic and locally relevant investigations, Gutstein creates opportunities for students to apply their learning beyond a predefined “target.” In the coming months, Gutstein’s students used mathematical principles to analyze gentrification in and surrounding Morningside,

examining an array of questions related to property values, costofliving, job creation, and community impact. Many talked to their own parents about the development project, attended City Hall hearings, and participated in community rallies related to the proposed development. In Gutstein’s words, “mathematics became the entry point for students to analyze the complexities of a serious community issue” (Gutstein, 2007, p. 430). Thus, rather than telling students what they should learn, studentcentered teachers create spaces where they can work collaboratively with students to prioritize curriculum, establish learning goals, and allow curriculum to unfold organically in response to student inquiry.

8.4.2 Listening to Students There are a wide range of resources available to support teachers in listening to, learning about, and building upon students’ authentic interests (see Schultz, 2011). Those relatively new to studentcentered curricular practices might use interest inventories to prioritize curriculum within the boundaries of established mandates, invite students to highlight points of engagement with required texts, or use formative assessment to solicit student feedback regarding learning objectives. Renzulli’s (1977) InterestALyzer offers an early example of a questionnaire designed to elicit children’s input into curricular and pedagogical processes, while Hagay and BaramTsabari ( 2015) describe how teachers might use interest inventories to tease out students’ authentic questions (in this case about biology topics) to reveal a “shadow curriculum” that can extend, direct, and shape investigations of required content. Likewise, Grant and Sleeter (2011) provide a series of useful resources to help teachers better understand students’ interests, community, and linguistic assets, and identify conceptual connections between academic concepts and students’ lived experiences. Christensen and Watson’s (2015) example of the use of autobiographical poetry to draw out the “facts of [students’] lives” (p. 5) provides compelling testimony to the power of listening to students as part of a broader justiceoriented, studentcentered curriculum. Rick Ayers, a founding teacher of the Communication Arts and Science (CAS) program at Berkeley High School, extended this act of listening beyond the classroom walls. Like many teachers, Ayers sought to validate his students’ outofschool literacies while increasing their awareness of and fluency in academic English; ultimately this led to a project where students developed a slang dictionary. His students selected words, crafted definitions, and wrote up their work. However, unlike most classroom dictionaries, the CAS dictionary took on a life outside of school, ultimately reaching commercial publication as the Berkeley High School Slang Dictionary (Communication Arts and Sciences, 2004). Ayers’s studentcentered approach positioned his students as lexicographical experts, both within and beyond the classroom. Other examples of interestbased, culturally and contextually responsive teaching strategies abound. Some of these draw upon the opportunities created by new technology and social media, which can provide lowrisk methods of integrating studentcentered instructional practices (see, e.g., An & Reigeluth, 2012; Chen, 2010). While increased use of technology is not in and of itself studentcentered—teachers might, for example, use webbased resources for lesson planning or as a larger textbook through which they continue to direct students’

intellectual inquiry (Chen, 2010)—it can also facilitate innovative and reflexive curricular and pedagogical practices. Novak, Patterson, Gavrin, and Christian’s (1999) approach to “Just inTime Teaching” (JITT), for example, is a version of a flipped instructional model that helps teachers use student feedback to shape curriculum. Initially developed for university science classes but now common across levels and disciplines, JITT uses technologybased formative assessments (often in the form of puzzles or complex problems related to course content) to identify points of curiosity or confusion prior to a lesson. Students submit their work in advance, and teachers build curriculum reflexively in response to emergent needs. Walkington’s (2013) analysis of the impact of technologyenhanced, interestbased teaching underscores another use of reflexive instruction. Walkington found that the mere personalization of algebraic story problems to reflect students’ outofschool interests resulted in increased mathematical engagement and proficiency. While strategies like these don’t necessarily redefine the scope of what is taught, they demonstrate the range of ways teachers might elicit student input in order to prioritize and tailor required curriculum. As teachers’ use of technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, it can be an invaluable strategy for studentdirected learning. Drexler ( 2010), for example, describes the use of a technologyrich research project (the “Networked Student Model,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwM4ieFOotA) to engage students in curating and creating curriculum regarding selfselected topics of interest. In her class, students created “personal learning environments” (such as blogs, podcasts, wikis, etc.) to engage with and demonstrate their learning within and beyond the classroom. Krutka and Milton’s (2013) analysis of students’ use of Twitter to interrogate, cocreate, and broadcast curriculum offers another example of the potential of evolving technology as a transformative curricular mechanism. Milton, a high school teacher, was required to teach the Enlightenment as part of the mandated social studies curriculum. After several years of having students create static Facebookstyle pages for key philosophers, Milton shifted student work to Twitter to “allow his students to interact with a more authentic and interactive audience than was previously possible” (p. 25). Ultimately, Milton’s students interacted with an international community of Twitter users as they grappled with contemporary implications of philosophical stance, asking and answering questions like “What would Montesquieu think about the filibuster? Would Rousseau be for the U.S. Patriot Act? How can we ensure that there is more gender balance in our Congress?” (p. 26). These cases are far from unique, as evidenced by Reich, Murnane, and Willett’s (2012) analysis of a representative sample of more than 179,000 educationrelated wikis created by students and educators from grades K12. However, research also suggests an unlevel playing field for users of innovative instructional technology: Reich and colleagues found that wikis created and used in more affluent communities provided “more opportunities for 21stcentury learning” (p. 13) than those in less affluent communities, suggesting that not all students have equal access to this growing field. These concerns are echoed by other scholarship examining trends in teachers’ use of technology to facilitate studentcentered instruction (e.g., Chen, 2010). Nevertheless, in addition to offering students authentic choice in the selection, prioritization, and publication of curricular concepts, Web 2.0 tools have great potential as

resources for personalizing and extending the curriculum in response to contemporary social issues, and students’ evolving communication styles (Beach, 2012; Journell, Ayers, & Walker Beeson, 2013). In addition to being supported by research on the positive academic, social, and motivational impact of culturally responsive (e.g., Villegas & Lucas, 2002) and differentiated instruction (e.g., Tomlinson et al., 2003), practices such as these can help teachers center student perspectives within even the most regulated of environments.

8.4.3 Curriculum in the Making: Shifting Authority to Students As teachers adopt an increasingly studentcentered approach, many begin to reconsider fundamental questions of how curriculum is developed, implemented, and conceptualized. This can include the intentional interruption of their own authority by allowing students to participate in decisionmaking processes. Cody and McGarry ( 2012), for example, describe a scenario in which McGarry’s first and second graders voted on the name for a school project; this vote resulted in a near even split across students’ top two choices. Tiny moments like these can function as critical decision points for teachers: we can imagine a teacher resolving this through simple majority, flipping a coin, assigning the name randomly, staging a debate, offering naming rights as a prize in a classroom contest, or any of a number of other approaches. In this case, however, McGarry noted students’ discomfort with the lack of consensus, and created space for students to autonomously resolve the conflict. Students took turns voicing opinions, supporting arguments, and suggesting alternative solutions. After a long stalemate, one student proposed a new, creative solution: taking one word from each choice, he suggested the name “Maple Valley.” The class agreed to the new name quickly and unanimously, and students left the meeting feeling efficacious by having achieved a fair outcome. In my opinion, providing students with time and support to use their own voices resulted in a more meaningful learning experience than any teacher imposed solution. (p. 151) This very small act, which required little interruption of the overarching curriculum, is a microlevel example of how teachers might follow students’ lead to establish classroom processes. In addition to taking advantage of these sorts of teachable moments, some teachers choose—or are forced—to exploit gaps in local mandates in order to free up space for studentdirected learning. Vokoun and Bigelow (2008), for example, describe their attempts to share decision making with middleschool students, ultimately offering limited choice within the context of required assignments. They argue that by offering alternative learning experiences (text choice, input into project format, and so forth), teachers can “give students more control yet also help each learner meet curricular goals” (p. 72). Alison Dover, one of the authors of this chapter, expanded this concept of choice by engaging her students as curriculum creators. When students in her heavily mandated urban high school expressed frustration with their school’s culturally hegemonic literature requirements, she supported them in identifying and proposing changes to the required texts (Dover, 2016). Her students selected texts that better reflected the interests and identities of students at their school, evaluated their academic merits and

contextual relevance, and presented their recommendations to school administration. While she set the framework for the overarching unit, her students determined the criteria for curricular proposals, made the decisions regarding what to prioritize, and decided how to assess their work. Like many teachers attempting to enact justiceoriented, studentdriven curriculum in traditional classrooms, Dover was hypercognizant of accountability mandates: while she didn’t allow the standards to dictate the form or content of this project, she positioned this unit after the highstakes tests and explicitly mapped each step, as it emerged, to schoolbased requirements. The tension associated with teaching critically in the context of rigid mandates, which Dover describes as having to build an “administratorproof rationale” (p. 89) and others frame as requiring strategic collaboration with administrators (e.g., Schultz, 2008b), is noted throughout the literature on studentdirected teaching in heavily regulated classrooms (e.g., AgarwalRangnath et al., 2016; Dover, 2013a; Grindon, 2014; Schultz et al., 2013). In addition to classroom and schoollevel interventions, there is also growing movement toward studentdriven learning that extends beyond the walls of the classroom and school itself. For these teachers, a critical purpose of schooling is to support students’ outofschool learning and civic engagement; thus it becomes necessary to redefine curriculum as emerging from and responding to students’ individual and communal priorities.

8.4.4 Realizing the Power of StudentCentered Teaching The Chicago Grassroots Curriculum Taskforce (CGCT) is a coalition of teachers, activists, students, and community members who collaboratively publish justiceoriented curriculum that centers students’ investigation of issues of contemporary, local relevance. CGCT (2014) describes “grassroots educators” as “curriculum gatherer[s] and creator[s]” able to “skillfully incorporate mandated elements into relevant, studentcentered, and authentic curricular units based on the lives and realities of the students they serve” (p. 21). Within the broader vision, grassroots educators: Base the curriculum, skill/concept development, units, projects, and actions in the lives of the students and use resources available to facilitate authentic studentcentered learning. Carefully plan and document the unit in preparation for inquirybased learning, allowing room for students to pursue their questions and curiosities while developing mandated skills and concepts. Incorporate mandated curriculum into authentic studentcentered, action and project based interdisciplinary curriculum, incorporating students’ families whenever and however possible. Collaborate with other classrooms and members of the school community to extend the project beyond the classroom walls. Cover skills needed for critical thinking and tests, while staying grounded in students’ lives and realities. Flood students with resources (primary sources, books, multimedia, people, etc.) so that

students can investigate and come to their own conclusions. (2014, p. 22) Among CGCT’s many resources is a crossdisciplinary curriculum entitled Urban Renewal or Urban Removal? (2012) that was collaboratively authored by a coalition of almost 100 high school and college students, teachers and teacher educators, artists, activists, and community members (Pulido, Cortez, Aviles de Bradley, Miglietta, & Stovall, 2013). By drawing upon surveys conducted with students in grades 3–12, CGCT identified eight “critical themes” around which urban educators might build curriculum according to the unique interests and priorities of students in their local community. CGCT’s freely available “Grassroots Community Tour” model (grassrootscurriculum.org) provides insight into their vision of studentdriven learning. The community tour project, which has been implemented in 19 schools throughout Chicago, engages students in researching, developing, and hosting community tours that foreground personally and contextually relevant questions of social justice and youth culture. Students collaboratively identify questions for analysis, research the history of their community, curate popular and lesser known sites for inclusion on their tour, create community maps, and develop print and multimedia resources to educate adults and outside visitors about the community. In addition to helping students develop and authentically apply a wide range of research, presentation, mapping, and writing skills, this project situates students as both coconstructors of curriculum and experts of their own lived experience. Other approaches that position the classroom as a locus for justiceoriented, community grounded learning include civic literacy projects (Epstein, 2014) and Social Action Curriculum Projects (SACP) (e.g., Schultz, 2008a, 2008b; Schultz, 2017; Schultz et al., 2013). These approaches engage students as critical stakeholders entitled to name, determine, and decide what they consider the most important, relevant, and worthwhile topic of study. Central to SACPs is a vision of students as decisionmakers, curriculum theorizers, and change agents: Keenly local in nature, the [SACP] method provides students and teachers in a specific classroom with the autonomy and authority to develop curricula that are most important, relevant, and responsive to their interests.… Students identify an issue, problem, or theme that centers on a local or societal point of contention. Neither teachers nor outside agencies preconceive the issue. Instead, through classroom deliberation, students decide the problem. (Schultz et al., 2013, p. 56)

A central component of SACPs is the insistence that students grapple with how their personal needs, interest, and curiosities relate and connect to bigger issues in the world around them. This is a sharp contrast to the frameworks of objectivedriven teaching described above, which require teachers to begin with the “end in mind.” Brian Schultz, one of the authors of this chapter, drew inspiration for the SACP from the framework of the Center for Civic Education’s Project Citizen where students identified a problem in the community that they wanted to solve (CCE, 2003). Students then contemplated possible solutions before selecting a single, specific solution around which to engage in

critical, contingent, and problembased action planning. Schultz ( 2008a) details in his book a yearlong SACP where his students noted the most pressing issue in their community was the need for a new school building because of the shameful and inadequate state of their school. Throughout the year, Schultz’s fifthgrade students explored ways to draw attention to and provoke change in their school facility. Throughout, he worked to follow students’ leads and allowed curriculum to evolve in response to their interests, findings, and pressing project related needs. Unlike other approaches to studentcentered learning, which can be implemented within existing curricular structures, SACPs are inherently emergent. Since they are rooted in the concerns and questions raised by students, the curriculum cannot be written in advance: it is always in the making (Ellsworth, 2005) and responding reflexively to new and evolving factors. This philosophy underscores the tremendous potential of studentdriven teaching: if the teacher is no longer the expert, and authority becomes shared between teacher and students, so the curriculum itself has the potential to enter the public sphere and go beyond the classroom walls. Thus, the very nature of the SACP makes for authentic “realworld” or applied learning experiences rather than ones that are limited to a contained classroom or disciplinary structure. Unlike traditional curricular projects, which—at their most integrative —are typically planned by disciplinary or gradelevel teams, SACPs are efforts designed and planned by students, cross (and perhaps post) disciplinary, resisting the artificial compartmentalization often associated with schools, and require students to authentically strategize, negotiate, and contemplate plans, as they continuously redefine curriculum in response to realworld obstacles, barriers, and consequences. Social action curriculum projects can take many forms depending upon the interests and contextual needs of students and schools (e.g., see Oyler, 2012). At the Children’s School, a progressive independent school just outside of Chicago, teacher Will Hudson looks to his sixth graders to identify topics. In a process reflective of Beane’s (1993) call for democratic, integrated, purposeful middlelevel curriculum, Hudson asks students to consider critical, developmentally resonant questions, including: who am I in this world? and what is going on in this world? In a compelling example of the emergent nature of a SACP, Hudson’s students, initially curious about the broad topic of sickness and death, immersed themselves in study about the global Ebola virus epidemic as a topical starting point (Hudson & Schultz, 2015). As students researched this topic, they began a journey with their teacher, becoming formidable middlelevel experts on the resources and demographics of countries in West Africa. This inquiry led them to begin questioning everything from access to medicine and education to local sanitation practices in their school. Wondering if they could affect changes to promote health and wellness on a local level, they identified different methods for engagement. They surveyed the school community, cultured bacteria, studied chemistry, produced soap from raw materials, and developed an awareness campaign to not only highlight their learning but to also seek ways to change behaviors and practices among those in the school community (see Schultz, 2017). However, emergent curriculum is inherently messy, as the outcome cannot be predicted, and things don’t always go as teachers would plan. While Schultz’s students (2008a) gained

significant media attention for their attempt to transform Carr Community Academy, during the final weeks of the school year, district officials revealed their plan to shut down the school and relocate students, due, perhaps, in part to the visibility of Schultz’s students’ work. Schultz’s students had a profound—and realistic—learning experience as they grappled with the complexities of district policy and educational inequities, engaged community members as advocates and activists, and drew pride from their efforts. As authentic curriculum, SACPs defy attempts to neatly celebrate success and move on to the next unit. Another powerful example of how the act of turning toward students can spark wider impact is the growing ethnic studies movement. The Tucson, Arizona Social Justice Education Project (SJEP) grew out of a collaboration between Chicano Studies teachers and faculty at the University of Arizona. Designed as a subcurriculum within Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) broader Mexican American Studies (MAS) program, the SJEP was a foursemester project that featured academically rigorous content related to Chicana/o studies, critical race theory, critical pedagogy, and youth participatory action research (YPAR) regarding issues of local significance. Like SACPs, YPAR places power in the hands of students, who are both key stakeholders and researchers, and their voices and findings influence educational policies and practices. Typical youthled PAR projects may focus on “racial tracking in school,” or “the opportunity gap experienced by students of color.” The students then apply their research by presenting their findings, based on interviews and observations of their peers, to district, city, and state officials. The intention is for students to reclaim the political space that silences their voices by filling in the missing element, student knowledge, for developing effective policies for young people. In brief, the SJEP provides Latina/o students with content in American history, U.S. government … these students develop skills to conduct PAR that intends to influence the people, structures, and processes establishing the socioeconomic conditions for Latina/o youth in their communities. (Cammarota & Romero, 2009, p. 54)

A growing body of scholarship underscores the positive impact of ethnic studies curriculum (Sleeter, 2011; TintiangcoCubales et al., 2015), and SJEP was no exception: participants had high levels of student engagement and academic learning (Cammarota, 2007; Cammarota & Romero, 2009). However, despite positive outcomes and students’ overwhelming support, MAS was formally eliminated in response to a 2010 state law prohibiting courses that “promote the overthrow of the United States Government; promote resentment toward a race or class of people; are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; [or] advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals” (Cabrera, Meza, Romero, & Cintli Rodríguez, 2013, p. 9). TUSD students responded dramatically: they walked out of school, protested at school board meetings, and ultimately created a daylong School of Ethnic Studies devoted to the very curriculum eliminated by the district (Cabrera et al., 2013). While students weren’t ultimately successful in reinstating ethnic studies as a districtlevel requirement, portions of the law were repealed. Their actions provide evidence of their sense of ownership over their educational experience. Moreover, the controversy over ethnic studies in Arizona drew the attention of scholars and activists nationwide, ultimately resulting in the

formal, legislative adoption of ethnic studies curriculum in a growing number of urban districts (TintiangcoCubales et al., 2015). Students not only defined their own curriculum, but they ultimately influenced the educational landscape itself. Thus, the case of MAS illustrates both the incredible potential and associated risk of transformative approaches to studentcentered curriculum: when we follow students, anything is possible.

8.5 Imagining the Possibilities The examples in this chapter highlight a broad range of ways teachers implement inquiry oriented, studentled curriculum within and despite the context of heavily regulated schools. In some of these cases, teachers make modest shifts as they foreground students’ curiosities, interests, and priorities within a broader, teacherdesigned curricular framework. In others, students and teachers work together as cocreators and coinvestigators, allowing curricular processes to emerge organically as students move through the learning process. Collectively, they evidence the tremendous possibilities that result from efforts to recenter teaching around the authentic concerns of students themselves. As we consider the logical extrapolations from these examples, we imagine a radical reconceptualization of schooling processes, in which students are empowered to define, delimit, and determine the borders of their educational landscape. What would a student driven, iterative curriculum look like? How would the roles of teachers shift under such a framework? We wonder how the vision described in this chapter would manifest differently in different contexts, in different schools, in different classrooms. What are the possibilities and risks of nonstandardized schooling, for children and communities? We envision a generation of young people, supported to pursue creativity, inquiry, and agency, rather than conditioned to comply with external mandates and predefined objectives. What would they do? What would they refuse to do? As we contemplate the myriad of education reforms affecting contemporary classrooms, we consider how questions of curriculum, policy, and practice impact agency within and beyond the classroom. An educational transformation is in process; it is critical to ensure our students have a seat at the table. We are left considering what it means to cross boundaries about teaching and learning as we know it. In the context of educational reform and accountabilitydriven mandates, student driven practice is rendered nuanced and tricky and difficult to realize. That said, the multiple interpretations of studentcentered learning depicted in this chapter illustrate that it is not only possible but also has deep potential for transforming the learning experiences of children. We challenge teachers to consider the unique opportunities of their social location and positionality, and the studentcentered approaches that resonate for their classrooms. At the same time we also think it necessary for teachers, community members, and policymakers to ask questions about what it means to turn toward students in a climate of accountability: what will this force us to change? To what ends? While these are big broad philosophical questions, we also see it as an opportunity to follow our students in inquiry, as we create space in classrooms for students to find answers for themselves. Current education reforms position students as the objects of external mandates; we invite readers to consider what schooling

might look like if we put the future of education in students’ hands. Imagine the possibilities.

References Agarwal, R. (2011). Negotiating visions of teaching: Teaching social studies for social justice. Social Studies Research and Practice, 6(3), 52–64. AgarwalRangnath, R., Dover, A.G., & Henning, N. (2016). Preparing to teach social studies for social justice: Becoming a renegade. New York: Teachers College Press. Agarwal, R., Epstein, S., Oppenheim, R., Oyler, C., & Sonu, D. (2010). From ideal to practice and back again: Beginning teachers teaching for social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 237–247. Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago. An, J., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating technologyenhanced, learnercentered classrooms: K12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54–62. Anderson, K. J. B. (2012). Science education and testbased accountability: Reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy. Science Education, 96(1), 104–129. Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Au, W. (2013). Coring social studies within corporate education reform: The Common Core State Standards, social justice, and the politics of knowledge in U.S. schools. Critical Education, 4(5). Ayers, W. C. (2010). To teach: The journey of a teacher (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Barone, M., Orbea, M., Schultz, B. D., Brockman, N., Martin, C., Miller, K., … Ryan, D. (2014). Using the power of questions to organize for progressive education. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 26(2), 83–90. Beach, R. (2012). Uses of digital tools and literacies in the English language arts classroom. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45–59. Beane, J. (1993). The middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: NMSA.

Berlak, A. (2010). Coming soon to your favorite credential program: National exit exams. Rethinking Schools, 24(4). Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/restrict.asp?path  = archive/24_04/24_04_exams.shtml Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. Bomer, R., & Maloch, B. (2011). Relating policy to research and practice: The Common Core Standards. Language Arts, 89(1), 38–43. Brookhart, S. M. (2012). Preventing feedback fizzle. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 24–29. Brooks, J. G., & Dietz, M. E. (2012/13). The dangers and opportunities of the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 64–67. Buck Institute for Education. (n.d.). Why project based learning (PBL)? Retrieved from http://bie.org/about/why_pbl Cabrera, N. L., Meza, E. L., Romero, A. J., & Cintli Rodríguez, R. (2013). “If there’s no struggle, there is no progress”: Transformative youth activism and the school of ethnic studies. Urban Review, 45(1), 7–22. Cammarota, J. (2007). A social justice approach to achievement: Guiding Latina/o students toward educational attainment with a challenging, socially relevant curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(1), 87–96. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. F. (2009). The Social Justice Education Project: A critically compassionate intellectualism for Chicana/o students. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 465–476). New York, NY: Routledge. Center for Civic Education (CCE). (2003). We the people: Project citizen. Retrieved from http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=introduction Chen, R.J. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support studentcentered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32–42. Chicago Grassroots Curriculum Taskforce (CGCT). (2012). Urban renewal or urban removal? Chicago, IL: Author. Chicago Grassroots Curriculum Taskforce (CGCT). (2014). Grassroots curriculum toolkit 4.0: A critical urban praxis collection. Chicago, IL: Author. Christensen, L., & Watson, D. (Eds.). (2015). Rhythm and resistance: Teaching poetry for social justice. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Cobb, C. (2011). From Prospectus for a summer freedom school program. In B. D. Schultz (Ed.), Listening to and learning from students: Possibilities for teaching, learning and curriculum (pp. 101–113). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

CochranSmith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 279–310. CochranSmith, M. (2001). Learning to teach against the (new) grain. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 3–4. CochranSmith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 15(3), 347–377. Cody, J. L., & McGarry, L. S. (2012). Small voices, big impact: Preparing students for learning and citizenship. Management in Education, 26(2), 150–152. Communication Arts and Sciences. (2004). Berkeley High School: Slang dictionary. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Press. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. Dewey, J. (1907). School and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Doeber, G. E. (2002). Studentcentered teaching in a standardsbased world: Finding a sensible balance. Science & Education, 11, 405–417. Dover, A. G. (2013a). Getting “up to code”: Preparing for and confronting challenges when teaching for social justice in standardsbased classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 35(2), 89–102. Dover, A. G. (2013b). Teaching for social justice: From conceptual frameworks to classroom practices. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1), 3–11. Dover, A. G. (2016). Teaching for social justice AND standards: Lessons in secondary English language arts. In J. Richards & K. Zenkov (Eds.), Social justice, the Common Core, and closing the instructional gap (pp. 89–101). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Dover, A. G., & Schultz, B. D. (2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. Educational Forum, 80(1), 95–106. Dover, A. G., Schultz, B. D., Smith, K., & Duggan, J. (2015, September 14). Embracing the controversy: edTPA, corporate influence, and the cooptation of teacher education [Commentary]. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=18109 Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369–385.

DuncanAndrade, J. M., & Morell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Epstein, S. E. (2014). Teaching civic literacy projects: Student engagement with social problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. A. (2013). Neoliberalism’s war against teachers in dark times. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 13(6), 458–468. Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2017). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. E. (2011). Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Grindon, K. (2014). Advocacy at the core: Inquiry and empowerment in the time of common core standards. Language Arts, 9(4), 251–267. Gutstein, E. (2007). “And that’s just how it starts”: Teaching mathematics and developing student agency. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 420–448. Hagay, G., & BaramTsabari, A. (2015). A strategy for incorporating students’ interests into the highschool science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 949– 978. Hagopian, J. (Ed.). (2014). More than a score: The new uprising against high stakes testing. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Hemphill, C., & Nauer, K. (2009). The new marketplace: How smallschool reforms and school choice have reshaped New York City’s high schools. New York, NY: Center for New York City Affairs, The New School for Management and Urban Policy. Hudson, W., & Schultz, B. D. (2015, April). Localizing Ebola: A glimpse into an emergent curriculum in a middle level classroom. Chicago, IL: American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA). (2012). PBL toolkit. Aurora, IL: PBL Network

and Illinois Math and Science Academy. Ingersoll, R., & Merrill, E. (2013). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force (updated October 2013, #RR79) . Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. International Reading Association/National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. New York, NY: Authors. Irvine, J. J., & Armento, V. E. (Eds.). (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for the elementary and middle grades. Boston, MA: McGrawHill. Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in highneed schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39. Journell, W., Ayers, C. A., & Walker Beeson, M. (2013). Joining the conversation: Twitter as a tool for student political engagement. Educational Forum, 77, 466–480. Knoester, M. (2012). Democratic education in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Krutka, D., & Milton, M. K. (2013). The Enlightenment meets Twitter: Using social media in the social studies classroom. Ohio Social Studies Review, 50(2), 22–29. Kumashiro, K. K. (2015). Review of proposed 2015 federal teacher preparation regulations. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr10tchrprepregs_0.pdf LadsonBillings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. LadsonBillings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Leahey, C. (2013). Catch22 and the paradox of teaching in the age of accountability. Critical Education, 4(6), 1–19. Lipman, P. (2015). Neoliberal urbanism, race, and urban school reform. In W. H. Watkins (Ed.), The assault on public education: Confronting the politics of corporate school reform (pp. 33–54). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Madeloni, B., & Gorlewski, J. (2013). Wrong answer to the wrong question: Why we need critical teacher education, not standardization. Rethinking Schools, 27(4). Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/27_04/27_04_madelonigorlewski.shtml Marinell, W. H., & Coca, V. M. (2013). Who stays and who leaves? Findings from a three part study of teacher turnover in NYC middle schools. New York, NY: Research Alliance for

NYC Schools. McLaren, P. (2014). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (6th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm. McLellan, J. A., & Dewey, J. (1895). The psychology of number and its applications to methods of teaching arithmetic. New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company. Meier, D. (1995/2000). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon. Milner IV, R. (2013). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 48(2), 163–170. Mirel, J., & Angus, D. (1994). High standards for all: The struggle for equality in the American high school curriculum 1890–1990. American Educator, 18(2), 40–42. National Council for the Social Studies. (2002). National standards for social studies teachers. Silver Spring, MD: Author. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2012). 2012 NSTA preservice science standards. Arlington, VA: Author. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2011). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Novak, G., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Justintime teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oyler, C. (2012). Actions speak louder than words: Social action as curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge. Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (Eds.). (2006). Classroom authority: Theory, research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pennington, J. L., Obenchain, K. M., Papola, A. & Kmitta, L. (2012 October 12). The Common Core: Educational redeemer or rainmaker? Teachers College Record [Commentary]. Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16902 Picower, B. (2011). Resisting compliance: Learning to teach for social justice in a neoliberal context. Teachers College Record, 113(5), 1105–1134.

Picower, B. (2012). Practice what you teach: Social justice education in the classroom and the streets. New York, NY: Routledge. Pulido, I. B., Cortez, G. A., Aviles de Bradley, A., Miglietta, A., & Stovall, D. (2013). Re framing, reimagining, and retooling curricula from the grassroots: The Chicago Grassroots Curriculum Taskforce. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 15(2), 84–95. Reich, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2012). The state of wiki usage in U.S. K12 schools: Leveraging web 2.0 data warehouses to access quality and equity in online learning environments. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 7–15. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The interestalyzer Inc.

. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press,

Ritchie, S. (2012). Incubating and sustaining: How teacher networks enable and support social justice education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 120–131. Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. Ross, E. W., Mathison, S., & Vinson, K. D. (2014). Social studies education and standards based education reform in North America: Curriculum standardization, highstakes testing, and resistance. Revista Latinoamerica de Estudios Educativos, 1(10), 19–48. Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421–434. Schubert, W. H., & Schultz, B. D. (2015). Students as curriculum. In M. F. He, B. D. Schultz, & W. H. Schubert (Eds.), The guide to curriculum in education (pp. 233–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schultz, B. D. (2008a). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schultz, B. D. (2008b). Strategizing, sustaining, and supporting justiceoriented teaching. Democracy & Education, 17(3), 8–19. Schultz, B. D. (2011). Listening to and learning from students: Possibilities for teaching, learning and curriculum. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Schultz, B. D. (2017). Teaching in the cracks: Openings and opportunities for student centered, actionfocused curriculum . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schultz, B. D., McSurley, J., & Salguero, M. (2013). Teaching in the cracks: Student engagement through Social Action Curriculum Projects. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(2), 53–68. Schultz, B. D., & Oyler, C. (2006). We make this road as we walk together: Sharing teacher

authority in a social action curriculum project. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 423–451. Simon, N. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in highpoverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36. Skinner, E., Garreton, M. T., & Schultz, B. D. (2011). Grow your own teachers: Grassroots change for teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sleeter, C. E. (2011). The academic and social value of ethnic studies: A research review. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Sleeter, C. E. (2015, February). Deepening social justice teaching. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online]. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/ Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class and gender (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Strauss, V. (2015, January 26). School superintendent writes “warning” letter on PARCC Common Core test. Washington Post Answer Sheet [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answersheet/wp/2015/01/26/school superintendentwriteswarningletteronparcccommoncoretest/ TintiangcoCubales, A., Kohli, R., Sacramento, J., Henning, N., AgarwalRangnath, R., & Sleeter, C. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies pedagogy: Implications for K12 schools from the research. Urban Review, 47(1), 104–125. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., … Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problembased learning for K16 education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Vokoun, M. J., & Bigelow, T. P. (2008). Dude, what choice do I have? Educational Leadership, 66(3), 70–74. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wade, R. (2007). Servicelearning for social justice in the elementary classroom: Can we get there from here? Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 156–165. Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators. New York, NY: Scribner.

Walkington, C. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945. Weimer, M. (2002). Learnercentered teaching . San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Weingarten, R. (2014). Teaching and learning over testing. American Educator, 38(1), 1. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Willis, J., & Sandholtz, J. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of testbased accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065–1114. Winerip, M. (2011, April 17). In public school efforts, a common background: Private education. New York Times, p. A13. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/education/18winerip.html?_r=0 Winnetka Public Schools. (n.d.). About District 36: A brief history of the Winnetka Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.winnetka36.org/district/about

9 Learning Anytime, Anywhere through Technology: Reconsidering Teaching and Learning for the iMaker Generation Timothy D. Green and Loretta C. Donovan California State University, Fullerton

9.1 Introduction When considering twentyfirstcentury teaching and learning environments, it is difficult to isolate the environment from the individuals, the tools, and the relationships and activities that comprise these environments (Dede, 2009). As educational technology researchers, we are keenly aware that we should not assume that because technology is in a classroom or that because teachers and students are using technology that student learning is being positively affected. As such, we need to look at other elements in combination with technology as we reconsider teaching and learning for the students in our classrooms. We must look at the entire environment as a system in order to examine the different components that combine to make up the environment, influence how it operates, and affect student learning. Zhao and Frank (2003) discussed this view in “Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective.” They described the importance of considering technology adoption in context rather than as isolated events. In suggesting that the introduction of technology into a learning environment can be compared to the introduction of a new species into an ecosystem, Zhao and Frank confirm what we learned from the technology research in the late 1980s—a teaching environment changed by the addition of technology upsets the “equilibrium” of the environment. This was illustrated in the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow research where Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997) found that veteran teachers felt like novice teachers when a 1:1 student computer ratio was provided in their classrooms. Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework further suggests that for effective technology integration to occur we must remember the complex and dynamic nature of a technologyrich learning environment—we need to look at it holistically. Our approach in this chapter follows the concept of treating the educational environment as an ecological system. In doing so, we discuss major components of the system that need to be examined as we reconsider teaching and learning for the students we have—and will have—in our classrooms. We do not examine all of the components; we focus on understanding our students, the learning environment, and the interactions within and between them, specifically considering the role of technology in these interactions. We focus on these elements because we consider our role in this chapter as educational ecologists—studying a contemporary classroom ecosystem.

The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on the students we have in our classrooms—the iMaker Generation. We provide a discussion of the characteristics and dispositions of these students. The next section focuses on key understandings educators need to have and consider as we design effective teaching and learning environments for the iMakers. This section provides discussions on key concepts related to technology as it connects to curriculum and pedagogy. We discuss the contemporary skills (i.e., twentyfirst century skills) that students need to be effective in and outside of school. We include a historical look at technology standards and models for technology use in the classroom. We look at the focus of instructional and educational technology use in the classroom, and close with a discussion of what we consider to be pockets of innovative practice currently occurring in P12 educational ecosystems. The final section is a consideration of “what’s next” and where we should be focusing our efforts now and in the near future as we reconsider teaching and learning for the iMaker Generation. With our understanding of who the iMaker Generation is, we end the chapter by examining two major questions. What is being done right now to improve teaching and learning for these students? What should we be planning for in the future? Considering answers to these questions will help guide how educators approach reconsidering the P12 educational ecosystem for the iMaker Generation.

9.2 The iMaker Generation The Net Generation, Generation Next, digital natives, Generation M, millennials, and the iGeneration—there has been no shortage of terms over the past two decades to describe generations of students who have grown up in a time where networked digital technology has been ubiquitous. A number of popular books (e.g., Howe & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001; Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever, 2010; Tapscott, 1999, 2009) have provided descriptions of these generations of students. These books have been provocative and have helped start conversations about how those growing up in a networked world have taken advantage of and have been affected by digitally connected technology. While these books have helped us consider how we educate P12 students, we believe we are at a time in P12 education where we need to continue to push the conversation forward by reconsidering teaching and learning for a developing generation of students we designate as the iMaker Generation. If our current educational environment is to evolve to meet the needs of our students, we need to have a clear understanding of who they are. This includes understanding the tools they have access to, the tools they use, and their perceptions of and desires for their education. Having these understandings allows us to examine teaching and learning as a system in order to reconsider teaching and learning for the iMakers.

9.2.1 A Look Back Before Moving Forward: Avoiding a Dichotomy Probably one of the most contentious conversations that has occurred and continues to occur as a result of the past two decades of literature on describing the different generations of P12 students is an oftrepeated myth about P12 students having innate abilities for using

technology that adults do not have. While Prensky (2001) was not the first to discuss this notion, he certainly was responsible for extending it with his dichotomy of the digital native and digital immigrant. He wrote in 2001 that, “Our students today are all ‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (p. 1). He went on to write, So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology are, and always will be compared to them, Digital Immigrants. (p. 2) He wrote that “Digital Immigrants, unlike digital natives, learn to adapt to the digital environment, but they continue to remain locked into the past” (p. 2). While there may be little argument that P12 students are more willing than adults to take risks with using technology, there is no substantial evidence that students naturally are better at using technology—especially when it comes to using technology for learning (Koutropoulos, 2011). Brown and Czerniewicz (2010), among others (e.g., Facer & Furlong 2001; Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Kennedy, Judd, Dalgarnot, & Waycott, 2010; Margarayn, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011), have written critiques about the narrow labeling of students based simply on their exposure to technology. Brown and Czerniewicz wrote that the concept of the digital native is an “othering” concept and that it sets up a “binary opposition” between the supposed digital natives and digital immigrants. They stated that, “This polarization makes the concept less flexible and more determinist in that it implies that if a person falls into one category, they cannot exhibit characteristics of the other category” (p. 1). Bennett and Maton (2010) added that, While this body of work provides a preliminary understanding, it also highlights subtleties and complexities that require further investigation. It suggests, for example, that we must go beyond simple dichotomies evident in the digital native debate to develop a more sophisticated understanding of our students’ experiences of technology. (p. 321) Though we are not intending to add to this debate, we do provide our analysis of the current generation of students in P12, which we call the iMaker Generation. We do so to provide a starting point for the ideas we present in this chapter—rather than as an additional dichotomy of how different they are from previous generations and how different they are from those who help educate them. We believe that the combination of characteristics and dispositions the iMaker Generation possesses provides unique challenges and opportunities for educators. Understanding who they are will help educators now and in the future to be in a better position to use technology to create engaging and effective teaching and learning environments for these students.

9.3 The iMaker Generation Profile We developed the iMaker Generation profile through our work with educators and students in schools. In developing our profile, we have drawn from a number of sources including our own research (e.g., Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010; Donovan, Green, & Mason, 2014).

Additionally, three perspectives influenced the profile we developed. These are the work of Tapscott (2009), Rosen et al. (2010), and Martin (2015). While our profile is not a vast departure, it is an extension of this work and provides for a revised view of P12 students. We acknowledge that there will be disagreement with this profile, and we encourage it. Disagreement can be healthy and productive, if it allows us to continue to better understand our students. As you read through this section, we encourage you to be mindful of the goal of this section, which is to provide a holistic perspective of our current generation of P12 students that can lead to productive conversations about how to best meet their learning needs.

9.3.1 The Maker Movement The Maker Movement has directly influenced the formation of the iMaker Generation. The Maker Movement is a relatively new phenomenon with its inception being linked to the start of MAKE Magazine (http://makezine.com/) in 2005 and the first Maker Faire in 2006 by Dale Dougherty (Martin, 2015). Halverson and Sheridan (2014) write that, “The maker movement refers broadly to the growing number of people who are engaged in the creative production of artifacts in their daily lives and who find physical and digital forums to share their process and products with others” (p. 496). Doityourself (DIY) and doitwithothers (DIWO) practices and procedures to develop unique products that are typically technology based characterize the types of activities individuals engage in as part of the Maker Movement (Technopedia, 2016). Hatch (2014) wrote, in the Maker Movement Manifesto, that the Maker Movement is characterized by nine elements: make, share, give, learn, tool up, play, participate, support, and change. Halverson and Sheridan (2014) discussed three components that make up the Maker Movement. These are “making as a set of activities, makerspaces as communities of practice, and makers as identities” (p. 496). According to Sharples et al. (2013), the “Maker culture has grown up outside formal learning structures, and encompasses not only the process of creating specific objects, but also the social and learning cultures surrounding their construction” (p. 33). One such social and learning event that has defined the Maker Movement is the Maker Faire. The Maker Faire website (2016) describes the event as follows: Part science fair, part county fair, and part something entirely new, Maker Faire is an all ages gathering of tech enthusiasts, crafters, educators, tinkerers, hobbyists, engineers, science clubs, authors, artists, students, and commercial exhibitors. All of these “makers” come to Maker Faire to show what they have made and to share what they have learned. (para. 1) Two annual Maker Faire events are held in the United States, one in the Bay Area and one in New York. A record 215,000 attended these events in 2014. In addition to these two events, there were 119 independently produced Mini Maker Faires and 14 Featured Maker Faires that took place around the world in cities such as Oslo, Rome, Shenzhen, and Tokyo (Maker Faire, 2016, para. 2).

9.3.2 The Maker Movement in Education While the Maker Movement is a relatively new phenomenon, Martin (2015) explains that it has deep roots in education. He wrote that: It has long been argued that children and youth can learn by playing and building with interesting tools and materials (Montessori, 1912). Making and building can foster learning in a variety of ways that mesh with longestablished theories of how learning unfolds. For example, testing ideas out in the world allows one to check expectations against reality, a process that can create conceptual disequilibrium, and can in turn lead to conceptual adaptation (Piaget, 1950). Physical creations can also create a context for social engagement around a shared endeavor. This can bring more and lessexperienced participants together around a common task—a configuration that often proves fruitful for learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). (p. 31) Halverson and Sheridan (2014) stated that “Progressive educators and researchers have been talking for decades about the role of making in learning” (p. 497). Dewey in the early twentieth century promoted experiential education and handson learning. He was a proponent of active inquiry and play as methods that brought about meaningful learning. Dewey (1916/2009) maintained that, “If knowledge comes from the impressions made upon us by natural objects, it is impossible to procure knowledge without the use of objects which impress the mind” (p. 277). Papert’s constructionism has roots in Dewey’s work. Papert and Harel (1991) wrote that, Constructionism shares constructivism’s connotation of learning as “building knowledge structures” irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sandcastle or a theory of the universe. (Para. 2) Based on Papert’s concept that learning takes place through making something that is shared publicly, Martinez and Stager (2013) credited him as “the father of the maker movement” (p. 17).

9.3.3 The iMaker Profile The iMaker profile is a synthesis of components from the work of Tapscott (2009) regarding the Net Generation and Generation Next; Rosen et al.’s (2010) discussion of the iGeneration; and the research of Martin (2015) on the Maker Movement in education. The iMaker profile we have developed is a combination of salient attributes from these various perspectives. While Tapscott’s and Rosen et al.’s work is seven to eight years old (at the writing of this chapter), we believe the works still provide significant insights into understanding all of our students. We designate the current generation of students the iMakers because this term acknowledges their connectedness to networked technologies and their engagement in aspects associated with the maker culture. While most of the students currently in P12 were born in 2000 and after, we hesitate to provide an exact age range or initial birth year for the iMakers as Tapscott did

for Generation Next and as Rosen et al. did for the iGeneration. We believe that the iMaker profile also fits for students born earlier than 2000 who are finishing high school and for many who are currently pursuing their undergraduate education. As such, the age range is broad, and providing an age range implies an evanescent nature of the iMaker profile, which we argue is inaccurate. As we wrote earlier in the chapter, the goal of providing this profile is not to create a dichotomy between these students and those who help educate them. It is also not meant to provide a narrow label that prescribes students as only having a precise set of characteristics, dispositions, and desires. The goal is to provide an updated view that can serve as a starting point for discussion on how best to serve the needs of students we have in schools today and will have for the foreseeable future. We begin this discussion by describing three descriptions of students that have influenced our view of the iMaker Generation. We end the section by providing the description of the iMaker Generation. 9.3.3.1 The Net Generation and Generation Next Don Tapscott’s explications of the Net Generation and Generation Next provide a foundation on which we build our description of the students we have in our classrooms. Tapscott described the Net Generation as being from 1977 through 1997 and Generation Next beginning in 1998 (through 2008, which was when he finished writing Grown Up Digital). Tapscott (2009) outlined what he called the “8 differentiating characteristics of the Net Generation Norms” (p. 34). He wrote that each norm is a grouping of attitudes and behaviors that help in defining the Net Generation and Generation Next. These norms help us understand how the generation views and is changing learning, work, the family, markets, and society. These generations want to: Express themselves freely and make choices without limitations and rigid rules. Adapt and modify every aspect of their world from the media they view and read to their learning and work environments in order to have personalized experiences. Access relevant news and information that allow them to analyze and critique companies and their products, the government, and other organizations. Ensure that the companies of which they are consumers or for which they work match with their values. Play and have entertainment in education, work, and their social life. Collaborate and build relationships with a wide circle of individuals. Access data and communicate in real time. Find ways to continuously innovate the way they learn, work, and communicate. (Tapscott, 2009, pp. 34–36) 9.3.3.2 The iGeneration

Related to the work of Tapscott is the work of Rosen et al. (2010) who created the term iGeneration to describe preschool, elementary, and secondary schoolage children born in the 1990s and the new millennium. Rosen et al. (2010) identified nine characteristics that the iGeneration share. They wrote that these students are: Motivationdriven . They need positive reinforcement. They need to have reinforcement through a project rather than at the end. They want to be appreciated and told they are doing a good job. They need constant reinforcement. Familyoriented . Many of them do not move away from the home. They enjoy spending time with family, and want their family (specifically, their parents) involved in their educational experiences. Extremely confident. Rosen et al. (2010) wrote that, “Youngsters exude a confident air that surpasses that of any prior generation” (p. 47). They cited the State of Our Nations’ Youth Survey that indicated “88 percent of youngsters surveyed described themselves as confident and, in terms of reaching their career goals, 62 percent were very confident, while another 31 percent were fairly confident” (p. 47). Open to change. Rosen et al. (2010) indicated that “recent research (Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2007) showed that younger people, more so than earlier generations, are open to change and selfimprovement” (p. 48). Rosen et al. also wrote that “The younger generation values change, as evidenced by how they flock to any new innovation at lightning speed. Remember, this is the generation that Play” (p. 68). Martin (2015) notes that “Play, fun, and interest are at the heart of making” (p. 35). Activities that are fun and playful typically are intrinsically motivating for those involved in the activities. Martin describes the work of Hatano and Inagaki (1986) that indicates that a playful learning environment encourages experimentation and experience of variation. “These two elements help lead to the development of conceptual knowledge and adaptive expertise” (Martin, 2015, p. 35). Asset and growthoriented . Martin (2015) writes that, “Makers are free to focus their activities where they want to. They can focus on developing their areas of strength and experience, or venture into new territory when they want to learn something new” (p. 35). The focus is not on the skills students do not have but rather on the notion that anyone can develop the skills needed to make things. Martin explains that this belief fits with the concept of growthmindset where failure is “interpreted as an indicator that more effort is required, rather than a cue to disengage” (p. 35). Failurepositive . This belief is related to the previous one. Failure is not looked at with disdain; rather, it is viewed as a necessary part of the process of improving one’s product. It is the process of overcoming obstacles that ultimately leads to makers’ better understanding how to address future problems and develop adaptive expertise (Chi, 2011). Collaborative. Martin (2015) describes that sharing and collaboration are embraced within the maker mindset. This is not to indicate that makers do not work on projects alone. What it does indicate is that makers celebrate sharing what they create and how they

created it. They generously share their knowledge and are willing to help others, which assists in the development of collective knowledge that is often shared in an online environment through what is referred to as a knowledgebuilding community (Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2012). Reflectionoriented . They desire multiple ways to connect with their peers. They enjoy the social aspect of learning. They want to engage in conversations outside of the classroom. They want to be involved in collaboration with individuals throughout the world. Immediacydriven . With technology, they are used to being able to respond to others immediately. They are used to having access to information immediately, as well, through the Internet. In examining these two profiles of students, we find that the norms and characteristics remain prominent with current P12 students. While we do not drastically deviate from the profiles Tapscott and Rosen et al. advanced, we do, however, believe there has been an evolution with current P12 students that has been influenced by the Maker Movement. 9.3.3.3 The Maker Mindset The focus of Martin’s (2015) research is on the potential the Maker Movement has for education. Martin outlines three elements necessary for an effective maker learning environment: digital tools, a community infrastructure, and the maker mindset. Digital tools are the technologies (e.g., 3D printers) that allow individuals to make products. The community infrastructure is the community of individuals that “has arisen around making” and “the infrastructure that supports community engagement” (p. 34) in the making process. While digital tools and a community infrastructure are important, the maker mindset is the element that has influenced our iMaker Generation profile. According to Martin (2015), the maker mindset is the combination of values and dispositions that “typify participation in the community” (p. 35). The values and dispositions are playful, asset and growthoriented, failurepositive, and collaborative, which matched four of the characteristics of the iGeneration. The Profile. It is useful to review collectively the three perspectives we discussed in the preceding sections that have directly influenced the iMaker profile before we share it. We have included the salient elements of the three perspectives in Table 9.1. While the iMaker Generation shares elements across these three perspectives, the iMaker profile is specifically unique. The iMakers share the following: Making their learning environments. They have a strong desire to be in control of their own learning. They want not only a personalized learning environment, but also to be directly involved in creating it. Making play and experimentation part of learning. Whatever form the learning

environment takes, it needs to include elements of play and experimentation. iMakers are often gamers; as such, they want their learning to include gamelike elements that make learning feel like play. They want to experiment with new ideas and technologies before they adopt them into their lives. Making through DIY and DIWO. iMakers possess a doityourself and doitwith others mentality. They want their learning environments to also include opportunities to learn by making on their own and with others. Making learning anywhere, anytime. Because of their abundant access to networked technologies that allow them to globally access data and communicate in real time, they do not view learning as taking place only at school. iMakers learn in a variety of contexts with and from a range of individuals beyond their teachers and classmates. They do not want to be limited to when, how, and with whom learning occurs. Making through remixing and mashups. They have a remix and mashup orientation when it comes to creating ideas and products—they want to be able to use the ideas, concepts, and products of others along with their own in order to create something new, different, or unique. As such, they view themselves more as content creators rather than only consumers of content. Making sense of change and innovation. They are not averse to change and innovation; as such, they are able to adapt and modify various aspects of their lives. iMakers are quick to try out new technologies. They embrace new technologies if they are able to modify them to fit their own specific needs. Making their voices heard. iMakers want their voices to be heard. They want to share with a wide audience their ideas and the products they make in order to receive feedback, learn new skills and ideas, and engage in reflection. Making connections to communities. They have a strong sense of needing to belong to a community. Often they are part of multiple and diverse communities, which they are capable of being actively engaged in simultaneously. iMakers often jump in and out of communities—virtual and facetoface—based on their personal needs and desires.

Table 9.1 The critical attributes of Generation Next, the iGeneration, and the maker mindset. Generation Next (Tapscott, 2009) Express themselves freely Adapt and modify every aspect of their lives

iGeneration (Rosen et al., 2010) Motivationdriven Familyoriented

The Maker Mindset (Martin, 2015)

Open to change Desire collective reflection Have a need for immediacy

Collaborative

Playful Asset and growth oriented Extremely confident Failurepositive

Access to relevant news and information to analyze and critique Values need to be matched in all that they do Play in all that they do Collaborate and build a wide range of relationships Access data and communicate in real time Continuously innovate the way they learn, work, and communicate

9.4 The iMaker Generation in the Making This section, as we have done previously in this chapter, takes a look back in order for us to look forward. We begin by providing an overview (see Table 9.2) of how technology in the current P12 learning environment has evolved since the 1950s. Over this period technology use in P12 has been significantly influenced by the ways technology has been used in other environments. Government and business sectors have persistently devised and applied new forms of technology since the 1950s—while computerbased technology use for student learning in P12 truly began in the 1970s. It was not until the 1980s, however, that technology was purposefully used for student learning (though not necessarily in studentcentered ways) in P12. Since the 1980s, the access to and use of technology in schools for authentic learning has increased exponentially. Table 9.2 Major technology and technologyrelated events from the 1950s to the present. Year

Business/Government

1954

General Electric ordered a computer

1955

Russia began developing a spacecraft using technology

P12

Technology Use Learning about technology

1958

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was founded to advance the development and research of emerging technologies; this was the precursor of the Internet

1960

COBOL programming language was introduced

1962

Computerized reservation system for airline travel was developed IBM 360 Computer was developed The term hypertext was coined Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) supplied some schools with computers for collecting student information in databases Vocational schools began teaching computer maintenance classes First man landed on the moon; Logo Turtle robot was unveiled Development of microcomputers; Use of Logo programming in widespread use of mainframes in schools was limited business; Apple I computer was sold as a kit; FTP developed allowing files to be transferred over a network from one computer to another Readwrite floppy disks were developed; TCP/IP was developed allowing network interoperability of data, which was important to the development of the World Wide Web

1963 1965

1967 1969 1971

1973

1974 1975

Barcodes began to be used to scan items at grocery stores Microsoft company was formed

Defense Act—a limited amount of computers was being used in vocational education

Apple I computers started to be used in schools

1976

Apple Computer company was formed

1979

An estimated 15 million personal Oregon (later renamed Oregon Learning computers were being used Trail) and Lemonade Stand from worldwide computer games were first piloted technology on Apple Computers; the International Council for Computers in Education (ICCE) founded Space Shuttle Challenger was Drill and practice programs were launched; IBM developed its first being used in schools; Apple II personal computer (“PC”) computers were being used by teachers in schools for word processing First artificial heart transplant occurred Time declared the Computer as the Man of the Year Manufacturing of PC by other companies (e.g., IBM) increased Apple Macintosh computers were placed in schools; computer to student ratio was 1:92 Grolier’s Encyclopedia CD ROM was made available Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) introduced 1:1 student computer ratio initiative HTTP was developed as the data The International Council for communication method for the Computers in Education (ICCE) World Wide Web became the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Hubble Space Telescope was CDROMs were being used in launched; World Wide Web classrooms for learning prototype was developed First website was launched Interactive White Boards (IWB) were introduced Surge of search engines became Hyperstudio, Hypercard, and

1981

1982

1983 1984

1985 1986

1989

1990

1991 1994

available (e.g., Yahoo, Altavista, Authorware were being used more Infoseek, Webcrawler) extensively in schools for development of multimedia 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005

Google was launched; first use of blogging as “news site” USB drive was developed

Partnership for 21st Century Skills was formed Facebook was launched; Web. 2.0 was popularized YouTube was launched; first iteration of the Arduino (lowcost microcontroller board that allows users to program and build their own computer and other devices) was available 2006 Twitter was launched; Khan Academy was launched 2007 Teacher Tube was launched 2008 Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) term was created 2009 First 3D printer became commercially available 2010 First iPad device was unveiled 2011 STEM coalition was formed; Chromebook became available 2013 Code.org was launched; Google Glass became available 2015/2016 Several companies made virtual reality devices commercially available (e.g., Google Cardboard, Oculus Rift)

Learning with technology

Learning anytime, anywhere through technology

Table 9.2 highlights the key developments of technology (primarily computers) in government and business sectors and in the P12 educational environment. We acknowledge that the technology included in this table is by no means exhaustive. The table is included to provide context and background for the discussion of the evolution of technology integration in education and the related research focus in this area. An examination of Table 9.2 demonstrates that the evolution of technology use in schools, which has had a direct impact on the development of the iMaker Generation, has historically lagged behind the technological developments that have been seen in government and business. It is important to note, however, that with the major technology advancements that have taken place since 2000, the use of these advancements in P12 has more directly followed the introduction of technology in government and business environments. This is reflected in the table when we display the events in one rather than two columns for business/government and P12. A key concept to understand, which we will discuss in more detail in the subsections below, is how the focus of the use of technology in learning has changed in P12 from the 1950s to the

present. This understanding provides background on how the iMaker Generation developed, and helps us understand how we arrived at the current state of technology use in P12 education. These two understandings provide a foundation for reconsidering teaching and learning for the iMakers. In sum, starting with the 1960s and through the early 1980s, the focus was on P12 students learning about technology. This focus shifted slightly in the late 1980s and 1990s and even into the early 2000s when students began learning from technology. Since the middle of the first decade of the new millennium, a significant shift in focus of students learning with technology took place. We submit that we are now moving into a fourth focus of students learning anytime, anywhere through technology—this focus should drive the educational ecosystem for the iMaker Generation (discussed in the last section of the chapter).

9.4.1 Learning About Technology When considering the use of technology in P12 as shown in Table 9.2, it is no coincidence that at the same time that the nonprofit educational organization, the International Council for Computers in Education (ICCE) (renamed International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] in 1989), was formed, there was an increase in the purposeful use of technology by students. ISTE has served as the primary entity for educational technology professionals to dialogue about and promote technology integration in teaching and learning and to collaboratively lobby for educational technology policies. Through the collective input and actions of its members, ISTE is most often considered the flagship for educational technology policy and practice. The organization promotes community through its conferences, the development of educational technology standards, professional development, and professional publications. An examination of the themes of the ISTE Conference over the years (formerly NECC, the National Educational Computing Conference) nicely illustrates the evolution of how technology has been used in P12. The first official NECC took place in 1979. It was an expanded version of a smaller conference focused on computers in undergraduate curricula. What is most notable about this conference was that a major theme was defining teacher competencies for preservice and inservice training. The focus of this conference was on the teacher and there was little emphasis on K12 student learning about or with technology. The focus on actual classroom uses of technology as a conference theme began to emerge in the mid to late 1980s. What we saw in technology literature during this time also focused on learning about technology. The technology literature—research and pragmatic—primarily shared ways to teach students about the computer. In 1981, research on the effectiveness of computers in education was an emerging theme, but for the remainder of the 1980s, teacher training, technology integration in the classroom, social impact issues of technology in teaching and learning, and teacher certification dominated.

9.4.2 Learning From Technology There was a shift in student uses of technology that is represented by students learning from

technology in the late 1990s. At the ISTE conferences in the 1990s, presentations focusing on the Internet in the teaching and learning environment, including networking issues associated with this, were prevalent. Distance educationfocused presentations were also prevalent. For the first time (1994) at the conference, there was a focus on the use of student laptops. Using educational CDROMs was also gathering interest in the latter part of the 1990s. In 1999, the biggest shift in conference themes occurred with the focus clearly on learning from technology instead of learning about it. The introduction of the student showcase occurred—this is another event confirming the shift toward learning from technology and the shift from teacher to student uses of technology. The development of the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) in the late 1990s was an important event. The NETS were developed in 1998 as part of an initiative between ISTE, NASA, the U.S. Department of Education, the Miliken Exchange on Education Technology, and Apple Computing in an effort to address the increasing pressure of accountability in the United States education system of the 1990s (Roblyer, 2006). The first set of standards was intended to serve as a guide for preparing a society that included effective users of technology in a technologyrich society (Friedman, Bolick, Berson, & Porfeli, 2009). The standards targeted what students needed to know and be able to do with technology; they did not include how teachers or administrators use technology. The first set of technology standards for students outlined skills and understandings about technology for which students should be able to demonstrate proficiency. There were six standards: Basic Operations, Social, Ethical, and Human Issues, Technology Productivity Tools, Technology Communication Tools, Technology Research Tools, and Technology ProblemSolving and DecisionMaking Tools. In addition to the six standards, the NETS included proficiency indicators such as being able to use a mouse, keyboard and remote control (2nd grade), determine when technology is useful and select appropriate tools and technology resources to address a variety of issues and problems (5th grade), investigate and apply expert systems, intelligent agents, and simulations in realworld situations (12th grade). (ISTE, 2016, p. 1)

The 1990s saw a surge in technology use in classrooms with the expansion of largescale initiatives such as the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) and Microsoft’s Anywhere Anytime Learning (AAL) program and the introduction of many smaller scale 1:1 initiatives. The literature that resulted from the increased access to technology at this time focused primarily on how teachers and students used technology in the context of a changed learning environment. The Bank Street Study (Sheingold & Hadley, 1990) considered how accomplished teachers integrate computers into classroom practice and discussed how teachers and students use computers for what we now refer to as “basic skills” across the curriculum (e.g., wordprocessing applications, spreadsheet and database applications, simulations, and programming). Similarly, the results of studies on the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (Baker, Gerhardt, & Herman, 1990; Tierney et al., 1992) discussed “basic” computer uses such as word processing and multimedia development. These uses are in

alignment with the student technology standards of the 1990s. The research provided a clear discussion about the different ways teachers and students used technology; yet, the research provided few insights into researchbased benefits on learning. Research on technology in education in the 1990s, however, examined why technology was not being used to its full potential. Hank Becker (1994) was perhaps the most influential in examining this in in his seminal work titled “How Exemplary Computerusing Teachers Differ from Other Teachers: Implications for Realizing the Potential of Computers in Schools.” What is most relevant about his findings for this chapter is the discussion of the impact of work environment, student population, class size, and articulated purposes for using computers rather than learning skills (e.g., using a word processor to write as opposed to learning how to word process). This clearly demonstrates that the 1990s was a decade of learning from technology.

9.4.3 Learning With Technology Technology use in P12 shifted focus at the start of the twentyfirst century. It has been a gradual shift over the past decade and a half from learning from technology to learning with technology. While there are a number of reasons for this shift, we point to the following as being primary catalysts: formation of the Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21); revision of the ISTE technology standards for students; creation of ISTE technology standards for teachers and administrators; increase in the number of companies concentrating on products and services in educational technology; growth in the number of partnerships between technology companies and educational institutions; and introduction of several models and frameworks for effective technology integration in teaching and learning. Each played an important role in moving us toward an environment of learning with technology. 9.4.3.1 Technology Standards When we examine the impact of the introduction of technology standards on student uses of technology, it is clear that there is a relationship between the focus of the standards and the way technology is viewed and used in schools. As of the writing of this chapter, there are standards for teachers, students, administrators, technology coaches, and computer science educators. These standards have been adopted by 10 states, adapted by 7 states for the development of their own state standards, and referenced by 12 states in the development of state technology plans. Most recently, the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (formerly the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) adopted the ISTE standards for use in their teacher education program review process. Research on the use of technology in education has mirrored the evolution of the standards. In the first part of the twentyfirst century, research on technology use in classrooms focused on student use of productivity tools and basic computer applications or technology research tools. As the student technology standards were modified in 2007 and 2016, the types of research on technology in education evolved as well. Current research has shifted toward the impact technology can have on student learning rather than how technology is being used. The volume of this research has increased exponentially.

9.4.3.2 Technology Integration Models Several models of technology integration have been developed since 2000 that have helped shift toward the focus of how technology is being used in P12. Three, in particular—the Partnership for 21st Century Learning Framework (2002), Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge) Framework, and Ruben Puentedura’s (2006) SAMR model—have provided educators with guidance on how to meaningfully integrate technology into teaching and learning. These models describe how technology can be used in ways that foster student learning that includes learning content and skills (e.g., creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical thinking—often referred to as the 4Cs). The Partnership for 21st Century Learning, which developed the 21st Century Learning Framework (see Figure 9.1), was a collaborative endeavor between the U.S. Department of Education, technology corporations, and organizations including, but not limited to, Apple Computer, Inc., Dell Computer Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, and the National Education Association to promote twentyfirstcenturyready graduates. In 2007, the Partnership shared its framework for twentyfirstcentury skills as a graphic of a rainbow arch that highlights twentyfirstcentury student outcomes and support systems (see Figure 9.1). The outcomes focus on learning content (the 3 “Rs” and twentyfirstcentury themes related to science, world languages, and history) along with the skills of life and career skills, information and communication technology (ICT) and media skills, learning and innovations skills, and the 4Cs. The initial focus, in 2007, of the P21 Framework was on student development of the 4Cs—creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical thinking. Similar to the evolving ISTE technology standards, P21 most recently transformed from being skills focused to being teaching and learning focused as is evidenced by P21 changing its name to the Partnership for 21st Century Learning.

Figure 9.1 P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning. Source: P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/aboutus/p21framework

.

P21 has been instrumental in shaping how educators view the skills students need in order to achieve success in the twentyfirst century by focusing on the skills of creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. We prefer to refer to these as contemporary skills. While this is not a term we take credit for developing, it is difficult to determine who coined it. Contemporary learning is the term that the Australian Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) used in 2005 to discuss the approach to learning of twentyfirstcentury students in Australia and New Zealand. The report, Contemporary Learning: Learning in an Online World, describes students in similar ways to the P21 framework. The report states that twentyfirstcentury students have the following characteristics: thriving in a digital environment, comfortable with virtual and facetoface relationships … Mobile technologies, chat, blogs, wikis, web cams, reality television and interactive games are intrinsic to their worlds. Current technologies shape their expectations and their abilities to access, acquire, manipulate, construct, create and communicate information. (p. 4) These are characteristics that are found in the iMaker Generation.

9.4.3.3 The TPACK Framework Figure 9.2 depicts the various elements of the TPACK Framework. Where the P21 Framework focused on skills and conditions for contemporary learning, in their 2009 article “What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?” Koehler and Mishra describe TPACK as a “framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration” (p. 60). Their article, cited nearly 1,000 times, has been pivotal in helping teacher educators and education policymakers reconsider teacher training. The goal of the model is for educators to be proficient in all areas —technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge—in order to be highly effective practitioners. For an educator to be able to integrate technology in a highly effective manner, the educator cannot only be skilled in using technology. He or she must also be skilled in pedagogy and knowledgeable in the content he or she is teaching. The combination of these three areas will allow for the most effective integration of technology into teaching and learning, and is the combination of skills and knowledge an educator needs to effectively engage the iMaker Generation.

Figure 9.2 The TPACK Framework. Source: Koehler & Mishra (2012). Retrieved from http://tpack.org/. Reproduced by permission of the publisher. © 2012 by tpack.org.

9.4.3.4 The SAMR Model The focus of this model (see Figure 9.3), developed by Ruben Puentedura in 2006, is how technology is being used in the classroom. It provides educators with a welldefined approach for considering and reflecting on how effectively technology is being used to enhance learning. While the model may appear to be hierarchical, this is not the intention. The model indicates that there is a range of how technology can be (and is) integrated into teaching and

learning starting at the substitution level—using technology in ways that bring about no functional change to the task being accomplished (e.g., word processing a report)—to the modification level, which is using technology in ways that fundamentally change the way a task can be accomplished. Again, the major goal of the SAMR model is to provide educators with a framework for considering how technology can be integrated into teaching and learning in order to redefine the traditional learning environment.

Figure 9.3 The SAMR model.

9.5 Moving Beyond Learning with Technology: Learning Anytime, Anywhere through Technology As of the writing of this chapter, we believe that the use of educational technology by students in P12 is at a tipping point—shifting from a focus on learning with technology to a focus we characterize as learning anytime, anywhere through technology. The P12 educational environment is in a position for this shift to occur due to several reasons—the ubiquitous nature of technology, the continued rapid advancements in technology, the access to robust networked computer environments, the promising practices that effectively integrate technology, the increase in research that is informing our understanding of how technology can affect student learning, and the characteristics and dispositions of the iMakers. What will this focus mean for the future of teaching and learning in P12? We predict that it could have profound effects on the P12 ecosystem. In addressing this question with more detail over the next two sections, we begin by discussing the present and the promising practices that are currently being used to meet the needs of the iMakers. The discussion changes as we focus on the future and concentrate on six elements of the P12 ecosystem— students, teachers, learning environments, curriculum, pedagogy, and technology—that need to be reconsidered if we are to have a complete shift to learning anytime, anywhere through technology in order to best meet the needs of the iMaker Generation. We approach these two sections not with the intention of being prescriptive, but rather as reporters and prognosticators who have been experts in educational technology since the early 1990s as technologyusing P12 educators and more recently (since 1999) as educational technology researchers and professors.

9.5.1 Teetering on the Tipping Point: Current Educational Technology Use in P12 There is a great deal of passion and interest in using technology in P12 that is evident in the work educators are doing as well as in the work of professional organizations that focus on educational technology. The increase in research being conducted and disseminated on how technology integration is affecting studentlearning outcomes also points to this passion and interest. As we engage with educators through consulting, teaching, and research, we directly see effective technology integration and the undertaking of innovative practices. While our observations of the many innovative practices that integrate technology are encouraging, we are not seeing the systematic and widespread focus on students learning anytime, anywhere through technology. We are currently teetering on the precipice of this tipping point. 9.5.1.1 Integrating Promising Practices Now As we mentioned, there are many innovative practices that can support student learning anytime, anywhere through technology. While the research may be mixed on these innovative practices, there is evidence that these practices hold potential for improving learning outcomes and helping students gain contemporary skills (e.g., creativity, critical thinking, problem

solving) needed to be productive posthigh school and to be lifelong learners. Overwhelmingly, these practices are helping redefine how educators engage iMakers in learning. Using these practices will not necessarily bring about learning anytime, anywhere through technology; however, effective integration of these will continue moving P12 toward this focus. These practices can and are being used now to redefine P12 teaching and learning. We have identified nine such practices that are being consistently used in P12 and have tremendous promise for moving P12 closer to learning anytime, anywhere through technology. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an analysis of the research that has been conducted on each practice, we do provide a concise description of each practice along with how each practice can support learning for the iMaker Generation. Blended Learning. The blended learning model (or the hybridlearning model as it is also known) is an approach where teaching and learning include a mixture of traditional facetoface instruction and Internetbased instruction. According to the Christensen Institute ( 2016), “Blended learning involves leveraging the Internet to afford each student a more personalized learning experience, including increased student control over the time, place, path, and/or pace of learning” (para. 1). The personalized learning experience this model affords provides enrichment and remediation opportunities. It can also provide increased time for educators to engage with students in small group instruction and students to learn from and with their peers (Murphy et al., 2014). Blended learning often brings about a “reconfiguration of the physical learning space to facilitate learning activities, providing a variety of technologyenabled learning zones optimized for collaboration, informal learning, and individualfocused study” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p. 8). Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). The BYOD (or Bring Your Own Technology—BYOT) approach in P12 education has been an outgrowth from the mobile learning movement—specifically, the one device per student (1:1) model. As schools and districts have struggled to provide students with consistent access to technologyrich environments, the BYOD approach allows students to bring personal mobile devices (e.g., laptops, smartphones) to school to engage in learning activities. While there are challenges associated with this approach, BYOD can foster a number of important skills and opportunities for students—an increase in engagement, more control over learning opportunities, the development of digital and information literacies, opportunities for collaboration and communication, and the development of social and interpersonal skills (Clifford, 2012; Cristol & Gimbert, 2013; Parsons & Adhikari, 2016). Our own research (Engle & Green, 2011) demonstrated similar positive effects BYOD could have on engaging students in academic content and learning activities. According to the Horizon Report 2015  K12 Edition, “BYOD has profound implications for P12 education because it creates the conditions for studentcentered learning to take place” (New Media Consortium, 2016, p. 38).

Cloud Computing. According to Mell and Grace (2011), Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, ondemand, network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction” (p. 2). Cloud computing (or the Cloud, as it is often called) allows educators and students access to lowcost or free apps and software (e.g., Google apps for education), information storage, and collaborative workspaces and tools (e.g., Skype) through various Internetenabled devices. With cloud computing, students are able to access learning tools from anywhere at anytime, enabling them to communicate and collaborate with peers outside of the typical school day (Stein, Ware, Laboy, & Schaffer, 2013). Flipped Learning. Flipped learning is a type of blended learning where direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter. (Flipped Learning Network, 2014, p. 1)

With flipped learning, students engage with content outside of the typical class structure through watching videos, listening to audio, and exploring webbased and printbased resources. This allows inclass time to be more personalized through individual activities, small group instruction, oneonone instruction, and peertopeer interactions. Gamification. Gamification is the use of video game and game elements to nongame settings (Deterding, Dixon, & Khaled, 2011) such as the P12 classroom in order to “harness the motivational power of games and apply it to realworld problems” (Lee & Hammer, 2011, p. 1). Lee and Hammer (2011) stated that, Gamification can motivate students to engage in the classroom, give teachers better tools to guide and reward students, and get students to bring their full selves to the pursuit of learning. It can show them the ways that education can be a joyful experience, and the blurring of boundaries between informal and formal learning can inspire students to learn in lifewide, lifelong, and lifedeep ways. (p. 4) Gamification is an approach that takes advantage of students’ desires for play. Maker Spaces.

As we discussed earlier in the chapter, “The maker movement refers broadly to the growing number of people who are engaged in the creative production of artifacts in their daily lives and who find physical and digital forums to share their process and products with others” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 496). An important element of the Maker Movement is the DIY and DIWO practices and procedures to develop unique products that are typically technology based and characterize the types of activities individuals engage in as part of the Maker Movement (Technopedia, 2016). These DIY and DIWO “making” activities take place in locations that are referred to as maker spaces. Maker spaces can take on different forms—in P12 schools, however, they are typically physical spaces within classrooms where students interact on their own or with others in the making process. Maker spaces often include a mixture of digital and analog materials and resources that students can use to create their products and to share the products and the processes they went through in creating these products. Online Distance Education. Online distance education refers to “Institutionbased, formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors” (Simonson & Schlosser, 2010, p. 1). According to the Evergreen Education Group (2015) in its report—Keeping Pace with K12 Digital Learning —“Hundreds of thousands of students are attending fulltime online schools that provide their entire education” (p. 12). The report indicates that millions of students who attend physical schools are taking at least one online course (p. 13). Online distance education continues to grow as students opt for this learning opportunity due to a variety of reasons—behavioral or medical issues, involvement in timeconsuming activities like sports or the performing arts, or the need of a different approach of instruction due to the lack of success in a traditional physical school (Evergreen Education Group, 2015, p. 12). Online learning provides flexibility to when and where learning can take place. Open Educational Resources (OER). According to the Hewlett Foundation (2016), “OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and repurposing by others” (para. 2). Examples of open educational resources include entire courses or portions of courses, course materials (e.g., textbooks, assignments, and tests), multimedia (e.g., animation, audio, and video), software, and other tools and materials that provide access to and the understanding of knowledge and information. OER provides educators and students with access to many highquality materials and resources that can be modified to meet specific teaching and learning needs because they are typically digital and free of intellectual property licenses. ProjectBased Learning . According to the Buck Institute for Education (2016), “Project Based Learning is a teaching method in which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an extended period of time

to investigate and respond to an engaging and complex question, problem, or challenge” (para. 1). The National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2016) indicates that Projectbased learning takes place in the context of authentic problems, continues across time, and brings in knowledge from many subjects. Projectbased learning, if properly implemented and supported, helps students develop 21st Century skills, including creativity, collaboration, and leadership, and engages them in complex, realworld challenges that help them meet expectations for critical thinking. (p. 11) Projectbased learning with its focus on studentcentered, inquirybased methods provides students with opportunities to become selfdirected learners capable of effectively applying contemporary skills (Holm, 2011). Universal Design for Learning. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an approach to curriculum development based on a set of principles grounded in research from the learning sciences that provides all learners with equal opportunities for learning (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2016a). The three principles that guide UDL are to (1) provide multiple means of engagement, (2) provide multiple means of representation, and (3) provide multiple means of action and expression (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2016b). Curriculum that follows these principles can lead to the design of adaptable learning environments that can accommodate individual learning differences in order to eliminate barriers that hinder student learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Although educators are successfully implementing effective practices like the ones we described above, the P12 ecosystem as a whole remains broadly unchanged. It will not substantially change until there is a collective shift in mindset about the current P12 educational ecosystem. To achieve this collective shift, we must start by systematically examining the various elements of the current P12 educational environment in order to redefine learning experiences for the iMaker Generation. In the next section we discuss how we suggest reconsidering the P12 educational environment to best meet the needs of the iMakers.

9.5.2 Looking Toward the Future We have stated that the current focus of student use of technology in P12 is teetering on the precipice of a tipping point with its focus on students learning with technology. The shift to a focus of students learning anytime, anywhere through technology needs to take hold if P12 is to tip over this precipice and redefine itself into an educational environment that meets the needs of the iMaker Generation. What does this redefined P12 educational ecosystem look like when the focus is on students learning anytime, anywhere through technology? We propose that foundationally it should embrace the components or elements that make up the analogous delineations of the Maker Movement provided by Halverson and Sheridan (2014) and Martin (2015). Halverson and Sheridan described the Maker Movement as including the three

components of “making as a set of activities, makerspaces as communities of practice, and makers as identities” (p. 496). Similarly, Martin wrote that the Maker Movement includes the three elements of access to digital tools, a community infrastructure, and the maker mindset. Embracing a foundation in the Maker Movement would fundamentally change how we view and approach students, the learning environment, educators, tools, curriculum, and pedagogy. We provide a conceptual view of how we propose these elements would change based on this foundation in the Maker Movement. As with all ecosystems, changing one element will necessarily bring about changes to other elements and to the system as a whole. While we acknowledge that there are additional elements that make up the P12 educational ecosystem, as educational technologists and teacher educators, we have focused on those elements over which we believe we have the most direct influence. It is important to note that while we have described various elements of the educational ecosystem and our recommendations for how each should be reconsidered, we have not described a readymade structure for a P12 ecosystem. 9.5.2.1 Students Within the maker culture, learning through making happens among individuals of different ages, experience levels, expertise, and circumstances. An individual in one set of circumstances could be a learner while this same individual in another set of circumstances could be the teacher. Learning is also an organic process that can happen in formal and informal settings. While it may seem like only a matter of semantics, we feel that a change from students to learners is a necessary one to reflect a change in mindset. The change from student to learner signifies that learning goes beyond the classroom. It also signifies that the primary goal is learning and not just being a student. Again, we realize that it could be argued that it is only semantics, but if our desire is to help our students develop the dispositions and skills to be lifelong learners—not lifelong students—we need to redefine how we refer to them. 9.5.2.2 Learning Environment The traditional P12 educational environment that includes a physical location (i.e., school) needs to be reconsidered. School should no longer be confined to the typical Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. format that occurs in one location. Halverson and Sheridan (2014) wrote that, “Learning in making is, emphatically, not interchangeable with schooling. Learning through making reaches across the divide between formal and informal learning, pushing us to think more expansively about where and how learning happens” (p. 498). Technology presents us with opportunities to expand learning outside of the classroom and beyond the hours that learners are formally required to be at school. With networked technologies that allow for 24/7 access to free and lowcost digital tools and information as well as individuals from around the world, learning can take place anytime, anywhere. Martin discusses this concept in the context of the Maker Movement. He wrote that, “Making occurs within linked learning communities, spanning inperson and online contexts, and involving people of a wide range of ages and knowledge” (Martin, 2015, p. 37). We need to reimagine how we can provide learners with a broader range of learning opportunities—formal and informal—that best meet

their needs. We need to redefine what it means for learners to attend school and move beyond the onesize fits all, industrialage model. 9.5.2.3 Educators Educating the iMakers should be viewed and executed as a shared endeavor. While primary responsibility for educating the iMakers may remain with who is currently considered a classroom teacher responsible for a particular group of learners, there are others (e.g., administrators, school support personnel, parents, experts, peers, community members) who will have (and should have) direct and indirect influence on the education of learners. It is with this view in mind that we deliberately use the term educator rather than teacher. The term educator connotes a broader approach to who is involved in the educational experiences of the iMakers—including the iMakers themselves. A particular mindset is needed of educators—particularly the classroom educator—due to the changing nature of the elements of the educational ecosystem and the shared view we described in the previous paragraph. We find Hattie’s (2012) eight mind frames, which he describes in Visible Learning for Teachers, best captures much of the mindset educators need. These are: 1. Teachers/leaders believe that their fundamental task is to evaluate the effect of their teaching on students’ learning and achievement. 2. Teachers/leaders believe that success and failure in student learning is about what they, as teachers or leaders, did or did not do…We are change agents! 3. Teachers/leaders want to talk more about the learning than the teaching. 4. Teachers/leaders see assessment as feedback about their impact. 5. Teachers/leaders engage in dialogue not monologue. 6. Teachers/leaders enjoy the challenge and never retreat to “doing their best.” 7. Teachers/leaders believe that it is their role to develop positive relationships in classrooms/staffrooms. 8. Teachers/leaders inform all about the language of learning. (Hattie, 2012, pp. 160–165) Hattie (2012) indicates that the way educators think has a powerful impact on the success of schools; as such, the mind frames should guide every action and decision that we make as educators. He writes that educators are evaluators, change agents, adaptive learning experts, seekers of feedback about our impact, engaged in dialogue and challenge, and developers of trust with all, and that we see opportunity in error, and are keen to spread the message about the power, fun, and impact that we have on learning. (p. 159) We add that educators should view themselves as leaders rather than as managers. While leadership and management are linked, an educator who views him or herself as a leader

will be more likely to take risks and innovate, to challenge the status quo and look to the future, and to motivate trust rather than to focus on maintaining control. An educator with a leader mindset will listen to the learners and allow them to play a direct role in determining and implementing their own educational experiences. Educators with this mindset will be open and receptive to learning about and using emerging technologies despite the challenges and changes they can bring to learning environments. This collective mindset will allow educators to successfully work in an educational ecosystem that is based on a maker culture where learning can take place anytime, anywhere through technology. 9.5.2.4 Tools This section is labeled tools rather than technology because the focus in education should be on why and how technologies are being used rather than on what technologies are being used. In an educational environment with a foundation in the maker culture, technology plays a key role. Technology, however, should not overshadow the learning. The focus should be on desired learning outcomes and on what technology works best to help learners meet these outcomes— rather than on the technology. Halverson and Sheridan (2014) aptly described this idea: “schoolbased makerspaces will likely include the newest technological toys, such as 3D printers and laser cutters, the focus in design for learning is not on tools but on the process and the product” (p. 499). The focus always needs to remain on learning outcomes rather than on the tools. For learning anytime, anywhere through technology to occur, access to tools is crucial. Access must be looked at in two ways: (1) physical access to tools and (2) access to the capabilities the tools provide. As cost for many tools (especially mobile devices) has decreased, access to tools has become less of an issue than it once was. Inequities with access still remain and must be dealt with. One solution is to allow learners to use the personal tools that they own. However, limited access to the capabilities tools provide is a critical access issue that must be addressed. Educators should be extremely mindful of not limiting the access learners and educators have to tools despite the inherent risks and threats (e.g., privacy, inappropriate content, cyberbullying) associated with their use. As Robinson, Brown, and Green (2010) discussed technology use in P12 schools in Security vs. Access: Balancing Safety and Productivity in the Digital School, “Threats to security are real. Access limitations are real. However, we believe the threats can be managed and minimized when the realities of the threats are clearly described and understood” (p. 3). This is not an easy task, but it is one that educators must take up. No one group (e.g., administrators, IT) should dictate the limitations placed on how the tools are used. Robinson et al. wrote that if the focus is kept on students and learning, realistic solutions can be developed that allow students (and educators) access while minimizing the potential and real threats that exist. 9.5.2.5 Curriculum and Pedagogy Although curriculum and pedagogy are distinct elements, we see them as being highly connected. Our overall approach to curriculum and pedagogy is influenced by the theory of human agency as described by Albert Bandura. In describing human agency, Bandura (2001)

explained that “The capacity to exercise control over the nature and quality of one’s life is the essence of humanness” (p. 1). He went on to write that “The core features of agency enable people to play a part in their selfdevelopment, adaptation, and selfrenewal with changing times” (p. 2). To build the capacity of agency, “learners should have the opportunity to make meaningful choices about their learning, and they need practice at doing so effectively. Learners who successfully develop this ability lay the foundation for lifelong, selfdirected learning” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p. 5). Educators, as such, must make a concerted effort to understand the passions and interests of their learners. While standards, like the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and standardized testing currently (and for the foreseeable future will) have a direct influence on P12 curriculum, educators should not view them as a deficit or constraint. As WestPuckett ( 2013) wrote, “Don’t let a prescribed curriculum stop you from integrating engaging maker experiences into your classroom” (para. 5). This speaks directly to our view that educators should focus on the implementation of the curriculum rather than getting mired in what could be considered the restrictive nature of the standards and standardized tests. We believe that focusing on the connections to technology use and contemporary skills included within the CCSS and NGSS can assist educators’ efforts in developing educational experiences that include learners using technology to explore content, learn skills, and foster contemporary skills. Educators need to provide learners with opportunities, as WestPuckett ( 2013) wrote, that “perpetually rekindle their desire to make meaningful contributions toward personally relevant issues, ideas, people and interests” (para. 4). She indicated that we do this by finding “the intersection between learners’ interests and the curriculum” (para. 5). This happens when learners are given choices and are involved in decisionmaking about the curriculum and how they experience it (i.e., the pedagogy). When this happens, learners are given opportunities to become agents of their own learning. This is supported by “focusing on student interest and by understanding learning as integrated and connected through projects rather than as an isolated set of skills” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 499). Learning experiences that are guided by pedagogical approaches that focus on projects that involve learners actively engaging in “creative experimentation and the making of social objects” (Papert & Harel, 1991) need to be the rule and not the exception. While educator centered pedagogy will always have its place and purpose, learnercentered and learner directed pedagogy should be the standard. These approaches, when implemented with a high level of fidelity, permit learners to take direct control of their learning by allowing them to determine how and when learning takes place. As learners have this control, they should also have the ability to demonstrate—in ways that make sense to them—what they know and are capable of doing. A learner should even be given the option of forgoing a learning experience if he or she is capable of demonstrating prior knowledge and competence.

9.6 Conclusion

We are at a time when conversations about educational technology in P12 have changed from “whether technology should be used in learning to how it can improve learning to ensure that all students have access to highquality educational experiences” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p. 5). It is clear that “Technology access when equitable can help close the digital divide and make transformative learning opportunities available to all learners” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p. 15). We know that the P12 educational ecosystem, however, has not significantly changed over the past 50+ years. It is time for change. While the P12 educational ecosystem has not significantly changed, the learners certainly have. We know from the literature on educational change that change is complex and dynamic (Donovan & Green, 2014; Fullan, 2015; Hall & Hord, 2015). Additionally, change is a process not an event (Hall & Hord, 2015). As such, we realize that what we have proposed in this chapter would take years to accomplish, but change is necessary. We also understand that change is initially uncomfortable (Hall & Hord, 2015). Our approach and views will most certainly bring about a mixture of doubt and cynicism. Implementing the changes we propose would definitely cause concern for many and the disruption of the current P12 ecosystem. Despite the inherent obstacles with our views and approach, if we are to truly have an educational ecosystem that effectively integrates technology to meet the needs of P12 learners—the iMaker Generation—educators need to continuously and systematically push the boundaries of the educational ecosystem.

References

Australian Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs. (2005). Contemporary learning: Learning in an online world. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publications/Ar ContemporaryLearning.pdf Baker, E. L., Gerhardt, M., & Herman, J. L. (1990). Apple classrooms of tomorrow (ACOT) evaluation study first and secondyear findings. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/euro/pdfs/acotlibrary/rpt7.pdf Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computerusing teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(2), 274–293. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331. Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the “digital native”: Beyond digital

apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357– 369. Buck Institute for Education. (2016). What is PBL? Retrieved from http://bie.org/about Chi, M. T. (2011). Theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and trends in the study of expertise. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction: An international perspective (pp. 17–39). New York City, NY: Springer. Christensen Institute. (2016). Blended learning. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/blendedlearning/ Clifford, M. (2012). Bring your own device (BYOD): 10 reasons why it’s a good idea. Retrieved from http://newsroom.opencolleges.edu.au/trends/bringyourowndevice byod10reasonswhyitsagoodidea/#axzz2OWWT5Vjb Cristol, D., & Gimbert, B. (2013). Academic achievement in BYOD classrooms: 12th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2013), 15. Retrieved from http://www.qscience.com/doi/abs/10.5339/qproc.2013.mlearn.15 Dede, C. (2009). Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 260–263. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., & Khaled, R. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. In The ACM CHI conference on human factors in computing systems 2011 (pp. 12–15). Presented at ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Dewey, J. (1916/2009). John Dewey: The middle works, 1899–1924. Volume 9: 1916 (J. Boydston, Ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2014). Making change: Creating 21st century teaching and learning environments. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, H. (2010). An examination of onetoone computing in a middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423–441. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st century classroom: Developing an innovation configuration map. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 161–178. Engle, G., & Green, T. (2011). Cell phones in the classroom: Are we dialing up disaster? TechTrends, 55(2), 39–45. Evergreen Education Group. (2015). Keeping pace with K12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp content/uploads/Evergreen_KeepingPace_2015.pdf

Facer, K., & Furlong, R. (2001). Beyond the myth of the “Cyberkid”: Young people at the margins of the information revolution. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), 451–469.

Flipped Learning Network. (2014). Definition of flipped learning. Retrieved from http://www.flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP_handout_FNL_W Friedman, A., Bolick, C., Berson, M., & Porfeli, E. (2009). National educational technology standards and technology beliefs and practices of social studies faculty: Results from a seven year longitudinal study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 476–487. Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Education Review, 84(4), 495–504. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt. Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGrawHill Education. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. Hewlett Foundation. (2016). Open educational resources. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/programs/education/openeducationalresources Holm, M. (2011). Projectbased instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten. River Academic Journal, 7(2), 1–13. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising. New York, NY: Vintage Books. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarnot, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 332– 343. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2012). TPACK model. Retrieved from http://tpack.org/ Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital natives: 10 years after. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/koutropoulos_1211.htm Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 1–4. Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2007). An empirical assessment of generational differences in basic human values. Psychological Reports, 101(2), 339–352. Maker Faire. (2016). Maker Faire: A bit of history. Retrieved from https://makerfaire.com/makerfairehistory/ Margarayn, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers in Education, 56(2), 429–440. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of PreCollege Engineering Education Research (JPEER) , 5(1), 30–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157 9288.1099 Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Mell, P., & Grace, T. (2011).The NIST definition of cloud computing (NIST Special Publication 800145). Retrieved from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800145.pdf Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method: Scientific pedagogy as applied to child education in the children’s houses (A. E. George, Trans.). Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/montessori method00montuoft Murphy, R., Snow, E., Mislevy, J., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A., & Wei, X. (2014). Blended learning report. Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/msdfblendedlearningreportmay2014.pdf National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2016a). What is UDL? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2016b). Universal design for learning

guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines_theorypractice New Media Consortium. (2016). Horizon report 2015 k12 edition . Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015nmchorizonreportk12EN.pdf Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. Retreived from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html Parsons, D., & Adhikari, J. (2016). Bring your own device to secondary school: The perceptions of teachers, students and parents. Electronic Journal of eLearning , 14(1), 66– 80. Retrieved from http://davidparsons.ac.nz/papers/ejelvolume14issue1article486.pdf Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). P21 framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/aboutus/p21framework Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/ Robinson, L., Brown, A., & Green, T. (2010). Security vs access: Balancing safety and productivity in the digital school. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Kindle edition. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating studentcentered classrooms . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., Fitzgerald, E., Hirst, T., & Gaved, M. (2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013: Open University innovation report 2. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University. Sheingold, K. S., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education. Simonson, M. R., & Schlosser, L. (2010). Distance education: Definition and glossary of

terms. Fischler College of Education: Faculty Books and Book Chapters (Book 25). Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/fse_facbooks/25 Stein, S., Ware, J., Laboy, J., & Schaffer, H. E. (2013). Improving P12 pedagogy via a cloud designed for education. International Journal of Information Management, 33, 235–241. Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. Boston, MA: McGrawHill. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. Boston, MA: McGrawHill. Technopedia. (2016). Maker movement. Retrieved from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28408/makermovement Tierney, R. J., Kiefer, D., Stowell, L., Desia, L. E., Whalin, K., & Moss, A. G. (1992). Computer acquisition: A longitudinal study of the influence of high computer access on students’ thinking, learning and interactions. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/euro/pdfs/acotlibrary/rpt16.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimaging the role of technology in education. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. WestPuckett, S. (2013). ReMaking education: Designing classroom makerspaces for transformative learning. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/classroom makerspacestransformativelearningstephaniewestpuckett Zhang, J., Hong, H., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. A. (2012). Sustaining knowledge building as a principlebased innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.

10 The Place of Learning in the Systematization and Standardization of Early Childhood Education Susan Grieshaber1 and Sharon Ryan2 1 Monash University (Australia) 2 Rutgers University

10.1 Introduction Moves to systematize early childhood education (ECE) and standardize curriculum models, policies, classroom environments, schedules, learning, and teaching have been endemic in many countries since governments were convinced about the benefits of investing in ECE. While some standards advocates argue that these policy shifts are central to educational equity (Bowman, 2006), research suggests that these moves have resulted in the schoolification (readiness for school) (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2006) of much of what occurs in early childhood settings. These government initiatives in beforeschool contexts are challenging and changing the very nature of ECE from its philosophical roots to practical classroom applications. Although well intentioned, the increasing policy focus on the education of young children is producing standardization of classrooms where there is often little opportunity for learner and teacher choice about curriculum, limited prospects for creative pursuits for learners and teachers, a reinvention of the meaning of equity, and classroom activity dominated by assessment and evaluation systems. The traditional roots of early childhood education vary according to different country contexts. The Nordic countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have a strong history of state funded provision that is grounded in “maximum public responsibility” (Brennan, 1998, p. 1). Conversely, the United States and Britain have a history of “maximum private responsibility” (p. 1), with little universal policy development until the latter years of the twentieth century. In Australia, care of children outside homes began with philanthropic bodies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and moved into the political and public policy arena in the early 1970s. In many countries the provision of education and care was required for women’s participation in the workforce. Today, early childhood education is seen as “society’s responsibility to educate children” (OECD, 2012, p. 18) and lauded internationally as reducing child poverty and educational disadvantage, and having “significant economic and social pay offs” (p. 18). This chapter asks what is happening to learning in early childhood education with the increasing systematization and standardization of the field. It draws on recent policy developments and empirical research to identify tensions created by systematization and standardization for children and teachers’ learning, and explores two alternatives of what early childhood classrooms could be. The chapter begins with a review of selected international

literature about policy, systems, and standards as well as the tensions apparent from this analysis. We then consider the consequences of systematization and standardization on children’s learning and play before turning to teacher learning. In pondering future directions, we consider two examples as provocations for further thought, one from a philosophical perspective and one from a more practical approach. Drawing on the two provocation examples, the chapter concludes with comments about the potential opportunities that are available and the costs of constraining opportunities for learning through standardization.

10.2 The Systematization and Standardization of Early Childhood Education This section begins by explaining systems and standards as they apply to ECE. The impact of globalization, human capital theory, and neoliberalism on ECE is explored along with the creation and adoption of systems and standards. The section concludes with a discussion of equity and how it has been rearticulated in the context of globalization, human capital theory, and neoliberalism.

10.2.1 Systems The systematization of ECE has grown from reasoning that a more systemic approach to early childhood services has been needed for some time. In many countries, ECE is characterized by services that vary in quality and quantity, and are “inequitably dispersed and organizationally fragmented” (Kagan & Kauerz, 2012, p. 3). It is not uncommon for a number of government departments at national, state, and local levels to provide and administer early childhood services, and for these same departments to be responsible for different aspects of programs. A classic example found in many parts of the world is the situation where education departments within a government administer preschool and kindergarten programs, and human or social service departments or local authorities administer childcare services. These structural divisions have led to the development of integrated service models in England and Australia. They have also led to calls for more efficient and effective approaches that integrate policy, infrastructure development, and services for families (Kagan & Kauerz, 2012). Ongoing organizational challenges include decisions about systems and their jurisdictions such as whether systems should cater for children and their families from birth to the age of 5, from birth to the age of 8, or from birth to the age of 8 and include health and social services (Kagan & Kauerz, 2012). However, early childhood has been defined internationally as the ages between birth and 8 (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund [UNICEF], n.d.).

10.2.2 Standards Calls for standards for ECE are often based on similar ideas to those of systems. They include fragmentation in funding and funding sources, inconsistency among services and programs, and the lack of agreement about what should be taught to young children, who should teach it, and

the qualifications held by those who work with young children (Kagan, 2012). According to Kagan, standards can also be used as a way to systematize ECE because standards are recognized as “a viable way to bring disparate programs and services into harmony” (pp. 55– 56). Standards seem to be universally defined as what children/students should know and be able to do at certain points in schooling and beforehand. Differences occur across standards in what children should know, what counts as evidence of learning, and the times/ages at which systems specify that children are required to demonstrate particular knowledge. The OECD (2012) position on standards is that they can “promote more consistent coordinated and child centered services with shared social and pedagogical objectives; and provide guidance for providers, direction for practitioners and clarity for parents” (pp. 9–10). In addition, Kagan (2012) argues that standards can “serve as the basis for improved early pedagogy, revised curriculum, teacher preparation curricula, and even national evaluation and monitoring” (p. 55). These are powerful arguments for incorporating standards in ECE, but they come with much debate and critique. Some of these debates are addressed throughout the chapter, mostly as they relate to the ways in which globalization, human capital theory, and neoliberalism have been applied to ECE.

10.2.3 Globalization, Human Capital Theory, and Neoliberalism Globalization, human capital theory, and neoliberalism are all playing a part in the systematization and standardization of ECE. Globalization is understood as the international sharing of products, views, and ideas. Human capital theory is about the maximization of individual productivity for the benefit of the state, and neoliberalism is evident when governments apply principles of efficiency to justify transferring public responsibilities to the private sector. According to Rizvi (2013), “neoliberalism implies a human capital view of education: the overriding goal of education is to develop human resources needed to meet the requirements of the economy” (p. 275). All three (globalization, human capital theory, and neoliberalism) are implicated in the ways in which conceptions of ECE have changed, and, acting together, have produced significant government investment in ECE around the globe. As a result, ECE is now conceptualized differently from the past (see Grieshaber, 2017). Historically, ECE was established and supported in countries such as Australia, England, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United States by philanthropic organizations with social welfare intentions. Educational policy analysts Rizvi and Lingard (2010) have recognized that globalization has “reconfigured the state and its authority in developing public policies, and that national and local policies are now linked to globalized educational policy discourses, pressures from international organizations and global policy networks, and globalization effects more generally” (p. x). Investment in ECE has also been influenced by global competitiveness brought about by international testing procedures such as the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA); the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which monitors trends in achievement at fourth and eighth grades; and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which monitors reading achievement at fourth grade. The TIMSS and PIRLS are comparative

assessments of student achievement undertaken in more than 60 countries. In 2012, students from 65 countries and economies aged 15 years were involved in PISA. One of the outcomes of the combination of globalization, the application of human capital theory, and neoliberalism to ECE has been state policymaking that applies standards to the beforeschool sector as well as the compulsory years of schooling. Underlying these standards are ideas that are fundamentally different from the original humanitarian purposes for establishing ECE. For instance, the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) in the United States was introduced because of renewed concern that the American education system was not competitive internationally. This Act initiated federal intervention in education in a way not seen before with standardized tests in reading and mathematics each year, beginning in year/grade 3; and special attention to groups of children whose progress was below average (e.g., English language learners, students in special education, students from historically marginalized groups, and students from lower socioeconomic circumstances). Early childhood education was similarly targeted with the Bush administration’s 2002 Good Start, Grow Smart policy. This initiative encouraged states to align instruction in literacy and math in ECE with the K12 system, catalyzing the development of early learning standards across the country (Graue, Ryan, Nocera, Northey, & Wilinski, 2017). Concerns have been raised about this accountability shovedown (Hatch, 2002) and the effect on kindergarten and preschool (Brown, 2011). Critics worry that the emphasis on standardization of beforeschool contexts will lead to a delimiting of child agency and teacher autonomy, and less play and childcentered practices in favor of academically oriented and didactic curriculum. Fast forward to 2016 when the standards movement has expanded to infant and toddler programming in a number of states. In the United States, the discourse about standards reflects four key ideas (Kumashiro, 2008). First, high standards are required for students, teachers, and schools. Second, students, teachers, and schools are accountable for showing standards have been reached through achievement on standardized tests. Third, sanctions are associated with the lack of performance, and rewards are provided for appropriate achievements. Fourth, parents should have a choice to move children if their current school is not performing. Explaining that the four ideas are closely linked, Kumashiro (2008) concludes that the standards and testing movement is instrumental in forcing the public school system toward “privatization, spending restrictions, and other policies from the Right” (p. 29). The way this works is through monetary sanctions to public schools that do not perform, which makes it difficult for these schools to improve and succeed, eventually forcing their closure (Lakoff, 2004). In beforeschool settings in the United States, the same logic is being applied through quality rating improvement systems (QRIS). Early childhood education programs are rated through the use of various assessments and then incentivized through increased subsidies or professional development resources if they maintain or improve their ratings. By making the ratings public, the rationale is that parents can make informed choices about childcare. Thus, sanctions are imposed on early childhood settings that do not improve either through lower enrollments or reduced resourcing.

In other parts of the world, concern with international competitiveness has increasingly become part of the early childhood landscape, as has concern with improved outcomes as a result of investment in ECE. England has a Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage, which sets standards that all early years providers must meet to ensure that children learn and develop well, are healthy and safe, and have the specific knowledge and skills deemed necessary to start school (Department for Education, 2016). This system involves completion of a detailed profile for each child aged 5 including an assessment rating, an internal and external moderation process, and reporting to parents. Australia has identified two reasons for introducing a mandatory birth–5 years early learning framework (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). The first reason is to assist all children to become productive citizens rather than being a burden on the state: “All children have the best start in life to create a better future for themselves and for the nation” (p. 5). The second reason is to identify the “critical role” (p. 6) ECE has in “delivering” (p. 6) the outcome of closing the gap between the achievement of Indigenous and nonIndigenous children. The emphasis on early learning standards has its origins in the United States and the UK but has had considerable international influence. Standards originating in the United States (Miyahara & Meyers, 2008) have been adopted and applied internationally because they are claimed to be one way to improve quality in ECE (Kagan, 2012; OECD, 2012). Standards are also a way of naming expectations for young children and measuring learning (Kagan & Britto, 2005). Kagan’s (2012) method of using standards to develop a systemic approach to early education has been adopted internationally and includes standards for curriculum, teacher training, parent education, credentialing, and pedagogy with claims that standards are “useful, if not central, to creating an integrated approach to pedagogy” (p. 66). Despite concerns about globalization of standards, Kagan (2012) suggests they are made as “comprehensively and culturally sensitive as possible … [to] reflect the goals, values, desires that adults hold for their children” (p. 66). The adoption of standards internationally in ECE has been widespread, with 43 countries using culturally appropriate standards by 2009 (Rao et al., 2013, p. 116). This amounts to what Rizvi and Lingard (2010) have called an “unmistaken global trend towards convergence in thinking about educational values” (p. 72). Whether standards can be culturally appropriate when created in one place (e.g., the United States) and applied to countries with vastly different cultural, linguistic, social, economic, historical, and political circumstances is debatable (see Kagan, 2012, for pro and con arguments). Nevertheless, countries and regions continue to adopt standards for ECE that are created in the global North and applied in the global South (Grieshaber, 2017).

10.2.4 The OECD The OECD is now a major policy player in education (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) and has significant influence, promoting “a range of neoliberal ideas about the global economy and its implications for public policy … [including] policies of deregulation and privatization” (pp. 38–39). The OECD entered the discussion about ECE and standards some time ago, but more recently stated that specifying “quality goals and minimum standards will help enhance quality in ECEC [early childhood education and care]” (OECD, 2012, p. 9). What the OECD also

makes clear is that the widely touted benefits of ECE (e.g., see Heckman & Masterov, 2005) are contingent on the quality of services provided. The OECD has published four highly significant reports about ECEC. This series of Starting Strong reports (2001, 2006, 2012, 2015a) has had substantial influence on government policymaking and funding decisions internationally, with the latter two concentrating more on investment and outcomes than the first two reports. Currently, the OECD is assessing tenders to “design, develop and pilot” an International Early Learning Study (IELS) (OECD, 2015b, p. 9). The study is to involve children aged 4.5–5.5  years, be led by an international contractor, and be piloted in 3–6 countries in late 2017 and the first half of 2018. To date, 16 countries have been working with the OECD to scope the study: Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Wales [United Kingdom], United States, and Lithuania. The project is consistent with the third and fourth ECEC reports (OECD, 2012, 2015a) in their emphasis on outcomes and investment, and the plan is to use a range of measures to assess “a balance of both cognitive and social and emotional skills that … will provide coherent and reliable insights into children’s early learning” (OECD, 2015b, p. 18). Assessment is to occur in “domains,” which are still being discussed and which are to be “predictive of positive life outcomes” (p. 18). So far, “the domains for assessment include selfregulation; oral language/emergent literacy; mathematics/numeracy; executive function; locus of control; and social skills” (pp. 18–19). Results will provide information about children’s individual characteristics, ECEC experiences, and home learning environments. The OECD call for tenders for the IELS has a link to the PISA website, something which Moss et al. (2016) find disturbing because one aspect of the justification for an IELS is that early assessment can improve later performance. This suggests possibilities for comparisons between student performance on the IELS at age 4.5–5.5 years and PISA at age 15. Moss et al. (2016) have called the IELS a “preschool PISA” (p. 345) and outlined a range of concerns. The IELS and potential linkage with the PISA data are further evidence of the OECD being a major policy player with significant influence on governments internationally (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Its neoliberal foundations and human capital basis are evident through the OECD justification of IELS in statements such as “help countries improve the performance of their systems, to provide better outcomes for citizens and better value for money … show which systems are performing best, in what domains and for which groups of students … how such performance has been achieved” (OECD, 2015b, p. 103). And as an international study, data can be compared on many dimensions, which plays into the international competitiveness of education systems and the eventual quest for high scores on PISA and the like. Further, potential data linkage between the IELS and PISA implies that country systems could “tighten up” standards so that there is closer alignment and consistency between standards at the preschool levels (and below), and those for students aged 15 years; and everything in between. This raises the matter of equity.

10.2.5 Equity

Significant changes have occurred in the conception of equity as it applies to education in Australia and beyond with Rizvi (2013) arguing that there has been a “distinctive ideological shift from a social democratic to a market conception of equity over the past three decades” (p. 274). Early childhood education is no exception. Understanding equity as “who gets what, when and how” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 76), and how it has been rearticulated as part of processes of educational marketization in ECE, reveals complex connections with educational policy, globalization, neoliberalism, and ECE systems and standards. A brief discussion of an example illustrates the point. In England from 1997–2010, the Labour government prioritized ECE, especially childcare, which it saw as a way of raising employment, reducing poverty, and addressing social issues such as health and increased productivity, all through the “availability of good quality, affordable childcare” (Department for Education and Skills et al., 2002, p. 5): Childcare can improve educational outcomes for children. Childcare enables parents, particularly mothers, to go out to work, or increase their hours in work, thereby lifting their families out of poverty. It also plays a key role in extending choice for women by enhancing their ability to compete in the labour market on more equal terms, helping them to overcome the glass ceiling, and by ensuring that they themselves may not face poverty in old age. Childcare can also play an important role in meeting other top level objectives, for example in improving health, boosting productivity, improving public services, closing the gender pay gap and reducing crime. (Department for Education and Skills et al. 2002, p. 5)

In this Department for Education and Skills et al. (2002) policy statement, childcare was portrayed as the way to develop human resources needed to meet the requirements of the economy and society. The Labour government in England adopted a universal approach to ECE provision via the market (Moss, 2014). This occurred initially for children aged 4 years, and then 3 years, with special attention to children from disadvantaged families. It also increased access to “affordable” childcare with provision of “45,000 new places mainly through private providers and with the intention that, once established, these nurseries would become selfsupporting” (Moss, 2014, p. 348). Seen from a neoliberal perspective, equity here is concerned with access to the market and early preparation to participate in the economy by improving educational outcomes. A key difference when the market determines equity is the assumption that it is “located in the processes of acquisition and production of capital rather than in the need to build social communities based on notions of trust and human dignity” (Rizvi, 2013, p. 276). This fundamental difference contrasts with the humanitarian reasons for originally establishing ECE in many countries and the ways in which the market now dominates much of ECE. In England, the production of young human capital begins in childcare with expectations that by the school starting age, children will have met the standards required on the detailed individual child profile, and that they have the specific knowledge and skills deemed necessary to start

school (Department for Education, 2016). Emphasis on preparation or readiness for school (schoolification) is reflected in ECE policies (Ang, 2014) and is evident in the language assessment processes used with children prior to starting school (Brogaard Clausen, 2015). Readiness is also a driving factor in much research in the United States (see section 10.3 on Play, Learning, and the Systematization and Standardization of ECE). Privileging economic outcomes over seeing ECE as a public good where the intrinsic value of learning is considered worthwhile in itself has come at a cost, exemplified in the lack of attention to the ways in which inequities are part of the everyday lives of children, families, educators, and ECE generally. The point is that “part of the success of neoliberalism” is the way it manages to rearticulate notions such as equity in “market terms” (Rizvi, 2013, p. 276).

10.3 Play, Learning, and the Systematization and Standardization of ECE Young children learn through doing, through their interactions with social, physical, and increasingly virtual environments. From the moment they are born, children are investigating the world around them and one of the key ways they do this is through play. The idea of learning through play has been influential in ECE in the Western world since the endorsement of Rousseau’s ideas that children should have freedom to play, and that play is a natural thing for children to do (Grieshaber & McArdle, 2010). In Scandinavia, there has been a long tradition of understanding play as “interwoven with learning and care in childcentred practices” (Grindheim & Ødegaard, 2013, p. 4). Yet traditional Confucian ideas suggest that play can interrupt children’s learning and obstruct academic achievement (Rao & Li, 2009). And even where play is valued there are differences in understandings of play and its purpose in ECE settings (e.g., Gaskins, 2014; Pyle & Bigelow, 2015; Wood, 2014). There are also different perspectives about the contribution play makes to children’s development and learning with some research showing the benefits of play for social and emotional development (Bodrova, Germeroth, & Leong, 2013; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010) and academic learning (Sylva et al., 2010; Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013). However, a descriptive review of research on the impact of pretend play on children’s development (Lillard et al., 2013) challenges the value of this kind of play with claims that “existing evidence does not support strong causal claims about the unique importance of pretend play for development” (p. 1). Lillard et al. (2013) claimed that the literature is characterized by “weak methods” and “unrigorous statistical approaches,” and recommended modern statistical techniques that enable “causal inferences” to be made through the use of “large samples and numerous measures” (p. 27), which are preferably longitudinal. They did note, however, that their assessment should not be used as justification for adopting academicbased curricula for young children. Yet, the increasing use of early childhood programming as a human capital strategy is resulting in children’s learning being viewed as an investment for the future with little attention to children’s learning in the present (CampbellBarr & Nygard, 2014). As a consequence opportunities for children to learn through play are becoming less available in the early

childhood curriculum or are being used as a space for teachers to intentionally ready children for school. In England, Australia, and the province of Ontario, Canada, government regulations mandate the use of playbased approaches in conjunction with requirements for children to meet set standards. The English Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (Department for Education, 2014) identifies seven areas of learning and development, and each “must be implemented through planned, purposeful play and through a mix of adult led and childinitiated activity” (p. 9). In the 2014 version, play is described as “essential for children’s development, building their confidence as they learn to explore, to think about problems, and relate to others” (p. 9). There has been ongoing controversy over the place of play, the type of play that should be encouraged (Wood, 2014), and how the various versions of the Statutory Framework (Department for Education, 2014) might be enacted. This includes a series of changes to the Statutory Framework, academic research, and comments from politicians and officials from the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) that have been reported in the media (e.g., Richardson, 2014). Commenting on the revised 2012 version of the EYFS, Faulkner and Coates (2013) stated that its “overriding aim … is to prepare children for school” (p. 258). Wood (2014) notes that the emphasis in current policy documents in the United Kingdom is “structured play” (p. 146) and the pedagogical role of adults in this play. And in England, Wood reports that developmental perspectives of the EYFS have been interpreted as using a combination of play and adult guidance to produce the desired outcomes; and that effectiveness research (e.g., Sylva et al., 2010) has adopted a “technicist version of play as a means of delivering curriculum goals” (p. 147). The technicist approach accentuates structured play, which is aimed at producing outcomes “that can be assessed and evidenced by practitioners” (p. 147). This is coupled with concern by Broadbent (Warwick Institute of Education Seminar [WIES], 2012) about the use of simplistic ideas that pedagogy should be either playbased or playled; remarks from the Ofsted chief inspector that too many children are not ready to learn when they arrive at primary school; and the statement from the children’s minister that more teacherled sessions are needed in nurseries (Richardson, 2014). The chief inspector was commenting about the difference in outcomes for children from less and more advantaged homes with nurseries in England tasked with reducing this gap. This expectation is conspicuously similar to the role the Australian government sees for ECE in reducing the gap in achievement between Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australians (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). The Australian national curriculum framework, Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) highlights playbased learning in combination with intentional teaching, with decisions about the balance between educator and childinitiated activities being the responsibility of educators. Yet the introduction nationwide of the Australian Curriculum has produced tension in states such as Queensland as the preparatory year moved from a distinct, “playbased curriculum and pedagogy framework to its current status as the first year of ‘formal’ schooling … with a focus on school attendance, academic learning outcomes, and formalised assessment and reporting” (Breathnach, O’Gorman, & Danby, 2016, p. 78). And in the province of Ontario in Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Education also “emphasizes the learning of academic

standards while mandating a playbased approach to learning” (Pyle & Bigelow, 2015, p. 387). Schoolification (OECD, 2006) of ECE, or programs that emphasize preparation for school, is an increasing concern for many. At the heart of the schoolification (or readiness) discourse is the place of play. The many definitions of play and playbased learning (see Commonwealth of Australia, 2009; Lillard et al., 2013; WIES, 2012; Wood, 2014) and how they are interpreted and enacted are to some extent dependent on practitioners. For instance, varied interpretations of play were evident in an interview and observation study in three public kindergarten classrooms in the province of Ontario, Canada (Pyle & Bigelow, 2015). The selected classrooms were considered exemplary according to teachers and school district leaders. The analysis revealed three profiles of how play and learning were integrated: as peripheral to learning; as a vehicle for social and emotional development; and as an approach to academic learning. In the classroom where play was peripheral to learning, play provided a break from academic learning and was childled; teachers supervised “behavior,” and withdrew children for “teacherdirected instruction and assessment” (p. 388). Where play was adopted as a vehicle for social and emotional development, teachers joined childled play, used developmentally appropriate strategies, and modeled and supported social problemsolving approaches. In the classroom where play was used to promote academic learning, teachers extended children’s learning by introducing academic concepts to play situations through childled and teachermodeled play. Play was considered to provide the “opportunity to internalize new academic concepts” (p. 388). Thus rather than children’s play being the center of the curriculum as has traditionally been the case, teachers and policymakers are using play as a space for teaching academic skills.

10.3.1 Children’s Learning and Equity Central to the policy investments in systematizing and standardizing early childhood programs is that these investments will ensure all children, including those from traditionally marginalized populations, will enter school ready and able to learn. This is one reason why practitioners may reappropriate childinitiated activity like play to intentionally teach academic skills. In the United States, this focus on using early childhood education to ameliorate the effects of disadvantage and ensure a productive workforce in the future has catalyzed studies aimed at identifying which “types of publicly funded programs are most effective at preparing children for school” (Ansari & Winsler, 2016, p. 69). The evidence to date is that children attending preK programs in public schools show reduced odds of repeating kindergarten (Winsler et al., 2012); sustain the benefits from preK through transition to school (Forry, Davis, & Welti, 2013); and show the greatest gains in areas of school readiness (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013) when compared with children who attend centerbased programs or have not yet attended a preK program. However, children from lowincome homes attend mostly centerbased and family childcare, which are subsidized community programs (Johnson & Ryan, 2015). While children who attend centerbased services show gains in school readiness, it is to a lesser extent than those who attend preK programs in public schools to the end of preschool (Forry et al., 2013).

Children attending family childcare show greater disparities in school readiness throughout preschool than those attending centerbased and preK programs (Bumgarner & Brooks Gunn, 2015; Forry et al., 2013). In a study of preschool programs in 11 U.S. states, Chien et al. (2010) found that children from more privileged backgrounds had more opportunities for free play and scaffolded instruction while children from less affluent families spent more time in group and individual instructional activities in order to ensure they were ready for kindergarten. The rhetoric of policymakers is that systematization and standards lead to consistency in quality early childhood education for children from lowincome and ethnically diverse families (Ansari & Winsler, 2016). However, the gap in academic skills between White children and children of historically marginalized populations may not be being addressed; instead the gap may be being reproduced. When seen in the context of systems and standards, the above studies demonstrate how readiness or schoolification (with assessable standards) is part of policy in a number of jurisdictions. They also depict classroom challenges of enacting mandated policy changes and the various ways in which play can be interpreted as educators strive to support children to achieve the required outcomes. In this mix of systems, standards, schoolification, and play, Rizvi’s (2013) questioning of the neoliberal rearticulation of equity is pertinent because ECE is seen as a vehicle for enhancing economic productivity. Neoliberal versions have skewed equity to create certain groups as “threats” to economic productivity, which must be remedied through intervention. These groups seemingly include the disadvantaged and those in poverty (Department for Education and Skills et al., 2002; Johnson & Ryan, 2015).

10.4 Teacher Learning and the Systematization and Standardization of ECE The early childhood workforce is central to efforts by policymakers to create systems of high quality early education that will ensure children are school ready and eventually productive citizens (Moss, 2006). Across many countries there are a number of policy initiatives to increase early childhood teacher qualifications, often to include a bachelor or fouryear teaching degree. Examples include the UK (Osgood, 2012) and the United States, where a number of states are requiring teachers in prekindergarten programs to be certified. Australia’s national quality framework also requires a certain proportion of teachers employed in prior toschool contexts to have fouryear degrees (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2016). Expecting all teachers of young children regardless of context to have more qualifications suggests that those who educate young children are valued as professionals rather than viewed as mostly babysitters. However, the stipulations of early learning standards narrow the authority and autonomy of early childhood educators. Policymakers are investing in early childhood services as one way to even the playing field and ensure all children enter the schooling system ready to learn. The accountability tied to this aim has an emphasis on teaching literacy and numeracy skills to young and younger children through direct instruction. For many early childhood educators from the Western world, this

emphasis is anathema to highquality teaching, which should be constructivist and child centered, grounded in how children learn and an understanding of children’s development in all domains. Interestingly this teaching tension between two opposing views of early childhood pedagogy (Stipek, 2006) is playing out differently across nations. While many educators in Western countries like the United States are concerned with the push down of academic curriculum into programming for children under the age of 5, in some Asian economies such as Hong Kong, teaching in more didactic ways has been the norm and early childhood standards are encouraging policymakers to be more open to employing constructivist and progressive teaching techniques (see Chan & Wong, 2010). Regardless of the context, early childhood teachers are navigating this ongoing push and pull between childcentered and developmentally appropriate practices and more academic, direct instructional approaches.

10.4.1 The ChildCentered/Direct Instruction Tension A small number of qualitative studies (Brown, 2011; Fenech, Sumsion, & Shepherd, 2010; Goldstein, 2008) in the United States and Australia document how teachers are addressing this tension. For example, an instrumental case study by Brown (2011) investigated what happened when prekindergarten teachers helped to develop a report card that could assess the learning of children aged 4 years in particular academic areas. Committed to developmentally appropriate assessment procedures that are more formative in nature, the tool that the preK teachers developed was critiqued by their kindergarten counterparts and elementary administrators because it did not collect outcome data on children’s knowledge of academic content. According to Brown (2011), standardsbased accountability reforms like this will continue to create challenges for early childhood educators as there is a clash between the normative understandings of children’s development held by prekindergarten teachers and outcomes based understandings of learning expected by elementary stakeholders that are reinforced through accountability policies. Several studies situated in the kindergarten posit that it might be possible for teachers to address this tension in ways that are consistent with their values. In her case study of four kindergarten teachers in the United States, Goldstein (2008) likened these teachers to “street level” education policymakers. Rather than complying with policy, the teachers paid selective attention to the standards, cherry picking key pieces from the mandated curriculum but teaching the content using developmentally appropriate instructional strategies. McLennan (2011), a kindergarten teacher, also advocates that teachers approach the curriculum as a starting point and then use their professional judgment and creativity. Goldstein and Bauml (2012) argue that teachers who successfully balance the child and the curriculum have a thorough knowledge of policies, and consider all required curriculum as a starting point using their professional expertise to craft how and what they teach. Teachers who navigate the childcentered/direct instruction tension also show evidence of student learning to administrators and others of what is possible when standards are jumpingoff points, not mandates, for teaching (Goldstein & Bauml, 2012). In other words, teachers do not adhere to the script but act as professionals (Stipek, 2006). In contrast, others (e.g., Fenech et al., 2010; Kilderry, 2014; Woodrow, 2007) assert that

teachers shaping policies as one response to standardization undermines their professionalism. A professional is typically viewed as an individual with specialized education, knowledge, and skills who uses his or her expertise to select and transform practices. In her analysis of four Australian early childhood policies, Kilderry (2014) showed how teachers are largely invisible, and rarely identified as authorities of curricula decisionmaking. This suggests that even if teachers adapt standards, they are still positioned as policy subjects whose efforts will have little impact on challenging standardization and systematization. The increasing policy gaze on ECE has elevated the importance of the early childhood workforce as key to implementation (Moss, 2006). However, the emphasis on systems building and standards in many policies is limiting teaching to a navigation between the academic readiness many polices expect and what teachers believe is important for young children’s education. This view of early childhood teaching is limiting both teacher learning and teacher action.

10.5 Future Directions In pondering future directions, we consider two examples as provocations for further thought, one from a philosophical perspective and one from a more practical approach. The first draws on ideas from complexity to contemplate the purpose of schooling by way of an emergentist understanding of “knowledge and reality” (Osberg, Biesta, & Cilliers, 2008, p. 225; emphasis in original). The second, from a study in Norway, names aesthetics as the content with which children engage in kindergarten and contends that such engagement supports children in transition to the first year of school. In terms of complexity, to Osberg et al. (2008), schooling in Western contexts is based on the principle that students attend to obtain knowledge of “preexisting practices, events, entities and so on” (p. 213), which is then assessed to ascertain understanding. They consider this principle a representational or spatial epistemology, where the “object of knowledge is assumed to exist separately from the knowledge itself” (p. 214). Using ideas from complexity such as Dewey’s temporal theory of knowledge and transactional ontology and deconstruction, they propose a temporal rather than spatial understanding of knowledge and its relationship to reality. Instead of separating the world and knowledge of it, both are considered “part of the same evolving complex system” (p. 214). The authors explore how knowledge emerges through interacting with the world, which they consider to be a “different ethic or ‘way of being’” (p. 214). In this conception, models and other ways of representing the world are tools that enable interactions with the world in ever more complex ways: complexity which leads to more complexity. In an emergentist epistemology, knowledge “reaches us not as something we receive but as a response, which brings forth new worlds because it necessarily adds something (which was not present anywhere before it appeared) to what came before” (p. 225). Questions of content and how to present it therefore assume less significance because “content is engaged with and responded to” as a way of bringing “forth new worlds” (p. 225). So content “emerges from the educative system itself” and in this way curriculum “becomes a tool for the emergence of new worlds rather than a tool for stabilisation and replication” (p.

225). In this sense content is completely different from how it is understood in a standards approach, that is, preset and preexisting, and to be mastered and tested. An emergentist epistemology has appeal because systems and standards are tools for stabilization and replication of what is and what has been. The existence of systems and standards tends to preclude thinking about what might emerge when children engage with and respond to content. Osberg et al. (2008) suggest that content should be used to “bring forth that which is incalculable from the perspective of the present” (p. 213). In an emergentist epistemology, what occurs in moments of engagement with and response to content is unpredictable, so questions about engagement and response are much more important than questions about presentation and representation of curriculum content. The upshot of this is that “the acquisition of curricular content should not be considered an end in itself” (p. 213). Using an emergentist epistemology enables imagining otherwise for schooling and instead of ensuring students acquire specified knowledge, makes it conceivable to think about schooling “as a practice which makes possible a dynamic, selfrenewing and creative engagement with ‘content’ or ‘curriculum’” that brings forth new worlds (p. 225). In a system that is governed by standards, such contemplation or actualization is not feasible. The second example comes from Norway, where play is a central component in kindergartens. There have been changes to the Norwegian education system in the past, including making the last year of kindergarten the first year of school. This was a political decision that occurred in 1990 and was supposed to uphold play as the focus of learning (Hernes & Gulpinar, 2016). However, first grade has since changed with qualified teachers now employed and children learn to read and write, and study subjects such as mathematics and English. While the National Curriculum includes play, there is less time for play than in kindergarten because of the formal learning requirements (Hernes & Gulpinar, 2016). In their study of transition to school, Hernes and Gulpinar emphasized the importance of play as laying the foundation for the development of social skills that are necessary for success in school and society. Both spontaneous and pedagogically guided play are mediated by content, which in this case is aesthetics. They see play as an “aesthetic practice” that requires an “aesthetic attitude,” and that aesthetics is “about praxis, to practice aesthetic expression” (Hernes & Gulpinar, 2016, p. 28). Practicing aesthetic expression might occur when children engage in new experiences with artistic processes as creators and onlookers in the same process by way of actions, interactions, relationships. Thus an aesthetic attitude and aesthetic activities “create the content in the kindergarten” (p. 29), and children and teachers practice aesthetic expression through engagement with aesthetics. The aesthetic activities concentrate on involving all the senses, and contemporary artworks are often used to engage children. In this conceptualization, knowledge involves the “emotions and experiences that emerge in interaction with the children” and “grows out of complex responding processes of relations. All learning happens through interaction here and now” (Hernes & Gulpinar, 2016, p. 33). The relational processes are about how children as onlookers interact with the artworks and include what emerges in the here and now from their “actions, interactions and relationships” (p. 32). What arises from the children’s ideas and actions tends to break “the predictable,” which is what creates the experience and thereby is

able to provide “meaning through reflection” (p. 33). Norwegian kindergarten teachers endorse the value of aesthetics, with 49% of nearly 400 teachers indicating on a survey that aesthetic activities are very important for children’s development (using a fivepoint scale ranging from “Very important” to “Does not know”). Fiftythree percent of teachers identified aesthetic activities as very important for language development and 52% classified aesthetic activities as very important for selfesteem. Respecting aesthetic experiences as the content of the kindergarten enhances the development of social skills that are highly valued by Norwegian kindergarten teachers and seen as necessary for success in school and society (Hernes & Gulpinar, 2016). Aesthetic activities have also been shown to enhance children’s cognitive abilities and literacy development, as well as assisting them in transition to school (Hernes & Gulpinar, 2016).

10.6 Conclusion The field of ECE has a long history of innovation. Many services originated because women saw a need and worked together to create programming for young children and their families. The field has drawn on, and experimented with, a range of developmental theories and philosophical ideas to conceptualize programming for young children. Given the increasing diversity of student populations as a result of globalization, and the ways new technologies are mediating learning, it seems likely that the twentyfirst century will be marked by even more experimentation. Instead of expanding approaches and the scope of learning, the use of ECE as a means to ensure an educated and productive citizenry is contributing to the systematization and standardization of curriculum in ways that limit what counts as learning and teaching across many contexts. Standards are contributing to a focus on the accrual of academic content and skills so that children and teachers have less agency and autonomy and there are fewer opportunities for them to generate new knowledge. However, the Norwegian context offers exemplars of what might be. Rather than an emphasis on standardized learning and teaching, emergentist and aesthetic approaches to ECE propose that teaching and learning can be less reductive and more generative. Moreover, the Nordic and Scandinavian countries show that it is possible to value and elevate children’s learning and teacher agency in policy. To undermine the policy emphasis on standardized teaching and learning, the field needs activist teachers (Fenech et al., 2010) who critically engage with policy and resist standardization and systematization by going beyond the traditional dichotomies of education and care, and childcentered and direct instruction (Woodrow, 2007). At the same time, we need to fight for policies that give those who work with young children the power to enact culturally responsive and childcentered practices. The work of practitioners helped define the beginnings of the early childhood field, and they, along with the children they serve, are key to redefining what early childhood might be.

References Ang, L. (2014). Preschool or prep school? Rethinking the role of early years education.

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 185–199. Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2016). Kindergarten readiness for lowincome and ethnically diverse children attending publicly funded preschool programs in Miami. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 69–80. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2016). Early childhood teaching qualifications. Retrieved from http://www.acecqa.gov.au/Early childhoodteachingqualificationsBodrova , E., Germeroth, C., & Leong, D. (2013). Play and selfregulation: Lessons from Vygotsky. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 111–123. Bowman, B. (2006). Standards: At the heart of educational equity. Young Children, 61(5), 42– 48. Breathnach, H., O’Gorman, L., & Danby, S. (2016). “Well it depends on what you’d call play”: Parent perspectives on play in Queensland’s Preparatory Year. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 77–84. Brennan, D. (1998). The politics of Australian child care: Philanthropy to feminism and beyond (rev. ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brogaard Clausen, S. (2015). Schoolification or early years democracy? A crosscurricular perspective from Denmark and England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(4), 355–373. Brown, C. P. (2011). Searching for the norm in a system of absolutes: A case study of standardsbased accountability reform in prekindergarten. Early Education and Development, 22(1), 151–177. Bumgarner, E., & BrooksGunn, J. (2015). The association between early care arrangements, quality, and emergent bilingual Latino American children’s math and literacy skills in English. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 32–44. CampbellBarr, V., & Nygard, M. (2014). Losing sight of the child? Human capital theory and its role for early childhood education and care policies in Finland and England since the mid 1990’s. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(4), 346–358. Chan, S., & Wong, S. (2010). Exploring assessment and accountability for children’s learning: A case study of a Hong Kong preschool. Early Education and Development, 21(2), 234–262. Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D., … Barbarin, O. (2010). Children’s classroom engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development, 81(5), 1534–1549. Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: DEEWR for the Council of

Australian Governments.

Department for Education. (2014). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335504/EYFS_framew Department for Education. (2016). Early years (under 5s) foundation stage framework (EYFS). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/earlyyears foundationstageframework2 Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Treasury, and Women and Equality Unit (2002). Interdepartmental childcare review – November 2002: Delivering for children and families. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8814/2/su%20children.pdf Faulkner, D., & Coates, E. A. (2013). Early childhood policy and practice in England: Twenty years of change. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(2–3), 244–263. Fenech, M., Sumsion, J., & Shepherd, W. (2010). Promoting early childhood teacher professionalism in the Australian context: The place of resistance. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), 89–105. Forry, N. D., Davis, E. E., & Welti, K. (2013). Ready or not: Associations between participation in subsidized child care arrangements, prekindergarten, and Head Start and children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 634–644. Gaskins, S. (2014). Children’s play as a cultural activity. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The Sage handbook of play and learning (pp. 31–42). London, UK: Sage. Goldstein, L. (2008). Kindergarten teachers making “streetlevel” education policy in the wake of No Child Left Behind. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 448–478. Goldstein, L., & Bauml, M. (2012). Supporting children’s learning while meeting state standards: Strategies and suggestions for preKgrade 3 teachers in public school contexts. Young Children, 67(3), 96–103. Graue, M. E., Ryan, S., Nocera, A., Northey, K., & Wilinski, B. (2017). Pulling preK into a K12 orbit: The evolution of preK in the age of standards. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 37(1), 108–122. Grieshaber, S. (2017). A changed agenda for early childhood education in the AsiaPacific. In M. Li, J. Fox, & S. Grieshaber (Eds.), Contemporary issues and challenges in early childhood education in the AsiaPacific region (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Grieshaber, S., & McArdle, F. (2010). The trouble with play. Maidenhead, UK: Open

University Press. Grindheim, L. T., & Ødegaard, E. E. (2013). What is the state of play? International Journal of Play, 2(1), 4–6. Hatch, A. (2002). Accountability shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in early childhood education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 457–462. Heckman, J., & Masterov, D. (2005). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Retrieved from jenni.uchicago.edu/humaninequality/papers/ Heckman_final_all_wp_20070322c_jsb.pdf Hernes, L., & Gulpinar, T. (2016). Quality in Norwegian kindergartens: Research related to transition issues as seen from a holistic perspective. Keynote presentation at the 17th Pacific Early Childhood Education Research Association annual conference. Bangkok, Thailand: Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. Johnson, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). The role of childcare subsidies in the lives of low income children. Child Development Perspectives, 9(4), 227–232. Kagan, S. L. (2012). Early learning and development standards: An elixir for early childhood systems reform. In S. L. Kagan & K. Kauerz (Eds.), Early childhood systems: Transforming early learning (pp. 55–70). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kagan, S. L., & Britto, P. (2005). Going global with indicators of child development: UNICEF final report. New York, NY: UNICEF. Kagan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (2012). Early childhood systems: Looking deep, wide and far. In S. L Kagan & K. Kauerz (Eds.), Early childhood systems: Transforming early learning (pp. 3– 17). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kilderry, A. (2014). Teachers in early childhood policy. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), 242–262. Kumashiro, K. K. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the right has framed the debate on America’s schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. New York, NY: Chelsea Green. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. McLennan, D. (2011). Meeting standards in the changing landscape of today’s kindergarten. Young Children, 66(4), 106–111. Miyahara, J., & Meyers, C. (2008). Early learning and development standards in East Asia and

the Pacific: Experiences from eight countries. International Journal of Early Childhood, 40(2), 17–31. Moss, P. (2006). Structures, understandings and discourses: Possibilities for reenvisioning the early childhood worker. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 30–41. Moss, P. (2014). Early childhood policy in England 1997–2013: Anatomy of a missed opportunity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(4), 346–358. Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., Grieshaber, S., Mantovani, S., May, H., Pence, A.,…Vandenbroeck, M. (2016). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Early Learning Study: Opening for debate and contestation. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 343–351. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2001). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2015a). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2015b). Call for tenders: International Early Learning Study. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/callsfortenders/ CfT%20100001420%20International%20Early%20Learning%20Study.pdf Osberg, D., Biesta, G., & Cilliers, P. (2008). From representation to emergence: Complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of schooling. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 213– 227. Osgood, J. (2012). Narratives from the nursery: Negotiating professional identities in early childhood. London, UK: Routledge. Pyle, A., & Bigelow, A. (2015). Play in kindergarten: An interview and observational study in three Canadian classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(5), 385–393. Rao, N., & Li, H. (2009). “Eduplay”: Beliefs and practices related to play and learning in Chinese kindergartens. In I. PramlingSamuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood settings (pp. 97–117). New York, NY: Springer. Rao, N., Sun, J., Ng, S. S. N., Ma, K., Becher, Y., Lee, D., … Ip, P. (2013). The Hong Kong

Early Child Development Scales: A validation study. Child Indicators Research, 6, 115–135. Richardson, H. (2014). Nurseries not preparing children for school – Ofsted. British Broadcasting Commission. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/education26853447 Rizvi, F. (2013). Equity and marketisation: A brief commentary. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2), 274–278. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London, UK: Routledge. Stipek, D. (2006). No child left behind comes to preschool. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 455–465. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., SirajBlatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (Eds.). (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence from the Effective Preschool and Primary Project . London, UK: Routledge. United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (n.d). Early child development: The key to a full and productive life. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/dprk/ecd.pdf Van Oers, B., & Duijkers, D. (2013). Teaching in a playbased curriculum: Theory, practice and evidence of developmental education for young children. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(4), 511–534. Warwick Institute of Education Seminar (WIES). (2012, November 23). The changing face of early childhood policy and practice in England over the past twenty years: An expert seminar. Transcript of seminar proceedings. Warwick,.UK. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/person/ dmf5.html Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84(6), 2112–2130. Winsler, A., Hutchison, L. A., De Feyter, J. J., Manfra, L., Bleiker, C., Hartman, S. C., & Levitt, J. (2012). Child, family, and childcare predictors of delayed school entry and kindergarten retention among linguistically and ethnically diverse children. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1299–1314. Wood, E. (2014).The play–pedagogy interface in contemporary debates. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The Sage handbook of play and learning (pp. 145–156). London, UK: Sage. Woodrow, C. (2007). W(h)ither the early childhood teacher: Tensions for early childhood professional identity between the policy landscape and the politics of teacher regulation. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(3), 233–243.

11 Exceptional Education is Special Dena D. Slanda and Mary E. Little University of Central Florida

11.1 Introduction Special education has a rich history shaped by advocacy, legislation, research, and litigation as the field continues to advance the overarching goal to improve outcomes for millions of students with disabilities. Early advocacy efforts by parents focused on access and equity of opportunity for students with disabilities who were initially segregated from society. Through early research and sustained advocacy efforts by parental organizations, the rights to an education for students with disabilities gained momentum. Within the last 40 years, federal and state legislation has mandated the provision of special education services for students with disabilities. Such reforms have been instrumental to assure that students with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) by knowledgeable and qualified educators who implement evidencebased instructional practices and strategies. The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 emphasized the importance of ensuring equal educational opportunity for all students, including those with the most severe cognitive disabilities. ESSA promised equity and access for all students to the general education curriculum based on high academic standards focused on student learning. This legislation expanded access to an appropriate education and evidencebased instruction designed to support the education of historically disadvantaged students (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a). Upon signing this bipartisan legislation, President Barack Obama (2015) asserted, “With this bill, we reaffirm the fundamentally American ideal—that every child, regardless of race, income, background, the zip code where they live, deserves the chance to make of their lives what they will” (para. 18). The continued emphasis of the ESSA is on accountability for student outcomes and teacher quality, in conjunction with the interpretation of the least restrictive environment as increasingly inclusive classrooms, services, and educational outcomes in the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. As an increased number of students with disabilities are taught in general education classrooms (McLeskey, Landers, Hoppey, & Williamson, 2011), teaching and collaborative practices of general and special education teachers are emphasized to assure all students not only have access to the curriculum, but also master the educational goals within the inclusive classrooms. As a result, teams of educators and families at annual individual education program (IEP) meetings develop appropriate goals and services for each individual student with a disability within an increasingly rigorous educational context. Educational goals now include preparation for a highly competitive and global twentyfirstcentury workplace. To be able

to participate, students with disabilities must be prepared for a dynamic workforce with different skills and knowledge. Whether states have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or have made sweeping changes to improve their own state standards, there is a priority on building content knowledge through rigorous standards to be mastered, with an emphasis on effective communication, collaboration, and critical thinking (Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSSI], 2006; P21, 2015). Further, these ambitious standards are the focus of educational reforms that mandate that all students, including students with disabilities, be college and career ready upon high school graduation. As a result, educators must have knowledge of the special education process, rights, and responsibilities to meet the instructional needs of individual students with disabilities within the current educational demands for preparation of students to fully participate in the twentyfirstcentury workplace. In this chapter, we consider the significance and impact of federal mandates of standards based reforms with an emphasis on accountability, outcomes, and teacher preparation on students with disabilities. We will review the contributing factors to special education policies and instructional practices for students with disabilities as twentyfirstcentury learners, with a focus on service delivery and approaches to learning, classroom environments, and curriculum that engages all learners. We will conclude by discussing issues that remain as we continue to progress toward improving educational outcomes and meeting changing expectations for students with disabilities.

11.2 Contributing Factors to Special Education Policies and Practices Students with disabilities have a long history of exclusion from or unequal treatment within the public school system (Yell, Rogers, & Rogers, 1998). Initially, many students with disabilities were placed in separate institutions to provide for their most basic needs. By the 1950s, the growth in the number of students receiving special education services in the public schools began to garner the attention of an increasing number of families, advocates, and professional organizations. National efforts focused on the educational rights of students with disabilities in the public education system continued to gain momentum. Advocates argued that special education was a fundamental right because the exceptional child is “a child first of all and an exceptional child after that,” and regardless of how much they may “deviate” from “normal,” they had “needs that characterize all human beings” (Boykin, 1957, p. 47).

11.2.1 Court Cases The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s provided additional impetus to provide access to a public education for children with disabilities. Using the precedent set in the civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), advocates sued states for denying students with disabilities an equal educational opportunity, claiming it was equivalent to denying equal educational opportunities based on race. While the effects of the Brown case on

special education took time to realize, it led to wideranging changes in school policies for students with disabilities (Yell et al., 1998). During this time, several landmark court cases resulted in schools being required to provide educational services to students with disabilities. Most notable among these cases were Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education (1972). Both cases alleged students with disabilities were denied an education when they were excluded from school without due process of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. These cases resulted in the requirement that school districts provide students with a public education. Further, Mills (1972) outlined procedures for the identification and placement of students with disabilities. Specifically, the court opined that the Board of Education must “set forth a comprehensive plan for the education, treatment and care of physically or mentally impaired children in the age range from three to twentyone years,” and “establish procedures to implement the finding that all children can benefit from education, and have a right to it, by providing comprehensive health and psychological appraisal of children and provision of special education which he may need” (Mills v. Board of Education, 1972). Such procedures should “assure the maximum coordination of educational and other municipal programs and service in achieving the most effective educational system” (p. 23). Further, the Mills case concluded, “all children, regardless of any handicap or other disability, have a right to publiclysupported education suited to their needs” (p. 145). The Board of Education had to develop procedures for the identification of children with disabilities, provide specialized instruction and access for these children, and include parents in the educational process. The Board was prevented from denying children their right to an education without due process. Despite the court decisions and advocacy within states, however, educational opportunities varied from state to state (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2001). The education of students with disabilities was left to the discretion of the school districts that reserved the right to deny students with disabilities an education, thereby forcing them to either forgo an education altogether or find services elsewhere at their own expense (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2001). The numbers of students with disabilities in public education continued to increase, and by 1971, it was believed that more than 2.5 million students received special education services (Weintraub, 1971). However, this total accounted for only 20% of the estimated population of students with disabilities (Katsiyannis, Yell, & Bradley, 2001). In 1974, Congressional findings concluded that more than 1.75 million students with disabilities did not receive an education, and more than 3 million students with disabilities who were enrolled in public school did not receive the same education as their nondisabled peers (Katsiyannis et al., 2001; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2001). Educational services varied across states and school districts, as there were no standardized definitions, defined eligibility procedures, or criteria for receiving special education services.

11.2.2 Federal Legislation

In response to the need and increasing parental advocacy, Congress, in 1975, passed Public Law 94142, also known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). For the first time in history, a federal law mandated special education by defining terms and outlining processes and procedures from identification to evaluation and placement. “A fundamental and early purpose of the initial federal special education law … was to provide access to equal education opportunity for children with disabilities who had systematically been excluded from the nation’s public schools” (Prasse, 2006, p. 8). States were now required to provide students with disabilities with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), including specially designed instruction to meet individual needs. Public Law 94 142 included provisions for FAPE, least restrictive environment (LRE), individualized education program (IEP), procedural due process, nondiscriminatory assessment, and parental participation. Since its original signing, PL 94142 has been amended five times, beginning in 1986 and ending with the most recent amendments in 2004. Major components of the amendments have included (Project IDEAL, 2013): 1. Addition of preventative measures for children aged 0–2. 2. Individualized transition plans (ITP) no later than the age of 16 but preferably at the age of 14. 3. Related services to incorporate social work and rehabilitation counseling. 4. Addition of autism and traumatic brain injury as distinct disability categories. 5. Inclusion of assistive technology on the IEP. 6. Measurable annual goals. 7. Mobility services for children who have visual impairments. 8. Inclusion on statewide assessments. 9. Removal of the requirement of using the discrepancy formula for identification and IQ discrepancy for students with learning disabilities (SLD). 10. Progress monitoring. 11. The allowance of alternate placement for up to 45 days if the behavior involved a weapon, illegal drugs, or bodily harm without the need for a manifestation determination.

11.3 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act In 1990, PL 94142 was reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA was divided into five main provisions, Parts A, B, C, D, and E. Table 11.1 provides a synopsis for each provision and the major underpinnings of each provision.

Table 11.1 Provisions of IDEA. Part A

Justified the need for the legislation. Provided general provision of the Act. Defined terms specific to special education.

Part B

Included provisions of special education for students aged 3–21. Designed to improve access to a free and appropriate education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. Guided by six main principles (Kirk, Gallagher, & Anastasiow, 2000; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2000): 1. States must provide all children, regardless of their disability, with a FAPE and no student can be excluded from public education. 2. Identification and evaluation are to be conducted by a team of qualified personnel and must be unbiased and culturally responsive. 3. Eligible students must be provided with a uniquely designed education that addresses their specific needs and be outlined in an individualized education program (IEP). 4. Eligible students must be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) “to the maximum extent appropriate” and are “to be educated with children who are not disabled” (IDEA, 2004, PL 108446, Section 300.114(a)(2)). 5. Parents and families have the right to exercise their due process rights as promised under the 14th Amendment and have the right to attain an independent evaluation, request a hearing, appeal, and keep records confidential.

6. Requires parental participation, a key part of the special education process from identification to evaluation and placement. Part Stipulated provisions and funding for the identification and early intervention services C for infants and toddlers from birth to age 2. Part Included provisions for the programs and services aimed to improve the education of D students with disabilities including parent services, technical assistance, professional development, and technology. Part Created the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER), a center E dedicated to conducting research to advance the education of students with disabilities. Under IDEA, infants and toddlers from birth to age 3 are eligible for services if they demonstrate developmental delays in one or more of the following areas: (1) cognitive development; (2) physical development; (3) communication development; (4) social or emotional development; or (5) adaptive development; or, if they have been diagnosed with a

physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities [NICHCY], 2012). Children with disabilities from age 3 to 21 are eligible for special education services if they meet at least one of the 13 categories of disability included in IDEA. The 13 disability categories comprise autism, deafblindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment. However, a diagnosis of a disability is not enough to qualify for special education. To be eligible for special education services under IDEA, students must be determined to have a disability as defined by one of 13 categories, and their disability must adversely affect their academic performance. It must be determined that the student’s educational needs cannot be addressed through evidencebased instructional strategies in the general education classroom, thereby requiring an individualized education program (IEP) to address their specific needs through specially designed instruction (Daly, Martens, Barnett, Witt, & Olson, 2007). Eligibility for special education begins with identification by a team of qualified professionals who work collaboratively with the parents or guardians of the child to collect and analyze academic or behavioral data from multiple sources. Data sources include curriculumbased measures, standardized assessments (e.g., aptitude and achievement tests), parent/guardian input, teacher recommendations, and observation. Data collection and analyses are paramount to the process, as one assessment alone cannot be used to determine eligibility (Daly et al., 2007). IDEA has been reauthorized multiple times throughout the last 40 years since its original passing, most recently in 2006 (Project IDEAL, 2013). By 1997, IDEA added provisions requiring that students with disabilities have access to general education curriculum, something they were long denied (West & Whitby, 2008). As a result, the number of students with disabilities who received the majority of instruction in the general education classroom (more than 80% of their school day) has increased over the last 20 years from 33% in the 1990–1991 school year to 61% by the 2012–2013 school year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 also required the participation of students with disabilities in state and district assessments and the mandatory reporting of their performance on those assessments. Students with disabilities were now explicitly included in federal and state accountability systems. IDEA (2004) addressed equity and access issues that persisted despite earlier versions of the legislation. Specifically, IDEA recognized “a more equitable allocation of resources is essential for the federal government to meet its responsibility to provide educational opportunity for all individuals” (Section 601(C)(7)) and that the “Federal government must be responsive to the growing needs of an increasingly diverse society” (IDEA, 2004). IDEA also cited studies that “have documented apparent discrepancies in the levels of referral and placement of limited English proficient children in special education” (Section 601(C)(11)(B)) and that “more minority children continue to be served in special education than would be

expected from the percentage of minority children in the general school population” (Section 601(C)(12)(B)). The most significant changes to IDEA emphasized that “special education was not a place, but a set of services” that were to “focus more on student outcomes” (Prasse, 2006, p. 9). By emphasizing student outcomes over labeling or categorizing disabilities, the educational needs of students were the focus before receiving a referral to special education (Prasse, 2006). IDEA 1997 provided incentives for schools to implement “prereferral interventions to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address their learning needs” (Section 601(C)(5)). Prior to this change, a discrepancy model comparing aptitude and achievement by students was implemented before intervention and services would be provided (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008). By IDEA 2004, policies within state departments of education replaced the discrepancy model with the process of response to intervention (RTI) (Prasse, 2006). The RTI process, later renamed the multitier system of supports (MTSS), provided services and supports to students before they failed. It required school officials to evaluate and assess students’ response to highquality, evidencebased interventions, and determine their eligibility for special education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Through continued progress monitoring, students receive individualized interventions that intensify based upon student learning (Prasse, 2006). For MTSS to be successful, teachers need have the knowledge, skills, and competencies required to implement the problemsolving process with fidelity (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010; Swanson, Solis, Ciullo, & McKenna, 2012; Thorius, Maxcy, Macey, & Cox, 2014). Further, teachers must be able to evaluate, select, and implement evidencebased instructional practices and interventions to an increasingly diverse group of students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Recognizing the need for teachers to have such skill sets, IDEA also placed an emphasis on teacher quality and professional development aimed at preparing teachers to meet the challenges of a diverse classroom.

11.4 No Child Left Behind This 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), included provisions related to accountability, inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessments, and teacher quality. Although not limited to accountability, a major focus of NCLB (2001) was an increased emphasis on accountability with the goal to improve student performance as measured by highstakes assessments (Desimone, 2013) for all students, including students with disabilities. Although NCLB was considered a general education initiative, the federal mandate extended far beyond the general education classroom and included implications for students with disabilities and those responsible for their instruction. Annual yearly progress (AYP) policy mandates within NCLB legislation required assessment data to be disaggregated for subpopulations (e.g., students with disabilities and English language learners) in order to accurately determine progress in the general education curriculum and to provide additional supports to meet academic and affective potential.

To ensure the success of all students, NCLB emphasized the importance of evidencebased instructional methods (NCLB, 2001). Evidencebased instructional methods produce a statistically significant impact on student achievement when implemented with fidelity that meets a rigorous set of research criteria (Cook & Cook, 2013). To support the use of research and evidencedbased instructional practices, the U.S. Department of Education created and funded the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to determine the effectiveness of specific instructional practices as determined by research. The WWC provides teachers with access to evidencebased instructional strategies and interventions that have been shown to significantly improve student outcomes. Teachers should be purposeful in their selection of evidencebased instructional methods and multiple instructional resources should be used simultaneously to meet individual learning needs and maximize benefits for students Little, Slanda, Kossar, & Mitchem, 2017; Slanda, 2017). Instructional methods and strategies provide teachers with the techniques necessary to assist students to (1) acquire and build upon their knowledge; (2) cultivate problemsolving skills; (3) become engaged and motivated learners; and (4) develop critical thinking skills (Mustafa & Cullingford, 2008). Instructional methods should be research and evidencebased and be chosen by teachers for their inclusivity, ability to support all students in their learning, promotion of student learning, and alignment to students’ needs. In addition, access and equity to general education curriculum was strengthened as all core content area courses (e.g., English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, and reading) were to be taught by “highlyqualified teachers” (NCLB, 2001). The focus on teacher quality stemmed from research findings that teachers have a significant impact on student achievement (DarlingHammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). To be considered “highlyqualified,” teachers had to meet statedeveloped criteria that included education and certification requirements. Continued professional development within a system of learning supports teacher implementation of evidencebased practices (Little & Houston, 2003). In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)’s Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative provided further incentives for states to engage in educational reform to not only create and adopt common learning standards, but to also prepare all students for success in a competitive, twentyfirstcentury, global economy (Ravitch, 2013). The provisions of the RTTT targeted educational progress for ontime high school graduation and college or career goals for all students, including students with disabilities, in state accountability systems. To further incentivize student results, teacher merit pay systems were developed to reward teachers for student performance on highstakes assessments.

11.5 Every Student Succeeds Act The latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), in many ways reverses some of the tenets of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and returns the decisionmaking to the states to determine how best to serve groups of students who are continually underperforming. In a strong shift in educational jurisdiction, the federal government relinquished some control of education policy to the states,

districts, and schools and granted significant leeway in a wide range of educational areas (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2015). Although ESSA sets the framework, states assumed greater flexibility and choice for (1) rigorous college and careercentered performance standards; (2) creation and implementation of statewide assessments for accountability measures; and (3) a multitier system of supports for the implementation of student, school, and district interventions and improvements. Further, ESSA includes provisions that provide access to highquality preschools and provide parents with school choice (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b). The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) applauded the passing of the bipartisan, bicameral legislation, as the legislation offered a “stronger path forward for students with exceptionalities than the outdated No Child Left Behind Act” (CEC, 2015, p. 30). Under ESSA, the federal government is prohibited from requiring states to adopt a common thread of academic standards. States now have the autonomy to determine appropriate standards for students. However, ESSA requires states to “demonstrate that they have ‘challenging academic standards’ aligned with ‘entrance requirements for creditbearing coursework in the [state’s] system of public higher education’ and with ‘state career and technical education standards’” (Weiss & McGuinn, 2016, p. 46). ESSA further requires that all students, including those with disabilities, work toward mastering the standards. Students with the most severe cognitive disabilities can work toward mastery of alternate academic achievement standards provided that the standards are: (1) aligned with the challenging state academic content standards; (2) promote access to the general education curriculum; (3) reflect professional judgment as to the highest possible standards achievable by such students; (4) are designated in the individualized education program; and (5) are aligned to ensure that a student who meets the alternate academic achievement standards is on track to pursue postsecondary education or employment (ESSA, 2015, Section 1111(b)(1)(E)(i)). Further, ESSA designated the total number of students assessed using an alternate assessment not to exceed 1% of the total number of students identified as having a disability (Section 1111(b)(2)(D)(i)(I)). States must assume the responsibility of determining the methods, measures, and other specifics for accountability structures designed to measure learning for all students, including those with disabilities. State departments of education assume increased responsibility for accountability tied to goals for students’ learning. Accountability goals selected by individual states must address proficiency on state assessments, English language proficiency, and graduation rates. In addition, accountability goals must include an expectation in both achievement and graduation for all groups, especially those furthest behind, to close achievement gaps. These academic factors must also include “some other academic factor that can be broken out by subgroup” (Education Week, 2015, p. 17). Furthermore, school improvement plans include setting targets and implementing researchbased interventions not only for students, but also for holding educators responsible for their learning (Franquiz & Ortiz, 2016). Because ESSA reiterates the need for states to strengthen standards and rigor for all students, emphasizes the use of evidencebased practices to support student learning, and promotes the use of databased instructional decisionmaking, it became necessary to affirm the use of a

multitiered system of supports to provide a continuum of services for struggling students. This was the first time that the framework and processes of a multitier system of support (MTSS) was mentioned in federal general education legislation. Previously supported as a method for identification and eligibility within the IDEA legislation (i.e., RTI), ESSA (2015) defined MTSS as “a comprehensive continuum of evidencebased, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students’ needs, with regular observation to facilitate databased instructional decisionmaking (sic).” Specifically, ESSA recognized that to “increase the ability of teachers to effectively teach children with disabilities, including children with significant cognitive disabilities, and English learners,” the use of “multitier systems of support and positive behavioral intervention and supports” was necessary to help students “meet the challenging State academic standards” (Section 2103(b)(3)(F)). Despite rejecting the “highlyqualified” requirement and eliminating a federally mandated teacher evaluation system as set forth in NCLB, teacher quality remains a priority in ESSA (CEC, 2015). The recruitment, preparation, and retention of qualified teachers, principals, and other school personnel are critical. Similarly, the continued professional development of these individuals must be high quality and evidencebased. ESSA provides funding for induction programs for new teachers and principals, unlimited funds for professional development under Title II, and provides for use of funds to establish teacher preparation programs (CEC, 2015). Table 11.2 provides a synopsis of major provisions of ESSA. Table 11.2 Shifts from NCLB to ESSA. Source: Adapted from CEC’s Summary of Selected Provisions in Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from http://cecblog.typepad.com/files/cecssummaryofselectedissuesineverystudentsucceedsactessa1.pdf

Rejected School Choice Vouchers Portability provisions that would have allowed states to shift federal funds away from highneed schools Teacher Quality Highly qualified teacher requirement Federally mandated teacher effectiveness evaluation model

Preserved Assessment Annual, statewide assessments in reading and math for grades 3–8, and once in high school Annual, statewide assessments in science to occur a minimum of three times between grades 3– 12 Provisions for 1% of the students with most significant cognitive disabilities to take an alternate academic achievement assessment

Adopted Assessment Accountability, educator evaluations, and school improvement shifts from federal government to state and local districts A singular, highstakes test is replaced with multiple measures of school and student performance Elimination of assessments that do not contribute to student learning Reporting Requirements Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is replaced with statewide

Reporting Requirements Annual reporting of disaggregated data of subgroups of children, including those with disabilities Accessibility Ensures access to the general education curriculum Ensures access to accommodations for assessments School Choice School choice through Charter School expansion

accountability system Accessibility Academic standards aligned with higher education requirements are to be chosen by the states Multitier system of supports to help struggling learners meet challenging academic standards Principles of universal design for learning Preschool Development Grant Program Teacher Quality Teacher and principal residency and induction programs, continued and unlimited professional development funds, growth systems, and leadership opportunities Funds for establishing or advancing teacher preparation academies

11.6 Meeting Rigorous Performance Expectations The current legislative and accountability measures present greater challenges for serving children with disabilities. The rising performance expectations framed by college and career readiness (CCR) requirements and more rigorous curricula in the form of Common Core and other state standards mean that each state has, to some degree, more autonomy in meeting the CCR demands.

11.6.1 College and Career Readiness Current and projected employment for which educators are preparing students continues to change. Students need to be prepared to contribute and compete in the world marketplace (P21, 2015). In particular, an exigent need exists for our nation to increase performance of our youth in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). According to CasnerLotto and Barrington ( 2006), “without highquality, knowledgeintensive jobs and the innovative enterprises that lead to discovery and new technology, our economy will suffer and our people will face a lower standard of living” (p. ES1).

The P21 Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2015) asserted that students need to attain mastery in content areas such as government, civics, world languages, arts, economics, history, math, science, and English, as well as achieve literacy in interdisciplinary areas such as (1) global awareness, (2) financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial matters, (3) civics, (4) health, and (5) the environment. Learners must be able to develop problemsolving skills to succeed. The skills involve thinking critically and making judgments; solving complex, multidisciplinary, openended problems; creativity and entrepreneurial thinking; communicating and collaborating; making innovative use of knowledge, information, and opportunities; and taking charge of financial, health, and civic responsibilities (P21, 2015). These skills require higher levels of competence in a number of areas and, in turn, typically require more than a high school education (CasnerLotto & Barrington, 2006). Educators must prepare all students, including those students with disabilities, for successful entry into postsecondary settings (Gothberg, Peterson, Peak, & Sedaghat, 2015) of two or fouryear colleges, vocational training, or immediate entry into the workforce. Therefore, college and career readiness has become an important target for curricula.

11.6.2 College and Career Standards Concern for many years has resulted in a movement to standardize the K12 curriculum across the United States so that youth can meet societal demands. Beginning in the 1990s, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI, 2006) was a stateled effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to produce a set of standards that provide a clear and consistent framework for college and career readiness. The standards include rigorous content and application of knowledge with higherorder thinking skills. To date, a significant number of states have either adopted the CCSS or revamped their own standards to be more rigorous and reflect employment demands. Two sets of standards currently exist: (1) English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects and (2) Mathematics. The English Language Arts standards include reading, writing, speaking, listening, language, and media and technology. The Mathematics standards include counting and cardinality, operations and algebraic thinking, number and operations in base 10, number and operations for fractions, measurement and data, geometry, ratios and proportional relationships, the number system, expressions and equations, functions, and statistics and probability. Although not all states have adopted CCSS, the majority of states have adopted more rigorous standards that are designed to prepare students for postsecondary settings. Although these standards provide a realworld context for learning for students, the emphasis of more rigorous and integrated standards will likely pose greater challenges for all students, including students with disabilities (McLaughlin, 2012). The Council for Exceptional Children, while supportive of high expectations for students with disabilities, raised the following questions: “Will the CCS(S) change what special educators need to know? Will the CCS(S) lend themselves to modifications for learning profiles without minimizing expectations? How will important access and transition skills be integrated into the teaching schedule?” (CEC, 2011, p.

21). Instruction and specialized services for students with disabilities are situated within this milieu of increased performance expectations and accountability. An exploration of the current nature of instruction and services is needed to understand the challenge facing all educators with new twentyfirstcentury curriculum demands.

11.6.3 Instruction and Specialized Services In accordance with federal mandates, students with disabilities are to be educated by highly qualified teachers (Eisenman, Pleet, Wandry, & McGinley, 2011; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) with their nondisabled peers. The requirement by federal mandates for students with disabilities to have access to the same academic standards and curricula as their nondisabled peers has resulted in a majority (62%) of students with disabilities spending 80% or more of their school day in the general education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b). However, physically including students with disabilities in the general education classroom and providing special education services and supports may not be enough to ensure that students master the curriculum standards and receive the necessary individualized instruction (Voltz & Collins, 2010). Teaching in the general education classroom has long been characterized by undifferentiated, wholegroup instruction where students with disabilities are only superficially engaged in academic tasks (Bucalos & Lingo, 2005). At the school level, teacher quality remains one of the most important determinants of student achievement (Feng & Sass, 2013) and improving teacher quality could be the key to improving student outcomes (DarlingHammond et al., 2002; Rockoff, 2004). Services provided through special education have relied on collaboration among professionals (e.g., speech therapists, occupational therapists, school psychologists, and social workers) to meet the needs of students with disabilities (Friend, Cook, HurleyChamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). To meet curriculum standards for twentyfirstcentury learning, collaboration with the general education teacher coupled with the special educators’ knowledge of strategies and supports for students with disabilities was needed (Scanlon & Baker, 2012). Coteaching models were added within the continuum of services for students with disabilities to reduce the teacher–student ratio, provide professional support for teachers (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005), and permit differentiated instruction that enabled all students to access the general education curriculum (Santamaria & Thousand, 2004). Coteaching is a method for providing special education services to students with disabilities in the general education classroom and has been defined as “an educational approach in which general and special educators work in a coactive and coordinated fashion to jointly teach academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups of students in educationally integrated settings” (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989, p. 18). As classrooms become more inclusive and standards become increasingly rigorous, teachers need to not only increase collaboration, but also must restructure their classrooms and adapt their teaching practices in ways that facilitate learning at deeper levels and promote student engagement in meaningful learning tasks that require higherorder thinking skills. Workforce

skills for the twentyfirst century require students to leave the K12 setting able to communicate, collaborate, think critically, and be proficient at problem solving. Although graduation rates of students with disabilities have increased over the years, many students still do not have the collegeandcareer skills they need to be successful in postsecondary settings (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, & Shaver, 2010). Inclusive practices that differentiate instruction facilitate student engagement through problem solving and critical thinking in authentic settings (Goeke & Ciotoli, 2014). Student involvement in the learning process provides students with disabilities the opportunity to move from being passive learners to active leaders. Effective instruction that empowers students to construct their own knowledge through inquiry and problem solving (Bucalos & Lingo, 2005) can be done in numerous ways including, but not limited to, explicit instruction, close reading, peerassisted learning, direct instruction, cooperative learning structures, databased decisionmaking, and reciprocal teaching. Each of these strategies actively engages students and has also been shown to be effective with improving student outcomes. Many of the instructional practices identified as effective for students with disabilities are also effective for all students and can be implemented in a general education classroom. These instructional strategies are referred to as highleverage practices (HLPs) and reflect a compilation of frequently used practices that have been shown to improve student outcomes (McLeskey & Brownell, 2015). These HLPs, which are outlined in Table 11.3, can be used across grade levels and content areas, are important for student learning, and enhance and advance teaching (TeachingWorks, 2016).

Table 11.3 Highleverage practices for all teachers. Source: Adapted from McLeskey, J. & Brownell, M. (2015). Highleverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR1). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/High LeveragePracticesandTeacherPreparationinSpecialEducation.pdf

1. Making content explicit through explanation, modeling, representations, and examples. 2. Eliciting and interpreting individual student’s thinking. 3. Leading wholeclass discussions. 4. Establishing norms and routines for classroom discourse central to the subjectmatter domain. 5. Recognizing particular common patterns of student thinking in a subjectmatter domain. 6. Identifying and implementing an instructional response to common patterns of student thinking. 7. Teaching a lesson or segment of instruction. 8. Implementing organizational routines, procedures, and strategies to support a learning environment. 9. Setting up and managing smallgroup work. 10. Engaging in strategic relationshipbuilding conversations with students. 11. Setting long and shortterm learning goals for students referenced to external benchmarks. 12. Appraising, choosing, and modifying tasks and texts for a specific learning goal. 13. Designing a sequence of lessons toward a specific learning goal. 14. Selecting and using particular methods to check understanding and monitor student learning. 15. Composing, selecting, interpreting, and using information from methods of summative assessment. 16. Providing oral and written feedback to students about their work. 17. Communicating about a student with a parent or guardian. 18. Analyzing instruction for the purpose of improving it. 19. Communicating with other professionals. Accessibility was initially at the core of special education, but it was later expanded to include accountability for learning outcomes. Accessibility to and accountability for competence of rigorous standards by students with disabilities are now required of general and special educators. To meet the individualized instructional needs of students with disabilities, differentiation of instruction requires teachers to be proactive in their considerations for

student learning in the curriculum planning stages. Differentiated instruction is a proactive approach to improving classroom learning for all students (Pettig, 2000) and, more importantly, places the student at the center of learning (Stanford & Reeves, 2009). Planning, teaching, and assessing are based on the premise that teachers must consider who they are teaching (students) as well as what they are teaching (curricular content). Instructional differentiation includes ongoing assessment and adjustment, clarity of the standards and learning goals of the curriculum, use of flexible grouping, tasks that are respectful of each learner, and instruction that stretches the learner (Tomlinson, 2003). Differentiating the content refers to what is being taught, as well as how students gain access to a body of knowledge. Differentiating instruction gets students engaged, meets their needs, and increases the use of higherorder thinking skills in the classroom by making curriculum accessible to students (Embry, Parker, McGuire, & Scott, 2005). Universal design for learning (UDL) is a framework for differentiating instruction and making content curriculum accessible to a wide range of learners through various instructional strategies and materials (Basham, Israel, Graden, Poth, & Winston, 2010). This framework is a proactive instructional approach that includes three guiding principles: (1) multiple means of engagement; (2) multiple means for representation; and (3) multiple means of action and expression (Meyer, Rose, & Chall, 1998). Using UDL to differentiate instruction allows teachers to remove potential barriers to learning so students can achieve mastery. The goals and standards remain the same, but the way students interact with the standards meets their varied learning needs. In the broader sense, UDL gives students choices in the materials, content, tools, context, and supports they use and allows them to determine the most appropriate way to best access the content (KingSears, 2009). Federal legislation has recognized UDL as a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice and maintaining high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities (Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008). At times, students with disabilities may require individualized accommodations and/or specially designed instruction to access and master curriculum. These accommodations are necessary to eliminate barriers that prevent students from accessing the curriculum and participating in the educational process. Accommodations may include changes to the presentation of the curriculum or to assessments. Accommodations and specialized instruction for learning are typically identified after the initial lesson design process (Black, Weinberg, & Brodwin, 2014). Individualized accommodations and specially designed instruction are part of the IEP to assure that each student with a disability has the necessary instruction and support to have access to the curriculum as appropriate within the least restrictive environment, as guaranteed by federal legislation. Despite the revisions to curriculum and accountability measures, students with disabilities continue to be guaranteed their rights to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Special educators must be knowledgeable to advocate for the instructional needs of students with disabilities within special education. Additionally, general education teachers should expand their knowledge of instructional strategies to meet the needs of students with disabilities for whom they now have a shared responsibility in educating.

11.7 Discussion When examining exceptional education as special from a historical perspective, the exclusion of students with disabilities from general education environments and the marginalization of students with disabilities within general education environments represent a paradox (Connor & Ferri, 2007; Skrtic, 1991). Initially, parents and advocates struggled for mere access to equitable services for their students with disabilities within the public schools. Their collective vision provided the initial catalyst for needed educational reforms. Federal legislation and court cases, specifically, the landmark 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, mandated equity and inclusion by requiring that all students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum, by assuring that To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (IDEA, 1997)

Inclusion in general education is the expected norm when it comes to meeting the “appropriate” educational needs of students with disabilities within the least restrictive environment. Yet, despite the equitable education promised by federal law, full access and inclusion of children with disabilities in public school classrooms have not been fully realized since the initial mandate for compulsory school attendance in the early 1900s (Ferguson, 2014). Inclusive education is a process of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion from the culture, community, and curricula of schools (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Participation in classrooms requires “learning to be active and collaborative for all” (BlackHawkins, 2010, p. 28). One of the most pressing problems opposing the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings is that students are often considered by both general education teachers and special education teachers to be in a wholly different category than “regular students” (Giangreco & Doyle, 2000; Lalvani, 2012). SaponShevin ( 2007) raised the concern that many teachers believe that students need to be ready for inclusion, in contrast to the philosophical underpinning of inclusion, which holds that the educational environment should be engineered or “ready” to accept all students. These issues hold philosophical, pragmatic, and preparation considerations, ranging from educators being unprepared, being unwilling, or lacking the time to plan for students with special needs, to the belief that inclusion is simply not appropriate or best for all students with disabilities (Connor & Ferri, 2007; Timberlake, 2016). Although the inclusion of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment of the general education classrooms has been heralded as a moral imperative since the 1990s (Biklen & Schubert, 1991; Stainback & Stainback, 1989; Stainback, Stainback, & Ayres, 1996), and some progress has been made to meet that goal, students with disabilities are still not welcomed or educated in an overwhelming number of

general education classrooms (Connor & Ferri, 2007; Lalvani, 2012). “Exceptional education still remains a separate institution for many students with disabilities” (Connor & Ferri, 2007, p. 64). For example, educational reforms such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) required increased accountability for learning outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities, to receive the same highquality educational services provided to students without disabilities. The provisions for increased access and subsequent accountability set forth by NCLB through the annual yearly progress (AYP) mandate required public schools to assess their students and disaggregate results by subpopulations with the goal to strategically provide resources and supports. However, results of this policy mandate vary. Research conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education found that accountability for the performance of students with disabilities (1) increased access to instructional settings (i.e., general education classroom); (2) provided additional instructional time with a focus on improving reading and mathematics outcomes; (3) utilized collaborative teaching models; (4) provided targeted professional development for general education teachers on strategies for instructing students with disabilities; and (5) employed datadriven instructional models (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b). However, while laudable, others contend that, in reality, the implementation of this highstakes policy branded subpopulations of students as the reason for many schools’ and districts’ failure to reach annual academic AYP targets, which led to negative consequences for school districts and teachers (Ravitch, 2013). Not only do the results of the highstakes state assessments affect financial incentives for the school district and merit pay increases for individual teachers, results on state assessments also impact graduation and learning outcomes for the students with disabilities. Excessive numbers of students with disabilities are not graduating from high school, holding jobs, or living independently (Kortering & Christenson, 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Students with individualized education programs (IEPs) who take general state assessment tests are often among the lowest performing (Lazarus, Wu, Altman, & Thurlow, 2010). Regarding successful high school completion, according to the most recent data available, 56.5% of students ages 14 through 21 who exited IDEA and school graduated with a regular high school diploma; 26.2% dropped out (Thurlow, Quenemoen, Altman, & Cuthbert, 2008). Due to differences in reporting categories per state, there are discrepancies in accurate data as reported in multiple categories. For postsecondary education completion, the rate of students with disabilities has been lower than that of similaraged students in the general population at 41% versus 52% (Newman et al., 2011). Regarding employment data, for youth ages 16–19, the rate for those with disabilities was 13.2%, compared to 25.6% for youth without disabilities; in the 20–24 age range the contrast is sharper with 23.8% for those with disabilities and 63.6% for those without. Further, young adults with disabilities earned an average of $10.40 per hour in comparison to $11.40 per hour for young adults in the general population (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). These outcomes collected as part of the NCLB accountability processes echo the historic declaration that separate is not equal (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) and position inclusion squarely as a social justice and civil rights issue.

With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), much of the educational policies for teaching, learning, and accountability are now the responsibility of individual states. For example, although teacher evaluation systems and student accountability measures will be left to the discretion of the states, and the reduction of instructional time spent on assessments is favored, ESSA still requires annual standardized assessments. The public voiced its concern about testing and showed its discontent with the amount of time students are evaluated with the growing optout movement that swept the nation. The escalating optout movement began in 2013 with nearly 100,000 students opting out of standardized tests nationwide, to approximately 750,000 in 2015 (Neill, 2016). The number is expected to continue to rise as parents rally against highstakes testing that leaves the most vulnerable populations of students at risk for failure. It is unclear if highstakes testing will in fact be reduced in a time when big business is tightening its hold on public education (Au & Hollar, 2016). As of 2016, the education industry is estimated to be a $700 billion industry and educational reform is in part shaped by corporations. Forprofit companies have a tendency to “standardize, homogenize, and automate knowledge, curriculum, and pedagogy” (Saltman, 2016). Such standardization has negative implications for students with disabilities who require individualized education plans and whose learning needs are not met with a standardized, onesizefitsall educational system. McDermott, Robertson, and Krashen (2015) raised additional concerns about the ESSA legislation, specifically Sections 1201 and 1204, which call for “innovative assessments” that “emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competencybased model” (McDermott et al., 2015, para. 23). According to McDermott and colleagues (2015), this provision in the law would not only increase testing, but it could also “drastically narrow the curriculum.” Competencybased education (CBE) is an instructional model focused on individual student learning and mastery of the competencies of coursework that are defined by standards (e.g., Common Core State Standards). With the availability of technology, students now can take and pass tests in an online environment to demonstrate mastery of commercially developed modules which equates to mastery of the competencies and skills. McDermott and colleagues caution that adoption of such a program could not only limit the curriculum, but also ensure that students are limited in their thinking and expression as they are limited to content knowledge that can be evaluated in an assessment format that is quick and universal. This could have dire consequences for all students, especially those with disabilities, as standardized modules may not address individualized learning needs.

11.8 Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations Education is a reflection of society; therefore, the complex issues within our educational system reflect deeply held beliefs and policies. Education is intended to improve the society in which it is embedded by improving the knowledge and skills of each of its citizens. Education works incrementally over years, not overnight (Ravitch, 2013). Each of us, as educators, parents, policymakers, and concerned citizens, has an important role in pursuing the educational strategies and learning that encourage access, engagement, creativity, and critical

thinking to assure each student meets appropriate educational standards. Each and every student should have a full, rigorous curriculum, access to knowledgeable, caring teachers, and resources to assure and enhance learning. More importantly, each child deserves to be provided with individualized, specialized opportunities that are engaging, responsive, and appropriate to his or her unique strengths, desires, and needs. This in no way is to propose that we do away with standards—we recognize the need for some mutually agreedupon measures to evaluate our efforts. What we seek is a critical analysis and discussion on who does and does not benefit from the current determination of what constitutes acceptable performance or behaviors by learners. With the passage of the ESSA in 2015, there has been a reduction of federal oversight and mandates in favor of increased educational policies and services determined at the state and local levels. It is imperative that critical issues faced by our most vulnerable students and families are part of the future decisionmaking processes within educational reform within each state. To what extent does this hegemony of accountability (Mathison & Ross, 2002) support the status quo and what is needed to disrupt the current stranglehold experienced by so many of our students with disabilities? What is our continued commitment and advocacy for “specialized services” for students with disabilities within an appropriate, inclusive school environment, especially as we are challenged to improve the rigor and outcomes for all students to meet the twentyfirstcentury standards? Given the historical trends of underresourced educational systems, underprepared and undersupported teachers, and marginalization of disenfranchised populations, including students with disabilities and students from diverse backgrounds, what will the future hold within the fractionalized educational context of recent reforms, including a myriad of “forprofit” educational systems? Each of us, individually and collectively, needs to clearly and consistently advocate for the “special services” of exceptional education, now more than ever. Outcomes for students with disabilities are inconsistent with the rigorous, exacting, inclusionary standards for teaching, learning, and accountability that have been set before our nation’s public school systems in this age of accountability. Unless mitigated, the consequences of these educational reforms will continue to have significant negative effects on the educational outcomes of students with disabilities as each of us has a responsibility to define exceptional education that is truly special for our students. Effective teaching practices do exist regarding evidencebased and highleveraged instructional principles and practices for students with and without disabilities. The multi tiered system of supports framework, explicitly described in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, illustrates the necessary interventions to meet the academic and behavioral needs for students. Models of collaboration, professional development, and program evaluation have been developed that focus on the continuous learning of students as specific outcomes. There are so many reasons for optimism. Because educators do know something about what works with students with disabilities, the rigorous twentyfirstcentury requirements just might be the catalyst for all of us within the educational system to improve the learning outcomes for students with disabilities in increasingly inclusive classrooms and schools.

References Au, W., & Hollar, J. (2016). Opting out of the education reform industry. Monthly Review, 67(10), 29. Basham, J. D., Israel, M., Graden, J., Poth, R., & Winston, M. (2010). A comprehensive approach to RTI: Embedding universal design for learning and technology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 243–255. Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17–22. Biklen, D., & Schubert, A. (1991). New words: The communication of students with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 46–57. Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2014). Universal design for instruction and learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional methods and attitudes related to students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 24(1), 48–64. BlackHawkins, K. (2010). The framework for participation: A research tool for exploring the relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(1), 21–40. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE). Boykin, L. L. (1957). Who is the exceptional child? Elementary School Journal, 58(1), 42– 47. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377. Bucalos, A. B., & Lingo, A. S. (2005). Filling the potholes in the road to inclusion: Successful researchbased strategies for intermediate and middle school students with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 1(4), n4. CasnerLotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, P21 Partnership for 21st Century Skills and Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF092906.pdf Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2006). Introduction to the Common Course Standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org

Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63–77. Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidencebased practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2011). K12 Common Core State Standards for the instruction of students. Retrieved from https://www.cec.sped.org/SpecialEd Topics/SpecialtyAreas/CommonCoreStateStandards Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2015). Congress passes ESSA! Policy Insider. Retrieved from http://www.policyinsider.org/2015/12/congresspassesessa.html Daly III, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 562–581. DarlingHammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302. Desimone, L. (2013). Reform before NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 59–61. Education Week. (2015). The Every Student Succeeds Act, 35(14), 16–17. Eisenman, L. T., Pleet, A. M., Wandry, D., & McGinley, V. (2011). Voices of special education teachers in an inclusive high school: Redefining responsibilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 91–104. doi:10.1177/0741932510361248 Embry, P. B., Parker, D. R., McGuire, J. M., & Scott, S. S. (2005). Postsecondary disability service providers’ perceptions about implementing universal design for instruction (UDI). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 34–48. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Public Law 11495, 114th Cong., 1st sess. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS114s1177enr/html/BILLS 114s1177enr.htm Feng, L., & Sass, T. R. (2013). What makes specialeducation teachers special? Teacher training and achievement of students with disabilities. Economics of Education Review, 36, 122–134. Ferguson, P. M. (2014). Creating the continuum: J. E. Wallace Wallin and the role of clinical psychology in the emergence of public school special education in America. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(1), 86–100. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.757812 Franquiz, M. E., & Ortiz, A. A. (2016). Coeditor’s introduction: Every Student Succeeds Act – A policy shift. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(1), 1–3.

Friend, M., Cook, L., HurleyChamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Coteaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27. doi:10.1080/10474410903535380 Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. O. (2008). Response to intervention. Educating Individuals with Disabilities: IDEIA 2004 and Beyond, 115. Giangreco, M. E., & Doyle, M. B. (2000). Considerations for teaching students with disabilities. In S. E. Wade (Ed.), Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers (pp. 51–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goeke, J. L., & Ciotoli, F. (2014). Inclusive STEM: Making integrative curriculum accessible to all students. Children’s Technology & Engineering, 18(3), 18–22. Gothberg, J. E., Peterson, L. Y., Peak, M., & Sedaghat, J. M. (2015). Successful transition of students with disabilities to 21stcentury college and careers: Using triangulation and gap analysis to address nonacademic skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(6), 344. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Public Law 110315. (2008). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). (Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990). Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324– 334. KingSears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199–201. Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. J., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2000). Educating exceptional children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Kortering, L. J., & Christenson, S. (2009). Engaging students in school and learning: The real deal for school completion. Exceptionality, 17(1), 5–15. Lalvani, P. (2012). Privilege, compromise, or social justice: Teachers’ conceptualizations of inclusive education. Disability & Society, 28(1), 14–27. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.692028 Lazarus, S. S., Wu, Y. C., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2010). NCEO brief: The characteristics of low performing students on largescale assessments . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Little, M. E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through professional development. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 75–87. Little, M. E., Slanda, D. D., Kossar, K. R., & Mitchem, K. J. (2017). Introduction: The challenges of highincidence teacher education and the ways 325T grantees have addressed them. In J. L. Goeke, K. J. Mitchem, & K. R. Kossar (Eds.), Redesigning special education teacher preparation: Challenges and solutions. New York, NY: Routledge. Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Coteaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in cotaught and solotaught classes? Learning Disabilities Research, 20(2), 79–85. doi:10.1111/j.1540 5826.2005.00123.x Martin, E. W., Martin, R., & Terman, D. L. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of special education. Future Child, 6(1), 25–39. Mathison, S., & Ross, E. W. (2002). The hegemony of accountability in schools and universities. Workplace, 9, 88–102. Retrieved from http://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace/article/viewFile/184050/183877 McDermott, M., Robertson, P., & Krashen, S. (2015). Will every student succeed? Language Magazine. Retrieved from http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=125014 McLaughlin, M. J. (2012). Access for all: Six principles for principals when implementing CCSS for students with disabilities. Principal, September/October, 22–26. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/principalseptemberoctober2012commoncore/access commoncoreall0 McLeskey, J., & Brownell, M. (2015). Highleverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR1). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/HighLeveragePractices andTeacherPreparationinSpecialEducation.pdf McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Hoppey, D., & Williamson, P. (2011). Learning disabilities and the LRE mandate: An examination of national and state trends. Learning Disabilities Research, 26(2), 60–66. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2011.00326.x Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Chall, J. S. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age (Vol. 3). Northampton, MA: Brookline Books. Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 343 F. Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972). Mustafa, M., & Cullingford, C. (2008). Teacher autonomy and centralised control: The case of textbooks. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 81–88. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2015). Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/ National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). (2012). Categories of disability under IDEA. Retrieved from http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp content/uploads/repo_items/gr3.pdf Neill, M. (2016). The testing resistance and reform movement. Monthly Review, 67(10), 8–28. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A. M., & Shaver, D. (2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study2 (NLTS2) . Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://nlts2.org/reports/2010_09/nlts2_report_2010_09_complete.pdf Newman, L., Wagner, M., Huang, T., Shaver, D., Knokey, A. M., Yu, J., … Cameto, R. (2011). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 20123000) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107110 (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ esea02/107110.pdf Obama, B. H. (2015). Remarks by the President at Every Student Succeeds Act signing ceremony. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoffice/2015/12/10/remarkspresidentevery studentsucceedsactsigningceremony P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21). (2015). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp 1258 (E.D.P.A. 1972). Pettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated practice. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 14–18. Prasse, D. P. (2006). Legal supports for problemsolving systems. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 7–15. Project IDEAL. (2013). Special education public policy. Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.projectidealonline.org/v/specialeducation publicpolicy/ Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.

Saltman, K. J. (2016). Corporate schooling meets corporate media: Standards, testing, and technophilia. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 38(2), 105–123. Santamaria, L., & Thousand, J. (2004). Collaboration, coteaching, and differentiated instruction: A processoriented approach to whole schooling. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 1(1), 13–27. doi:10.1177/0731948712451261 SaponShevin, M. (2007). Widening the circle: The power of inclusive classrooms. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Scanlon, D., & Baker, D. (2012). Accommodations model for the secondary inclusive classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 212–224. doi:10.1177/0731948712451261 Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148–206. Slanda, D. D. (2017). Role ambiguity: Defining the elusive role of the special education teacher who works in inclusive settings. Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5563/ Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1989). Common concerns regarding merger. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.), Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education (pp. 255–274). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Ayres, B. (1996). Schools as inclusive communities. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 31–43). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, and universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6), n6. Swanson, E., Solis, M., Ciullo, S., & McKenna, J. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 115–126. TeachingWorks. (2016). Highleverage practices. Retrieved from http://www.teachingworks.org/workofteaching/highleveragepractices Thorius, K. A. K., Maxcy, B. D., Macey, E., & Cox, A. (2014). A critical analysis of response to intervention appropriation in an urban school. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 287–299. Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Altman, J., & Cuthbert, M. (2008). Trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 50). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech50/TR50report.pdf

Timberlake, M. T. (2016). The path to academic access for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 49(4), 199–208. Tomlinson, C. (2003). Differentiating instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Turnbull, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (2000). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Love. U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). 37th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Alexandria, VA: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). School practices and accountability for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154006/pdf/20154006.pdf U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2012). Youth employment rate. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/odep/categories/youth/youthemployment.htm#.UMnrUqXVn Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Preparing special education administration for inclusion in diverse, standardsbased contexts: Beyond the Council for Exceptional Children and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 70–82. Weintraub, F. J. (1971, March). Recent influences of law on the identification and placement of children in programs for the mentally retarded. Speech at the Convention on Placement of Children in Special Education Programs for the Mentally Retarded of the Council for Exceptional Children, Lake Arrowhead, CA. Weiss, J., & McGuinn, P. (2016). States as change agents under ESSA. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 28–33. West, J. E., & Whitby, P. (2008). Federal policy and the education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(3), 1. Wilson, G. L., & Michaels, C. A. (2006). General and special education students’ perceptions of coteaching: Implications for secondarylevel literacy instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 205–225. Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2001). Legal issues. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 45(2), 82–88. Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it’s been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219–228. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189–204.

12 CASE STUDY Nevada’s English Language Learner Strategy: A Case Study on Policymaking and Implementation Magdalena Martinez University of Nevada, Las Vegas

12.1 Introduction In March of 2013, the Lincy Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas released a study titled “Nevada’s English Language Learners Population: A Review of Enrollment, Outcomes and Opportunities.” The pivotal report confirmed that from 1998 to 2008, Nevada saw an increase of over 200% in the number of English language learners (ELL). The report also underscored that on average the fifth largest school district in the country—Clark County— served only about half of the 95,000 students who were identified as ELL and that Nevada remained one of eight states that did not fund ELL education (Horsford, Mokhtar, & Sampson, 2013). By July 2013, the Nevada legislature appropriated $50 million over a biennium for ELL funding and passed Senate Bill 504 which created a statewide council, the English Mastery Council, to examine standards, policies, and school district plans aimed at serving students who are ELL. Two years later, Nevada policymakers doubled down their ELL investment and allocated $100 million in categorical funding specifically for ELL education. While 2013 was not the first time Nevada policymakers had considered ELL policy and funding, it did mark a critical implementation point from an education policy perspective. All school districts in the United States have a responsibility and are required to take steps— as affirmed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—to help students who are ELL overcome language barriers so they can participate in the district’s educational programs. The U.S. Department of Education further clarifies that federal law requires programs that educate children who are ELL to be (1) based on a sound educational theory; (2) adequately supported, with adequate and effective staff and resources, so that the program has a realistic chance of success; and (3) periodically evaluated and, if necessary, revised (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2015). Education interventions for students who are ELL vary depending on region, state, district, and even schools. For instance, researchers have created a body of literature in which they examine multiple literacy interventions, curriculum, and pedagogical frameworks to serve students who are ELL (Gándara & Contreras, 2010; Tinajero, Munter, & Araujo, 2010). Colleges and universities have created entire academic programs to prepare teachers who teach English learners; many professional education associations focus exclusively on providing and synthesizing policy, research, and best practices for educators, administrators, and school leaders who serve students who are ELL. States, districts, and national

organizations have dedicated a tremendous amount of research and time to examining how to better serve students who are ELL. In December 2014, the Education Commission of the States brought together a group of experts to identify key state and federal ELL policy recommendations. Three of their key takeaways were that (1) adequate funding levels by themselves do not lead to improved student performance; states, districts, and schools must also strengthen their ELL programs and program capacity; (2) students who are ELL benefit when states require teachers and administrators to be trained in ELL instruction methods and cultural competency; and (3) monitoring ELL and former students who are ELL throughout their school career is a valuable way to analyze the efficacy of ELL programs (Wixom, 2015). There is unanimous consensus that English learners, in particular in the early years, merit deliberate and intentional interventions and resources. There is, however, a lack of understanding in how we translate and implement new ELL policy at a state and local level. For instance, to what degree does the context of policymaking matter; who are the actors who shape and eventually implement new policy; what are the policy instruments used to incentivize implementers; what are the underlying assumptions about how to motivate implementers to change; and how important is an implementer’s “agency,” which could be “an important avenue for implementation research” (Honig, 2006, p. 9)? The purpose of this chapter is to introduce Nevada as a case study to understand the context in which pivotal ELL policy was created and the implementation process for key aspects of the policy. The data for this chapter are part of a larger study that examines education policy in metropolitan areas and include interviews with key informants that were conducted in 2016. Pseudonyms for key informants are used throughout the chapter. The chapter includes four sections. The first section discusses education policy implementation research, which helped frame the chapter and analysis. In the second section, changing demographics and implications for urban areas and public education are identified. Next is contextualized examination of Nevada and key individuals who shaped ELL policy in the state during a critical development stage. The last section provides an overview of challenges and lessons learned from Nevada’s ELL policy development and implementation. A key distinction in this chapter is that the author played an implementer role in the newly adopted ELL policy in Nevada. Where appropriate, I acknowledge my role in the policy implementation process.

12.2 Policy Implementation Research: Translating Policy into Implementation For some time, researchers have examined how policy is implemented (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). Education researchers have also focused on the translation of federal, state, district, and school statutes, regulations, and laws in the name of improving education (Young & Lewis, 2015). There is no consensus of the study and management of implementation, yet there is agreement that the process is complex and worthy of study in order to understand how organizations can improve (Young & Lewis, 2015). The

field has produced fruitful frameworks and theories to expand our understanding of policy implementation. For example, Honig and Hatch (2004) described a bridging and buffering framework, which posits that implementation is not an objective alignment of internal and external goals but rather a crafting of coherence where actors negotiate multiple demands to achieve internal goals (Young & Lewis, 2015). Crossan, Lane, White, and Djurfeldt (1995) outlined a 4I Framework in which policy implementation occurred through organizational learning that specifically included intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing. Researchers have attempted to ground our understanding of policy implementation by situating context, actors, and organizational culture. Others suggest that policy implementation is a political undertaking and use critical theories to understand the actors who create policy and those who implement it (O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015; Werts & Brewer, 2015). Meredith Honig (2006) summarizes education policy implementation research in three waves. The first wave was concerned primarily with what got implemented with the assumption that policymakers developed policies for implementers to carry out and monitor implementers’ compliance. Examples of this wave included federal mandates and programs in which researchers examined successes and failures. Researchers trace failures back to conflicting views and priorities of policymakers and local implementers. The second wave focused on what got implemented over time with a growing understanding that macro (policylevel) and micro influences (implementationlevel) were important variables for policy implementation. Further, “variations among policy, people and places mattered to implementation” (p. 7), although there was limited examination of how these variations mattered. During the third wave, Honig posits, there was a growing concern with what worked, and there was a shift from a focus on federal designers of education policy to states. The aim and interest is not only successful implementation but also demonstrable improvements in students’ performance. Unlike early implementation research that primarily followed the money for largescale or categoricaltype funding policy, the third wave sees policy initiatives focused in areas such as curriculum reform, school restructures, governance, and teacher development, as examples. At the same time, researchers agree that a nuanced understanding not only of the policy, people, and places but also the histories, cultures, and politics is needed. The question flipped from how to implement education policy to understanding what conditions mattered to create effective practice. In other words, a richer, more contextualized understanding of the conditions is key to understanding how policy and implementation unfolds. To further complicate the state of policy implementation research, the domains of policymakers and education professionals (i.e., teachers, leaders, heads of agencies) continue to blur as public discourse on education accountability, metrics, and standards increasingly dominates every aspect of our public life. For instance, we are now in a time when “big” education data and longitudinal analysis can ostensibly predict the chances of high school completion, college attendance, graduation, salaries, and even longevity in the teaching profession. As such, education policy is often approached as a rational and linear process informed by data and evidence. The perception is that anyone who can follow the numbers (big data) can create rational education policy that will improve the lives of children or the target population. It is perhaps why researchers such as Honig (2006) suggest that the current wave of implementation

research needs to focus on the how and why interactions of policy, people, and places affect implementation. Honig (2006) recommends that: Implementation research should aim to reveal the policies, people, and places that shape how implementation unfolds and provide robust, grounded explanations for how interactions among them help to explain implementation outcomes. The essential implementation question then becomes not simply “what’s implementable and works,” but what is implementable and what works for whom, where, when, and why? (p. 2) In other words, the policy, people, and places are interrelated influences that inform how implementation unfolds. For researchers a contextualized examination of these factors (policy, people, and places) becomes increasingly important as a country’s demographics shift, the population ages, immigration grows, and multiple languages and cultures are weaved into, experienced, and lived in almost every corner where education takes place. For these reasons, Honig’s (2006) contemporary approach to education policy implementation research is well suited for this chapter, which focuses on policy changes related to ELL in Nevada.

12.3 Changing Demographics: Implications for Urban Areas and Public Education Demographers have been alerting us for at least a decade of the coming diverse population changes and the implications for our social, economic, and political structures (Benner & Pastor, 2012; Frey, 2015; Fry, 2006). In the early 2000s the Pew Center initiated the Pew Hispanic Center to track the various demographic shifts. The Pew Center confirms that the bulk of the growth across the country and in public education has occurred among the Hispanic population. Consider for instance that by 2003, Hispanics accounted for 64% of the student enrollment growth in public education compared to Blacks who accounted for 23% of the increase; Asians accounted for 11% of the increase while the enrollment of White students declined by 1% (Fry, 2006). Simultaneously, the median age in the United States steadily increased from 35 years in 2000 to 37 years in 2010. As the baby boomers age, their population group has been the fastest growing segment (Howden & Meyer, 2011). Between 2000 and 2010, the population under the age of 18 grew at a rate of 2.6% compared to those aged 18 to 44, which grew 0.6%. Compare this to the population aged 45 to 64, which grew at a rate of 31.5%, and those aged 65 and over grew 15.1% (Howden & Meyer, 2011). Another important demographic trend is the continued growth in immigration. In 2014, there were a record 42.2 million immigrants living in the United States, making up 13.2% of the nation’s population (Brown, 2015). The United States has more immigrants than any other nation, which has resulted in a diverse student population. According to a report by the Pew Research Center, this trend is projected to continue; by 2060 the foreignborn population will account for 78 million or 18.8% of the total U.S. population. Consider for instance that in 2015, 66% of U.S. Asians were immigrants. In the same year 35% of Hispanics were foreign

born. For Hispanics U.S. births contribute to at least 78% of their population growth (Brown, 2015). The United States is growing older and more diverse, with Hispanics leading the growth among new births. Our youngest populations are the most diverse with more than half of all children younger than 5 belonging to a racial or ethnic group of color (Brown, 2015). These evolving demographics are more acute in some regions of the country. In a report by the Center for Public Education (2012), the authors highlight the regional and metropolitan demographic shifts and the implications for public education. For instance, U.S. census data show the West and South growing more quickly than the Northeast and Midwest. Between 2000 and 2010, the West had the largest population percent increase (14.3%) followed by the South (13.8%) compared to the Midwest (3.9%) and the Northeast (3.2%). Between 2000 and 2030, the population in the West will grow by 28.9 million, or 45.8%, and in the South by 43 million, or 42.9%. In the first decade of the twentyfirst century, the fastestgrowing states were concentrated in the West. Between 2000 and 2010, Nevada’s population grew the most of all states followed by Arizona and Idaho. Further, 5 out of 10 fastestgrowing metropolitan areas during the same time were in the West, as shown in Table 12.1. Table 12.1 Fastestgrowing metropolitan areas, 2000–2010. Source: Mackum & Wilson (2011).

Metropolitan Area

Palm Coast, FL St. George, UT Las VegasParadise, NV RaleighCary, NC Cape CoralFort Myers, FL ProvoOrem, UT Greeley, CO AustinRound RockSan Marcos, TX Myrtle BeachNorth Myrtle Beach Conway, SC Bend, OR

Population April 1, 2000 49,832 90,354 1,375,765 797,071 440,888 376,774 180,926 1,249,763 196,629

April 1, 2010 95,696 138,115 1,951,269 1,130,490 618,754 526,810 252,825 1,716,289 269,291

115,367

157,733

Change, 2000 to 2010 Number % 45,864 47,761 575,504 333,419 117,866 150,036 71,899 466,526 72,662

92.0 52.0 52.0 41.8 40.3 39.8 39.7 37.3 37.0

42,366

36.7

As shown in Table 12.2, five of the top 10 states with the largest share of population who speak a language other than English are also concentrated in the West, with California having the largest percentage of ELLs followed by New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii.

Table 12.2 Top 10 states in which persons 5 and older speak a language other than English at home. Source: Ryan (2013).

Rank 1 2 3

State California New Mexico Texas

Percent of state’s total population 43.8 36.5 34.7

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

New Jersey New York Nevada Florida Arizona Hawaii Illinois

30.4 30.1 29.7 27.6 27.0 25.2 22.7

English language learners represent one of the fastestgrowing populations in K12 schools. While the majority (three quarters) of students identified as ELL speak Spanish as their first language, collectively ELLs speak at least 460 different languages in K12 public schools (Nuñez, RiosAguilar, Kanno, & Flores, 2016). Nevada is a state where these major trends have collided. The state can be seen as a microcosm of what is to come in public education and serve as a laboratory for states to learn how to strengthen public education.

12.4 A Contextualized Examination of Nevada Las Vegas is a worldrecognized tourist destination. “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” is the popular slogan that attracts millions of tourists every year. Less known about Las Vegas is its struggling education district—Clark County, which serves over 75% of all public school students in the state. In the 2014–2015 academic year Nevada served 459,095 public school students; 53% of the students qualified for free or reducedprice lunch, 16% were identified as ELL, and the largest student ethnic group was Hispanic (41%) as shown in Table 12.3.

Table 12.3 Demographic profile of Nevada students by ethnicity or race, Nevada, 2014–2015. Source: Nevada Department of Education (2016a).

Ethnic or racial group American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Hispanic

% 1 5.5 41.1

Black White Pacific Islander

10.2 35.1 1.4

Two or more races

5.8

In the same year approximately 75,000 Nevada public school students were identified as English language learners, and 78% of the ELL students were concentrated in one school district in the state—Clark County (Nevada Department of Education, 2016a). National Assessment of Education Progress results show that Nevada ELL students are lagging well behind nonELL students in math and English (see Table 12.4). Nevada students who are identified as ELL also graduate at significantly lower rates (32%) than other students (Haas, Huang, & Tran, 2014). Table 12.4 2015 Nevada grade 4, reading and math results. Source: Nevada Department of Education (2016b).

Below Basic Reading English language learners 67% Not English language learners 30% Math English language learners 40% Not English language learners 19%

Basic Proficient Advanced 24% 8% 34% 28%

1% 8%

46% 12% 43% 33%

1% 5%

During the Great Recession of 2008, Nevada was hit especially hard because of its dependency on tourism, construction, and service industries. The decline in real estate and underwater mortgages affected all, and the subsequent plummet in property taxes was devastating for public education funding. Las Vegas or southern Nevada went from opening an average of seven new public schools per year since the 1990s to laying off teachers (Takahashi, 2012; Whitaker, 2015). English language learner programs were also slashed to bare bones (Curtis, 2011). Nevada was not alone as it struggled to rebuild after the economic downfall. By 2012, although not at preGreat Recession funding, the state signaled it was ready to rebuild its social services infrastructure and supplemental education funding was back on the policymakers’ agenda for the 2013 legislative session.

12.4.1 Previous ELL State Policy Implementation in Nevada School districts with ELLs typically receive federal funding in the way of Title III funding. Prior to 2013, all states, except eight including Nevada, allocated additional state funding to serve ELLs in one of three ways: block grants; additional per pupil, weighted formula; or unit or general lump sums (Horsford et al., 2013). As a comparison to peer school districts, in 2010–2011, Houston school district’s per ELL pupil funding was $2,588 compared to Clark County in Nevada, which was $119 per ELL pupil (Horsford et al., 2013). Prior to 2013, legislative efforts addressed ELL issues and funding through state policy. However, since 1995, the majority of efforts could be categorized as onetime pilot programs, unfunded programmatic mandates, and accountability measures (see Table 12.5).

Table 12.5 Nevada legislation addressing ELLs, 1995–2015. Source: Nevada Legislation (2015).

Legislative Bill year 1995 Senate Bill 88 1997 Assembly Bill 558 1997 Senate Bill 482 2005

2007 2007 Special Session 2013

2015

2015

Legislation summary Required the State Board of Education to establish a program of instruction for students who were limited English proficient. Appropriated $200,000 for a pilot program for the instruction of ELLs. Enacted the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997; among its provisions was the inclusion of ELLs in its accountability framework.

Senate Established a pilot program to teach English to children during the Bill 580 summer before they attended kindergarten; included an appropriation of $175,000 over the biennium. Senate Created a pilot program to study English immersion and ELLs. Bill 398 Assembly Appropriated $100,000 for pilot programs to teach ELLs during the Bill 2 summer before they attend kindergarten. Senate Established Zoom schools targeting the needs of ELLs in elementary Bill 504 schools; revised the school and districtlevel accountability reports to include information concerning the progress of ELLs; created a 16 member English Mastery Council within the state’s Department of Education to recommend criteria for teaching ELLs; appropriated $50 million over the biennium for ELL reading centers and extended school year programs. Senate Required the board of trustees of each district and charter school to Bill 391 prepare a plan to improve the literacy of students, including the proficiency in reading of ELLs. Senate Expanded Zoom schools targeting the needs of ELLs in middle, junior, Bill 405 and high schools; required the State Board of Education to develop a definition of and procedure for reporting pupils who are identified as longterm limited English proficient; appropriated $100 million over the biennium for ELL reading centers; extended school year programs and other evidencebased ELL interventions.

Nevada legislative Senate Bill (SB) 504 during the 2013 legislative session was different from previous legislation in at least two ways: it provided the most significant—at the time—state allocation for categorical funding targeted at ELLs, and it created a statewide council under the Nevada Department of Education to address ELL policy issues at the state, postsecondary preparation programs, and district levels. The groundwork for SB 504 began in early 2008

when a group of tempered radicals (Meyerson, 2001), or in this case a group of researchers, practitioners, and community activists, began to meet and express their concerns over the lack of educational supports and dismal outcomes of ELLs in the largest school district in the state.

12.4.2 Tempered Radicals for ELL Policy Changes Debra Meyerson (2001) describes tempered radicals as people who operate on the fault line. They are organizational insiders who contribute and succeed in their jobs. At the same time, they are treated as outsiders because they represent ideals or agendas that are somehow at odds with the dominant culture. (p. 5) She identifies five attributes of tempered radicals. The first is their ability to speak their truths, even when afraid. Meyerson writes, [M]ost conflicts are not created by tempered radicals; but tempered radicals are often the ones who speak “truths” and raise issues that have been suppressed…Such acts of deviation require selfknowledge and conviction to overcome enormous pressure to conform and to suppress beliefs that challenge the majority. (p. 76) Second, they have strong support networks or allies who remind them that their struggles are not solely their own but rather a collective effort that allows for greater legitimacy, power, and resources than one individual could achieve. Third, they lean toward action and focus on small wins that result in new relationships and understandings of the issue. Tempered radicals have clarity and a laserlike focus on their most important goals and they choose their battles carefully. Finally, they promote, through their example and advocacy, experimentation and deep professional conversations (Meyerson, 2001). In the case of Nevada’s ELL policy change, at least three tempered radicals conceived, championed, built on small wins, expanded networks, and ultimately saw the passing and implementation of SB 504. The first individual, Sandra (pseudonym), was a faculty member at the local university who had built her career researching issues related to race, gender, equity, immigration, and law. As a professor, she had participated in campuswide initiatives to bring together other faculty interested in issues related to education equity. During the early stages in 2008, she partnered with researchers to examine education outcomes in the state. Through this process she came to see that literacy skills for children were lagging, in particular for ELL students. Through a partnership with education researchers in 2010 Sandra applied for and received a local fellowship grant to examine in detail ELL students’ outcomes in the local school district. The $20,000 grant allowed the researchers to focus on a databased description of the ELL population in the school district. Her team collected qualitative and quantitative data and conducted an extensive literature review of literacy practices for ELLs. The project culminated in a public forum that invited key stakeholders from the school district and state agencies, along with education researchers, to share the results and create greater awareness of the ELL issue. The project outcomes were also used to develop a bill draft request. Senate Bill 216 proposed to establish reading skills centers at two research universities with a biennium appropriation of $2 million for each university. The bill died but

the focus on ELL did not. The 2010 election cycle also marked a critical phase in Nevada politics. First, it marked the first year that term limits were enacted and, as a result, many established powerbroker politicians were gone, and a new cohort of policymakers was elected. Second, the election cycle quadrupled the number of Latino elected legislators from two to eight. A legislator, Ella (pseudonym), had been working on ELL issues as an educator for over a decade. When asked what motivated her to focus on ELL issues, Ella recalled personal experiences as an ELL student in another country, When I was nine years old, my family relocated [from the United States] to [another country] and that’s when I had my first true experience being challenged learning another language. I had to work real hard to catch up to my grade level peers…and work to dispel the stereotype that I really couldn’t do well in school because I was behind…That gave me my first dose of what ELL students feel like when they come with a foundation in one language and the teachers think they are coming with a deficit. I knew firsthand that we just need to work hard in making connections and build on knowledge students know in their first language. As an educator, Ella also witnessed firsthand the dismantling of ELL positions and programs during the Great Recession and the effect it had on students and schools. In addition, she knew there was no specific ELL strategic vision or state or districtwide plan. Ella recalled during her first elected term, “[m]any of us were freshmen legislators and felt positive. We weren’t sure how it was going to work out but we were hungry to make change for the community.” Her leadership was key in bringing awareness about ELL issues to her fellow legislators as well as championing and translating the need for legislative action. By her second legislative term, Ella’s willingness to collaborate with other legislators and key education stakeholders was evident as she built key alliances; she recalled “that in 2013 then [state] superintendent and the governor’s education policy people were also involved in the [assembly] bill conversation and work group once we had basically detailed out what a Zoom school would be.” Ella introduced a legislative bill that would eventually evolve into Senate Bill 504. Another individual who operated on the “fault line” as an organizational insider was Joseph (pseudonym). As a former teacher and current statelevel administrator, Joseph was well versed in education pedagogy as well as state education policy. These experiences, as well as his commitment to ensuring equitable state resources for ELL students, served as a foundation to facilitate statewide conversations with school district administrators on how to implement the new ELL funding and reporting requirements. Joseph’s office in the education state agency played a significant role in monitoring the newly created ELL policy and reporting to state legislators on the progress of the programs. In addition, Joseph and his colleagues were also responsible for providing technical support to a statewide ELL council that was created as a result of the Senate Bill 504. The English Mastery Council (EMC), the statewide ELL council, was a legislatively created board to advise the state and districts on ELL policy and standards. Joseph recalls, “the EMC created the urgency for districts to move forward to

develop their EL plans.” Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 504 there was limited state policy or accountability for school districts that served students who were language learners. Collectively, these tempered radicals worked within their own circles of influence to move the needle toward greater awareness and accountability on state ELL policy.

12.4.3 Education Gap + Political Strut = Nevada Zoom Schools Nevada Zoom schools were public schools that received state funding for students who were ELL; these schools received the most significant state funding focused on ELL students. Local community groups, such as the Latino Leadership Council, and local researchers created a critical awareness of the education gap between ELL and nonELL students, coupled with the newfound political strut of Hispanic legislators. The Nevada Hispanic Legislative Caucus grew from two to eight members overnight. Grassroots community advocacy groups, such as the Latino Leadership Council, began to work closely with other community groups, policymakers, and state agencies to identify public policy areas that affected Latino communities and children. The Hispanic legislators also reached out to community groups and researchers to gauge critical areas in need of policy interventions. Collectively, Hispanic legislators and community groups tackled issues ranging from redistricting to driver privilege laws to equitable education funding. Ella recalls her initial experience as a legislator, “We were learning the ropes of how to carry legislation, how to present and lobby for your bills as well as learning floor procedures. I know it was a learning curve for me because I had no prior legislative experience before going to serve my first term.” Nevada has a parttime legislative process and legislators like Ella were faced with the reality that they may be a oneterm assemblyperson. Education was always a popular political issue, but by 2013 there was a renewed interest and commitment to focus policy and resources on ELL issues. Sandra remembered, The governor was a key actor. He was actively courting the Latino community. I believe he was motivated to champion education and ELL. Also, he had a critical mass of Latino legislators who couldn’t be ignored. Even before that, the Latino Leadership Council started to get other nonprofits involved as well as teacher unions. Legislators began to say “ELL [policy] needs to happen.” There was critical mass of individuals advocating for ELL policy. For the first time in the state, community groups organized a Latino Lobby Day in April 2013 where they collectively lobbied in the state’s capital. They focused on policy issues related to the state’s economy, education, healthcare, and immigration (American Civil Liberties of Nevada, n.d.). Sandra recalled that the governor had indicated he wanted to infuse new money into education, and legislators quickly began to bid their ideas. The overwhelming evidence and awareness on ELL issues positioned categorical funding front and center. Ella recalled, “I think it was a combination of the Nevada Hispanic Legislative Caucus growing in terms of representation and the governor being in tune with the education needs of the state. I think he chaired the Education Commission of the States right about that time.” In Nevada ELL special funding existed going back to 1995 in some form or another. However,

the 2013 ELL bill was a key initiative that was successfully led by the Nevada Hispanic Legislative Caucus; previously such bills would have not garnered multiple sponsors as this one did in 2013. Initially, the governor had recommended $20 million but in the end the legislature approved $50 million, the single largest state allocation for ELL in state history. The Clark County School District in southern Nevada received approximately $39 million and served 14 elementary schools in the 2013 and 2014 academic years. The remainder was distributed to other school districts in the state (Nevada Legislative Report, 2015). In addition to the funding allocation, the legislature passed a bill that created the English Mastery Council (EMC). Sandra and Ella agreed that the Zoom funding was about “investing in the schools and kids” and the “EMC was about creating state ELL policy.” The EMC was seen as a security net to maintain ELL issues on the radar of policymakers, otherwise the categorical funding could have gone down as another onetime pilot funding allocation. Ella affirmed, Additional funding only gets you so far. Teacher preparation, coursework, and trainings are important in order to ensure ELLs have a welltrained teacher workforce at schools. As a state we definitely needed to build capacity at all levels—not only teachers but administrators too—in terms of education for ELLs and best practices for closing the achievement gap. Sandra echoed Ella’s comments, There was no ELL expertise on the State Board of Education or Department of Education, and the idea was born to legislatively create a council appointed by the governor, legislators, and other education agencies composed of ELL experts, policy analysts, parents, and ELL practitioners to examine ELL policy at the multiple levels—district, state, teacher preparation programs—and have the council identify recommendations. While Zoom schools were about investing state allocations into the classrooms with high ELL student population, the English Mastery Council was about examining state and district policies to improve the teacher pipeline to serve ELL students.

12.5 Implementation of Nevada’s ELL Policy: Challenges and Lessons Learned For the first and second cycle of implementation, state funds were used to implement initiatives mandated by the legislation. These initiatives included prekindergarten, fullday kindergarten with reduced class size, reading centers, and extension of school days through summer academies (see Table 12.6). Fourteen elementary schools in Clark County were selected as Zoom schools based on student ELL demographics. The governor signed the legislation in June 2013 and the programs had to be up and running by August of the same year. Joseph admitted the school districts “were charged with demonstrating progress in a very short amount of time. The programs were implemented August 2013, and by June 2014 they had to have a progress report or formal reports to legislators and the board of education. Further, their continued investment was contingent on their ability to demonstrate some form of progress.” The high

stakes review clearly presented challenges for district administrators who were interested in providing ELLspecific services but, in some cases, had less than an academic year to demonstrate success. Table 12.6 Clark County School District Zoom schools, implementation summary, 2013–2014 and 2014–2015. Source: Nevada Legislative Report (2015).

Program description Zoom Pre To provide a universal program with an 18:2 studenttoadult ratio, 28 preK K teachers and 28 teacher family assistants were employed in 2013–2014. The halfday program consists of instructional days on Monday through Thursday, with hometoschool activities scheduled on Fridays. All programs were opened and serving students on September 3, 2013. PreK students gain important school readiness skills through enriched high quality preK programming curricula based on the Nevada PreKindergarten Standards. The preK classrooms promote prereading and writing skills, math, movement, language, literacy, science, art, music, and socialization. The program provides ongoing parent education that includes parent–child activities and a variety of parent workshops. Student progress is evaluated on an ongoing basis with the WorldClass Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Measure of Developing English Language (MODEL) assessment for language acquisition, and Teaching Strategies GOLD for literacy, language, math, cognitive, physical, and social emotional skills. Zoom full Kindergarten students in 90 classrooms attended a fullday program with a 21:1 day studenttoteacher ratio in the 2013–2014 school year. kindergarten The kindergarten programs use developmentally appropriate practices based on the Nevada Academic Content Standards. Kindergarten instruction includes teacherdirected smallgroup activities, wholegroup experiences, oneon one intervention, and explorations in centerbased environments. Daily curriculum integrates academic instruction with the creative arts, social emotional learning, and physical development in order to support learning for the whole child. Student progress is evaluated on an ongoing basis with the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment for literacy, the WIDA Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English StatetoState for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs) assessment for language acquisition, and the Zoom Kindergarten Data assessment for literacy skills. Zoom Zoom Project facilitators and paraprofessional tutors provide daily small reading group instruction to identify first through thirdgrade students at each Zoom centers school. The tutoring lesson framework focuses on literacy and language acquisition through reading comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and word work

Zoom Summer Academy

activities. This service is being provided as a supplement to the Tier I literacy instruction at each school. During the reading center lesson, students receive personalized instruction that is tailored to their reading level and focused upon the specific reading skills each individual must master in order to access more challenging texts. Student progress is evaluated on an ongoing basis with the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) for reading comprehension, the MAP assessment for literacy, and the WIDA ACCESS assessment for language acquisition. Seventeen additional full days of instruction were provided to all Zoom school students who registered at their home school. An entire curriculum was developed for all subject areas, with a focus on intensive Tier I instruction to continue literacy and language development. Each grade level’s ELA curriculum focused on a highly engaging theme, such as plants, inventors, Walt Disney, and rainforests. The curricula were developed by expert teachers in the Clark County School District. The teachers who opted to work the Summer Academy were trained on the curriculum in order to maximize the experience for their students and to impact their learning. In most cases, students remained with the same teacher for Summer Academy, making the transition as seamless as possible. The program ran from June 5–June 27, and all services (special education, breakfast and lunch, and transportation) continued to be provided during this time, bridging the traditional school year calendar to the Summer Academy dates. This was done to increase enrollment and promote regular attendance. Student progress was evaluated with the MAP assessment for reading and math, pre and postwriting samples, pre and posttests for math, student enrollment, and attendance.

There were four challenges in the implementation of Zoom programs and the English Mastery Council. These comprised partial year implementation, programs that were framed as fixing a problem, leadership misalignment at the district level, and navigating the policy and political terrain.

12.5.1 Partial Year Implementation Nevada’s parttime legislature presents many challenges not in the least when it comes to new education policy implementation. As indicated earlier, districts had to implement newly funded programs in less than 60 days. A State Department of Education administrator summed up the challenge:

Year one was a partial year of implementation. There was so much in the way of startup. In some cases, districts had implemented for 6, 9 or 12 months so the data [on student outcomes] was limited. By year two the programming was much stronger. Year one was a foundation year; people were hired, children and parents were recruited. [By year two] we saw full implementation of the program. Full implementation does not guarantee successful implementation. A concern of many policymakers is that an increase in public funding will not necessarily lead to a change in practice and outcomes. Large bureaucratic organizations are slow to change and organizational culture is often a factor that perpetuates ineffective policies and practices (Bolman & Deal, 1997). In the case of the school district, the additional ELL funding was initially viewed as resources to support existing programs that typically framed students who were learning English as a problem to fix. This was another challenge to implementation.

12.5.2 Programs Framed as Fixing Language Deficiency versus Building Language Assets Joseph confirmed the initial school district approach framed the ELL programs as fixing a language problem rather than building on students’ specific language competencies: The majority [of school districts] were not focused on ELL needs in terms of educational needs, rather they were focused on student needs. In a few cases the programs focused on language needs. For the most part, districts responded in traditional ways by asking themselves, “How do we improve performance for students?” They approached the ELL problem in a traditional way, that is, by direct instruction of literacy. The intervention was out of context … [In one district] there was a desire in prek programs to eliminate native language and only focus on English. Joseph thought the district’s approach was a result of their need to implement the program in a quick time frame. Sandra echoed Joseph’s concerns but attributed the challenge to the district’s unwillingness to maintain an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the local university which outlined methodology for literacy programs and leveraged graduate students to assess student needs: I was disappointed with implementation. We [the university and district] had previously negotiated an MOU with the original crew, but when SB 504 was passed and implemented the new [district] leadership did away with the MOU and the methodology for reading centers. I would have kept graduate students involved in diagnosing students but the district changed assessment tools as well. Sandra felt it was important to maintain the “fidelity of assumptions embedded into research based approach” that focused on language acquisition specifically for ELL students. Another concern related to delivery of programs was that teachers lacked the pedagogical foundation to teach students who required ELL instruction. Again, teachers’ approach to literacy was from a deficiency perspective (students come unprepared because they are not English proficient) (Walqui, 2010). In the first biennium implementation, the districts were allowed to self

evaluate the outcomes for the Zoom schools based on metrics identified by the legislation. The selfevaluation may have limited their ability to be selfreflective on pedagogical and methodological issues.

12.5.3 District Leadership Misalignment One of the advantages of large organizations is the ability to create specialized departments. For instance, Clark County School District had an ELL department focused specifically on providing schools with supports and resources for ELL students. During the first year of implementation of Zoom schools, perhaps because of the short development period, the ELL department was not closely involved with the Zoom schools. Joseph expressed this concern: “there wasn’t a collaboration of significance between those that had the [ELL] expertise and the leadership.” Others observing the implementation echoed these comments: There was a lack of intersection between administrative leadership and language development experts within the districts; they were charged with demonstrating progress in a very short amount of time. The districts looked at Zoom as instructionalwide programs that happen to serve EL students. The view was the programs served more as supplemental services to EL students … they didn’t seek to integrate with language specialists. Sandra anticipated the leadership misalignment because of the need for large organizations to “selfpreserve” and feared the districts would adopt their existing ELL practices which had not, in her view, served ELL students. She believed the university researchers’ involvement could buffer the selfpreservation while also incorporating researchdriven practices. By year two the State Department of Education served as facilitator by convening districts specifically for the purpose of discussing ELL programs, policies, and practices related to SB 504 legislation.

12.5.4 Navigating the Policy and Political Terrain Ella spoke about the challenges of navigating the policy and political terrain as a state legislator. She expected a learning curve and looked to seasoned policymakers to mentor her on how to create and pass legislation. The legislation that allocated new funding also created a council, English Mastery Council, to continue the work of ELL policy at a state and district level (see Table 12.7). The appointed board was composed of researchers, practitioners, policy analysts, and parents.

Table 12.7 English Mastery Council areas of work. Source: Nevada Department of Education (2013).

TESL endorsement

Review university courses of study to teach ESL Recommend improvements for any courses of study Make recommendations for the adoption of regulations concerning the requirements for an endorsement to Teach English as a Second Language (TESL) Submit TESL recommendations to the Commission on Professional Standards

District policy and plan criteria

Make recommendations concerning criteria for all districts to develop their policy to serve ELLs Submit policy criteria recommendations to State Board Review annually each district policy to serve ELLs

Standards and curriculum

Develop standards and criteria for a curriculum for ELLs for consideration by the State Board

The idea was to “create a place where ELL experts could talk to each other in the context of ELL policy” according to Sandra. The 16member council included the state superintendent and received administrative support from the State Department of Education. Inherent in policymaking is influence, power, and politics (Bolman & Deal, 1997). One council member illustrated this point: I think the council was tightly controlled by the State Department of Education. The tensions were, I believe, that the Department was to serve as a gatekeeper of information. A gatekeeper in terms of what information flowed out or what information was shared and whose voice could be heard on the council. Part of it was the high stakes. I mean, the governor and the superintendent wanted the council to be successfully implemented. However, the financial and manpower toll it took to implement the council was felt by the Department of Education. The Department also underscored how any recommendation could be a burden in terms of manpower. Ella, the legislator who initiated and championed the ELL bill and council creation, felt after a year “there had not been much traction on the English Mastery Council” because “too many organizations had to be involved … the more actors, the more difficult for policy development, passage and implementation.” A State Department of Education administrator agreed the first year of the council required a “tough leader to work through the political terrain.” As the initial chair of the council (and author of this chapter), I kept notes and reflections on the process. Upon review of my notes, a common theme was the difficulty of negotiating how much influence and power the council could have in making recommendations to regulatory boards

such as State Board of Education, Commission on Professional Standards, and State Higher Education Governing Board. In fact, the first 12 months were primarily focused on information gathering, processing, and generating recommendations that would be acceptable to key regulatory board members. Further, the council was comprised of researchers, practitioners, and parents who were motivated by their professional or personal experiences with ELL education and policy. On the other hand, many of the regulatory boards, such as the State Board of Education and the State Higher Education Board, were composed of elected or appointed members who likely interpreted the council recommendations through a political frame (Bolman & Deal, 1997) that included zerosum resource allocation and embedded beliefs about language learner students. A council member noted, “at some point there was a pivot point about 6 months into the council work and I think it had to do with the behind the scenes machinations; the governor wanted to prioritize ELL. The topic itself, ELL, made it contentious because essentially we are asking for more resources from a Republicancontrolled state legislator for majority Latino students.”

12.5.5 Lessons Learned One significant lesson learned from this case study is that large bureaucratic organizations need time to develop, plan, and implement meaningful policy changes that impact large numbers of students. In the case of the Clark County School District, administrators and teachers had less than six months to plan and implement new ELL policy. Without a doubt the time constraint impacted delivery, information dissemination, and training of professionals who served the intended student population. Closely related is the need for external evaluation of program implementation and outcomes. In the first biennium the evaluation was left to districts who were under pressure to demonstrate positive outcomes or risk having future categorical funding eliminated. In the following biennium, additional state resources were allocated for the purpose of external evaluation. The evaluation team was to be selected by the State Board of Education and not the districts themselves. Leadership also played a significant role at the policymaking and implementation levels. At the legislative level, the key legislator, Ella, who championed the ELL bill, was well versed and experienced on education issues as a teacher of language learners. Her credibility was further enhanced by the community allies who provided critical research and data to make a case for unprecedented categorical funding. Coalition building and the actors understanding that policy occurs through incremental change were key lessons of this study. For instance, state ELL policy dated back to 1995 but it was not until 2013 that significant state categorical funding was allocated. Although the actors had changed, at the legislative and community levels, the need to address the issue had not. At the implementation level, district leadership made decisions based on their interpretation of the state regulations with minimal disruption to their current organization practices and culture. This approach did not necessarily serve the interests or needs of students, as underscored by implementation observers. By the second cycle of funding, legislators increased funding for external evaluation and the State Department of Education played a significant facilitator role among all districts to help share information, practices, and ideas on how to serve ELL students. The intentional role of the State Department

of Education was to encourage districts to be more strategic about “mapping out the process” and share pedagogical ideas, practices, and lessons. Legislatively created councils that recommend policy across multiple organizations, as was the case for the English Mastery Council, require a careful selection of individuals. In the case of Nevada, the council included the state superintendent who was well versed in state education policy and in a position of power to make decisions. The council also included ELL education researchers and practitioners who could bring the latest research and insights to inform policy. While group dynamics were initially problematic, as highlighted by some of the council members, the knowledge that the governor and his staff saw ELL issues as a high priority helped move the process along as well as provide some leverage for ELL advocates who were not traditional political actors in the state policymaking landscape. Finally, at a time when there is a call for greater connection between research and practice, this chapter provides an example of how researchers can be active participants as community allies, during the legislative vetting of education bills and as part of the implementation process. Other states looking to support underserved populations, such as ELL students, through education policy can learn from Nevada’s experience with ELL policy. Specifically, state policymakers’ careful examination and development of realistic expectations of the implementation process can help ensure information dissemination, strategic selection of key actors, and incremental organizational change that are key to success.

References American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. (n.d.). Latino Lobby Day. Retrieved from http://aclunv.org/event/latinolobbyday Benner, C., & Pastor, M. (2012). Just growth: Inclusion and prosperity in America’s metropolitan regions. New York, NY: Routledge. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Brown, A. (2015). U.S. immigrant population projected to rise, even as share falls among Hispanics, Asians. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Center for Public Education. (2012). The United States of education: The changing demographics of the United States and their schools. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., White, R. E., & Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational learning: Dimensions for a theory. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337–360. Curtis, L. (2011, April 24). Budget crisis could shrink English Language Learner Program. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved from http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/budgetcrisiscouldsinkenglish languagelearnerprogram

Frey, W. (2015). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Fry, R. (2006). The changing landscape of American public education: New students, new schools research report. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/72.pdf Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2010). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haas, E., Huang, M., & Tran, L. (2014). The characteristics of longterm English language learner students and struggling reclassified fluent English proficient students in Nevada. San Francisco: REL West @ WestEd. Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. Horsford, S. D., Mokhtar, C., & Sampson, C. (2013, March). Nevada’s English language learner population: A review of enrollment, outcomes, and opportunities. Las Vegas, NV: The Lincy Institute at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Howden, L. M., & Meyer, J. A. (2011). Age and sex composition: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br03.pdf Mackum, P., & Wilson, S. (2011, March). Population distribution and change: 2000–2010. 2010 Census Briefs. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br 01.pdf Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1989). Implementation and public policy: With a new postscript. New York, NY: University Press of America. Meyerson, D. (2001). Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders inspire change at work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Nevada Department of Education. (2013). English Mastery Council. Retrieved from http://www.doe.nv.gov/Boards_Commissions_Councils/English_Mastery_Council/Home/ Nevada Department of Education. (2016a). Nevada annual reports of accountability. Retrieved from http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/ Nevada Department of Education. (2016b). Nevada Report Card, National Assessment of Education Progress. Retrieved from http://www.doe.nv.gov/Assessments/National_Assessment_of_Education_Progress_(NAEP)

Nevada Legislation. (2015). Summaries of enacted legislation 1995–2015. Nevada Electronic Legislative Information System. Retrieved from https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Publications/SoL/index.html Nevada Legislative Report. (2015, February 1). Annual summary report, SB 504. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/ReportsToLeg/2013 2015/19815.pdf Núñez, A. M., RiosAguilar, C., Kanno, Y., & Flores, S. (2016). English learners and their transition to postsecondary education. In M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 31, pp. 41–90). New York, NY: Springer. O’Laughlin, L., & Lindle, J. C. (2015). Principals as political agents in the implementation of IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate. Educational Policy, 29(1), 140–161. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ryan, C. (2013, August). Language use in the United States: 2011. American Community Survey Reports (ACS22). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/acs/acs22.html Takahashi, P. (2012, June 11). School district sends pink slips to 419 teachers. Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved from http://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/11/schooldistrictsendspink slips400teachers/ Tinajero, J. V., Munter, J. H., & Araujo, B. (2010). Best practices for teaching Latino English learners in U.S. schools. In E. G. MurilloJr., S. A.Villenas, R. Trinidad Galvan, J. Sanchez Munoz, C. Martinez, & M. MachadoCasas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 488–502). New York, NY: Routledge. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2015, January 7). “Dear colleague” letter, English learner students and limited English proficient parents. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleagueel201501.pdf Walqui, A. (2010). The growth of teacher expertise for teaching English language learners: A socioculturallybased professional development model. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis. Werts, A. B., & Brewer, C. A. (2015). Reframing the study of policy implementation: Lived experience as politics. Educational Policy, 29(1), 206–229. Whitaker, I. (2015, March 18). As CCSD embarks on new schoolbuilding blitz, a look at lessons from the last one Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved from http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/18/ccsdsetstartbuildingnewschoolsfirst time10/

Wixom, M. A. (2015). ECS and national experts examine: Statelevel English language learner policies. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Young, T., & Lewis, W. D. (2015). Educational policy implementation revisited. Educational Policy, 29(1), 3–17.

Part 3 Teachers and Teaching Individuals who become teachers enter the profession through many portals and once in classrooms they are expected to focus on ways each student learns and what is necessary to create the best classroom environment for learning to occur. There are doubtless as many ways teachers are motivated by their preparation and expectation of their profession as there are teachers. Regardless, “The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires” (William Arthur Ward, 1921–1994). Chapters in this section illustrate the many ways that teachers can learn to teach and inspire student learning. If language is a tool that can help thinking develop and if specific forms of “talk” promote learning, then it stands to reason that teachers should learn the specific kinds of talk the authors discuss in the chapter “Next Generation Research in Dialogic Learning.” Resnick, Asterhan, and Clarke with Schantz offer reasons for and examples of “talkbased learning.” They examine “talk” from a variety of contexts and countries to define “accountable talk,” and then review numerous studies related to classroom dialogue. Evidence indicates that when teachers develop the complex skills necessary to promote accountable talk, all students acquire a greater depth of knowledge than in its absence. The group of educators of “Guiding and Promoting Student Learning: Applying Theory to Practice,” by Putney, Malin, Miller, Crosby, and Stanley, enables the reader to experience educators’ philosophical and instructional perspectives from the point of view of administration, general education, special education, and a university researcher. The authors’ stories are framed by the educational theories they adapt to their teaching and that are inherent in the school community. The five reflections demonstrate ways it is possible for individuals with differing approaches to teaching and learning to come together as a team and create a healthy school climate. In “A Smile is Universal: Building Sensitivity to and Understanding of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners through International Field Experiences,” Laichak introduces the reader to the complexities of learning to teach outside the boundaries of one’s own country. In addition to an analysis of programs of field experiences outside the United States, she takes the reader to Costa Rica to observe six preservice teachers as they learn about teaching and the learners they come to understand. In “Envisioning Alternative Futures: Elliot Eisner’s Challenge to Industrial Educational Practice,” Siegesmund offers a compelling view of Elliot Eisner’s stance on schooling in America. He demonstrates through various educational initiatives Eisner’s clear thinking and courageous challenges to popular practices in teaching and teacher education. This chapter dares teachers as well as researchers to think beyond the practices of today to more enlightened purposes for the future.

In “Trajectories in Developing Novice Teacher Leadership Potential: A Tale of Two Countries,” Gao presents a case study of two new teachers’ growth toward becoming teacher leaders. As each teacher in this study develops skill in using technology in teaching, they encounter successes and barriers to their emergence as leaders. This chapter demonstrates the ways changes in teaching can provide new venues for teacher leadership. Barrie Bennett provides the reader a practitioner/researcher understanding of the commingling of curriculum, assessment, and instruction in his “Critique: What Effect Size Doesn’t Tell Us,” with the admonition that, in reality, no single best way exists to create an optimal learning environment for all learners. His examination of four insights/misconceptions through the lenses of (1) conceptual, (2) practical, (3) research/interpretation of data, and (4) assessment leave the reader with a new framework for rethinking the constructs of teaching and learning.

13 Next Generation Research in Dialogic Learning Lauren B. Resnick1, Christa S. C. Asterhan2, and Sherice N. Clarke3 with Faith Schantz 1 Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh 2 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 3 University of California, San Diego

13.1 Introduction An extraordinary wind is blowing in research on learning. Since the turn of this century, there has been an explosion of interest in the role of talk and dialogue in learning and teaching. The number of journal articles turned up by a Google Scholar search of classroom dialogue has quadrupled.1 Papers now appear in a wide range of journals and in multiple languages. Sessions are held at conferences devoted to different fields of education research (e.g., American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction [EARLI]). Teachers are offered multiple workshop opportunities. And a number of edited volumes have been published, all on the topic of classroom talk. The extent to which this interest has translated into significant change in the classroom is still uncertain. And despite the new focus among scholars, the number of studies showing positive effects for dialogic teaching is still small. We cannot point to a large body of evidence that “proves” the benefits of dialogic teaching. Yet the evidence we do have is powerful. It shows that structured discussions, disciplined by shared standards of reasoning, can produce learning gains that go well beyond the topics actually discussed. In a review of studies from a range of countries, we have found four kinds of effects from dialogic teaching. Students who had opportunities to debate their ideas with classmates learned more of the content under study (better initial learning) than students who experienced traditional teaching. Their learning gains endured longer (retention). And sometimes they outscored their peers in domains that had not been taught through discussion (far transfer), and on tests of reasoning skills (general intelligence). These are results with farreaching implications, both for the classroom and for scholarship into the nature of learning. In this chapter, we look briefly at how language, specifically dialogic talk, came to influence theories of learning. We then consider a sampling of the evidence on the effects of dialogic teaching and learning. We propose a range of possible explanations for these effects, from several perspectives. Finally, we speculate on why dialogic teaching has not become widespread, and suggest next steps for both practice and research.

13.2 Language and Learning

The shift toward interest in dialogic teaching and learning began in the early part of the twentieth century. A distinguished American philosopher and social psychologist, George Herbert Mead, described thought as “the conversation of the generalized other with the self” (Mead, 1922/1964, p. 246). In Mead’s formulation, thinking served as a rehearsal for an actual act of communication; therefore, it always occurred in relation to others. This idea was not immediately taken up in the United States or Western Europe. However, while Mead’s work was underway, in a separate line of research, Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky and his colleagues were developing and elaborating a similar theory. Vygotsky argued that thought and language were intimately related. Language was a tool that could help thinking develop. The notion that language can be used as a tool in the service of intellectual development was a radical idea, as it called into question what we “do” with language in schooling, and how language might be used to structure schooling and development more broadly. The Soviet work did not come to the attention of scholars in Europe and America until the 1960s, when it became available in translation (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). (Interest in Mead’s work was also revived in the 1970s.) Several decades after these works were published, the idea that language and interaction were central to thought had not become less revolutionary. In fact, it would dramatically change many scholars’ views of learning. As scholars grappled with these new ideas, sociologists and anthropologists working in several languages and academic cultures began to probe the centrality of talk and argument in learning outside of school. Developmental psychologists showed that elements of reasoning and argument were present in the talk of even very young children (Michaels, O’Connor, & Resnick, 2008). Scholars from other disciplines looked at argument in settings such as supermarkets (Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Rocha, 1984), little league baseball practice (Heath, 1991), and family dinner table conversations (Pontecorvo & Fasulo, 1997). Others showed how teams of adults guiding ships into harbor (Hutchins, 1995) or working in airports (Suchman, 1997) and subway stations (Heath & Luff, 1992) used argumentbased language patterns to achieve a desired practical result. At about the same time, linguists began to examine classroom talk—identifying patterns, documenting the proportion of teacher talk to student talk, and studying the content of talk. Gradually, a hypothesis appeared that talk itself could support learning. Because schools had historically been given the task of teaching language, this was a potentially earthshaking flip in educators’ understanding of the relationships among language, schooling, and learning. This view came to upend our most basic assumptions about: how children come to “know” language how language is used to explain ideas what kinds of talk are capable of expanding children’s understanding how and what children are able to learn at different stages of schooling who should have the right to speak and be heard in school Evidence began to appear showing that certain forms of classroom talk improved subject

matter learning. Sometimes, classroom talk led to measurably longer retention of learning than psychologists and other learning researchers are used to documenting. And—a bigger surprise —some studies showed transfer to other domains of knowledge. For example, students taught science or math by a discussion method outscored their peers on national and state tests of English. Students’ scores even rose on intelligence tests that had been specifically crafted to be insensitive to direct instruction. Positive results did not occur every time, or even most of the time. But more studies kept appearing, along with theoretical analyses that offered explanations of their results. These explanations reached outside the established and dominant psychological theories that attributed learning to direct instruction on a small body of knowledge “owned” by the teacher. It became clear that psychologists alone could not successfully investigate what was going on.

13.3 Focusing Research on TalkBased Learning In 2009, we began a process of seeking out research that examined talkbased learning in schools across the world. We asked scholars to send us published and unpublished reports that examined the effects of teaching experiments that engaged students in discussions on any academic subject matter. We also asked each scholar who else we should send our request to. By 2011, we had collected enough evidence to hold an invited conference, sponsored by the AERA, that drew researchers from across the globe. Scholars of education, cognitive psychology, educational psychology, linguistics, and computer science came to Pittsburgh not to discuss the latest results from laboratory experiments, but to look within classrooms, from the United States to the UK, Australia to China. What was the nature and quality of the talk in these classrooms? How did teachers initiate and sustain it? Which conditions supported it and which shut it down? How did talk produce greater learning for students—many of whom were from lowincome families, ethnic minorities, and/or language minorities—compared to their peers? How do we document and study the spoken language of children? We considered wholeclass and smallgroup discussions and settings in which students “conversed” with computers. Throughout, we gave plenty of attention to negative results (lack of retention and transfer) although we were unable to systematically collect such studies and compare them with those that were showing at least some positive results. In 2015, AERA published a book based on the conference, Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (Resnick, Asterhan, & Clarke, 2015). The talk described in the individual chapters is given different names but shares common features. In dialogic learning, students think out loud about a complex problem that requires collaboration: noticing something about the problem, questioning a surprising finding, or articulating, explaining, and reflecting upon their own reasoning. The teacher works to elicit a range of ideas, which may be only partially formed in students’ minds. With teacher guidance, other students take up their classmates’ statements: building on, challenging, or clarifying a claim (including a teacher’s claim); posing questions; reasoning about a proposed solution; or offering a counterclaim or an

alternate explanation. Overall, the teacher’s goal is to sustain a teacherled but student owned process of shared reasoning that ultimately results in a more fully developed, evidencebacked conclusion, solution, or explanation. This approach goes by different names, including academically productive talk, dialogic teaching and learning, dialogic pedagogy, and argumentation. Here we use the term “Accountable Talk,”2 introduced by Michaels, O’Connor, and Resnick (2008; Resnick, Michaels, & O’Connor, 2010), to represent forms of talk that fit the description above. Accountable Talk is so named because its critical features fall under three broad dimensions: accountability to reasoning (providing a rational justification for a claim), accountability to knowledge (getting the facts right even if it is a struggle to find the right wording), and accountability to the learning community (respecting the ideas and feelings of classmates). All three must be present for deep learning to occur.

13.4 Evidence for Improved Learning via Accountable Talk Our criteria for the kinds of data we take as “evidence” that talkbased pedagogies can improve learning include the following: Data showing that students participating in talkbased instruction scored higher than appropriate control groups on tests of the material taught and on new tasks within the domain. Data showing greater retention of what was taught over significant periods of time (again with appropriate control groups). Data showing transfer to topics or subject matters not taught through a discussion method. Data showing improvement in widely accepted forms of reasoning or tests of general intelligence. Data of these kinds exist for each of the main subject matters of the school curriculum: literacy, math, and science. They exist for instructional strategies that include wholeclass teaching, teacherorganized smallgroup discussion, and computermediated dialogue. We report here on a sampling of published studies that illustrate a range of subject matters, instructional processes, and research designs. Our review will necessarily be brief, but much more evidence and discussion can be found in Resnick, Asterhan, and Clarke (2015).

13.4.1 Reading Comprehension Studies Our review begins with reading/English language arts (ELA) studies because these disciplines have long been considered foundational for all learning as well as for participating in virtually every domain of work and public life. An indicator of the perceived centrality of language arts in the school program is that reading, writing, and social studies (the languagebased disciplines) command much more instructional time than mathematics and science in

elementary and middle school curricula. Wilkinson, Murphy, and Binici (2015) provide a helpful review of studies in reading comprehension. They begin by reporting on Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, and Alexander’s metaanalysis (2009) of 42 quantitative studies on the effects of guided text discussion on learning, using nine major approaches to teaching through discussion. On measures of teacher and student talk, researcherdeveloped measures of comprehension (such as persuasive essays), and standardized tests of reading comprehension, Murphy et al. found a wide range of effect sizes for literal and inferential comprehension, critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation. Effect sizes tended to be highest for measures of teacher and student talk, and lowest for standardized test scores. We interpret these findings as evidence that dialogic methods can help students practice the skills and habits that are traditionally valued in ELA classrooms. The results support claims that dialogic teaching can be used to increase performance in the classroom. But what is the evidence that such classroom performances transfer to new texts and interpretive tasks, and to standardized test scores? Wilkinson et al. (2015) reviewed several studies that examined this question. They initially examined correlational (as opposed to intervention) studies. Among these, Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, and Gamoran (2003) found that discussion practices involving challenging reading tasks were positively related to students’ writing performances. Earlier, Langer (2001) had shown that smallgroup and wholeclass discussion was one of the characteristics of schools with overall higher than expected ELA achievement. Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and Walpole (2000) and Bitter, O’Day, Gubbins, and Socias (2009) found that teachers’ use of higherlevel questions predicted students’ greater reading achievement in highpoverty schools. No causal link is proven by these studies, but they do show an association between dialogic instruction and higher achievement. Wilkinson et al. (2015) also identified nine intervention studies that involved dialogic teaching of reading. Two of these—Questioning the Author and Junior Great Books—were intended to improve reading skills. Two others—Collaborative Reasoning and Philosophy for Children—aimed to develop reasoning skills through textual engagement. We will discuss them later. Questioning the Author (Beck & McKeown, 2006; Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, & Worthy, 1996; McKeown & Beck, 2015) is an approach to book discussion that is based on current theories of the comprehension process. At key points during the reading of a text, a Questioning the Author teacher will pause to ask questions such as, “What’s going on here?,” “How does that connect to what we read earlier?,” or “How does what Kim said fit in with what David noticed back on page 4?” Reviewing two studies of the program, Wilkinson et al. found the effects to vary from 0.09 for “comprehension monitoring” in one study to 0.47 for “recall of transfer text” in the other. Two other chapters (McKeown & Beck and Matsumura & Garnier) in Resnick, Asterhan, and Clarke (2015) speak to the effectiveness of Questioning the Author. McKeown and Beck note

that their studies of the program’s implementation showed that over time teachers’ questions focused more on meaning, and class discussions involved more connections and responses to others’ statements, compared to baseline lessons. Matsumura and Garnier report on two years of a randomized controlled trial of a literacy coaching program in a district that used Questioning the Author. Over the course of the study, English language learners in the intervention significantly raised their reading achievement. Junior Great Books (Great Books Foundation, 1987) is a literacy development program that engages students in reading texts that are widely considered to be the “Great Books” of Western civilization. The program involves students in interpretive discussions of stories with enduring themes, as well as vocabulary study, directed notetaking, and writing about the theme, all in a process known as shared inquiry. Although Junior Great Books began as a program for children identified as “gifted,” it was later used with success in previously low achieving urban schools (Wheelock, 2000). For Junior Great Books, Wilkinson et al. report effect sizes from 0.44 to 0.46 for vocabulary and critical thinking/reading. As Wilkinson et al. note, this is a small number of studies, and only two of the nine involved random assignment of students to conditions. They also note that the question of why results transfer to new texts and tasks had not systematically been investigated. Overall, the authors conclude that there is sufficient evidence to claim that discussion can help students better understand the text at hand, but that “the jury is still out” on whether—and why—discussion of one text produces greater ability to understand new texts in the future.

13.4.2 Math and Science Surprisingly for many, it has been guided discussions of mathematics and science problems that have shown the greatest transfer effects, including transfer to other disciplines (far transfer), sometimes several years later (longterm transfer ). Two of the earliest demonstrations of improved learning and transfer in mathematics come from studies of the work of classroom teachers who used what we now call Accountable Talk methods in primary grade teaching of math. Project Challenge was developed by master teacher Nancy Anderson and scholars at Boston University for one of the lowestperforming school districts in Massachusetts (Chapin & O’Connor, 2012; O’Connor, Michaels, & Chapin, 2015). The intervention provided elementary school students with complex problems, projects, and arithmetic learning through games, and focused on getting students to explain their mathematical thinking. After one year, 57% of Project Challenge students scored “Advanced” or “Proficient” on the Massachusetts state mathematics test, compared with only 38% in Massachusetts overall. After three years in Project Challenge, 82% of students scored in the “Advanced” or “Proficient” ranges on the state test, compared to only 40% for Massachusetts sixth graders overall. In a posthoc comparison study, the researchers also looked at ELA scores on the state test for a smaller group of Project Challenge students and a control group. Surprisingly, they found that Project Challenge students’ ELA scores were also much higher than those of the control group, although the intervention took place only in math classes. Effect sizes for both math and ELA

were over 1.1. In one of the earliest examples of dialogic teaching that produced transfer, Victoria Bill, an exceptional teacher in an innercity Catholic school in Pittsburgh that served mainly African American students, worked with a group of researchers to create lessons that involved elementary school students in a process of shared mathematical reasoning (Resnick, Bill, Lesgold, & Leer, 1991; Bill, Leer, Reams, & Resnick, 1992). The lessons began with whole class discussion of a problem situation within a realworld context, followed by team work and more discussion as each team reported out. The researchers saw dramatic change after only a few months. At the beginning of the school year, only about one third of first graders could count orally to 100, or solve smallnumber addition problems. By December, most students could perform multidigit addition and subtraction problems successfully, and at least half were using invented procedures that showed they understood the underlying math. On the California Achievement Test, Bill’s firstgrade students’ scores jumped from about the 25th percentile to the 80th percentile in math. Her second graders’ scores rose similarly. And both cohorts’ scores also rose in reading, from about the 25th percentile to the 45th percentile or above, although reading had not been part of the intervention. Perhaps the most startling, when their research was first reported, were studies in British schools by Philip Adey and Michael Shayer on what they termed cognitive acceleration. Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE), for students aged 11 to 14, featured intervention lessons based on Piaget’s schemata of formal operations, including ratio and proportionality, probability, and so on (Adey & Shayer, 1990, 2015). A core principle of the intervention was cognitive conflict: the idea that the mind develops in response to stimuli that disrupt existing structures and cause new structures to form (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Therefore, the lessons were constructed around problems that resisted shallow interpretations or quick resolution. The researchers did not see strong results on school performance when students were first tested. But when students who had participated in CASE took the British national examinations (GCSEs) as 16 year olds, they performed significantly better than students of similar social and educational backgrounds who had not participated in CASE (Shayer, 1999). The CASE group outscored other students not only in science, but also in English and mathematics. The researchers were able to expand CASE to many more schools, with similarly positive results (Adey & Shayer, 2015). Taken together, these are effects of surprising magnitude and duration. It appears that talking through problems in math and science can produce learning gains that go well beyond the subjects taught.

13.4.3 Logic and Reasoning Although there are no labeled courses or subject matters in the standard K12 curriculum that are charged with teaching reasoning and logic skills, there has been substantial research on ways of developing such abilities (cf. Kuhn, 2005; Kuhn & Zillmer, 2015). Two such programs have shown transfer effects of considerable interest: Philosophy for Children and

Collaborative Reasoning. Philosophy for Children, originated in the United States by Lipman (1981, 2003), aims to develop students’ critical reasoning skills through dialogue about philosophical questions, such as “What is truth?,” “What is happiness?,” or “Is it ever right to deprive someone of his/her freedom?” Starting with a text or another stimulus (such as a video), the teacher guides students through a dialogic process in which they are encouraged to question one another, to consider multiple answers to a question, to justify their own opinions with reasons, and to change their minds based on the worth of someone else’s argument. Topping and Trickey (2007a, 2007b, 2015) studied a variant of Philosophy for Children that was implemented in a school district in Scotland. The cognitive abilities test (CAT), a standardized test of general intelligence, was administered before the intervention and twice afterward. The experimental group showed significant gains between the pretest and the first posttest, in verbal, nonverbal, and quantitative reasoning abilities, while the control group showed none. The experimental group maintained these gains for two more years, despite no further intervention, while the control group’s scores went down. Philosophy for Children does not involve nonverbal or quantitative reasoning; therefore, the results can be considered to be evidence of transfer. A more recent, larger study (Education Endowment Foundation, 2015) of a year of Philosophy for Children implementation in a range of schools in England showed similar but less spectacular results. On the national Key Stage 2 tests in both reading and mathematics, scores showed a positive impact of the program, with economically disadvantaged students making the biggest gains. Overall, Philosophy for Children students gained an additional two months’ attainment. Scores on the CAT, however, showed a smaller positive impact of the program, compared to Topping and Trickey’s studies. The transfer to CAT benefit was significant only for relatively advantaged students. Collaborative Reasoning (Anderson, Chinn, Waggoner, & Nguyen, 1998; Chinn & Anderson, 1998) engages students in discussions of ethical dilemmas, public policy questions, or issues of science that are posed in stories. In small groups and in wholeclass discussions, students take positions on the “big question” of a story (e.g., “Are zoos good places for animals?”), learn to argue for and against their positions, and build arguments together. While discussions are carefully structured and monitored by teachers, over time children take on some leadership functions, including encouraging others to participate and monitoring progress. Sun, Anderson, Lin, and Morris (2015) have looked at how leaders emerge in Collaborative Reasoning discussions, and Anderson et al. (2001) have documented the way argument stratagems spread from one child to another during discussions. In a study involving children in Mideast China, Sun, Anderson, Perry, and Lin (2017) investigated whether or not the social skills involved in being a discussion leader would translate to a new group and a different task. On a mathematics task that involved spatial reasoning, students who had previously engaged in Collaborative Reasoning made more effective leadership moves and produced significantly better problem solutions compared to a control group. Collaborative Reasoning discussions do not include mathematics—therefore

these results can also be interpreted as transfer.

13.5 Why Might Dialogue Produce These Results? Several attempts have been made to explain the results of dialogic teaching on student outcomes, ranging from cognitive to more motivationalsocial accounts. First, dialogic learning involves a shift in pedagogical thinking from valuing an inert, correctly stated “right answer” to valuing the thinking process, even if this entails considerable struggle. If the goal is to put an idea on the table, then its form of expression is less important than its content. If the goal is to contribute to an argument, then emergent and halfformed ideas and statements are accepted as a valid contribution to the process. This shift in focus opens up many more possibilities for student participation. Second, students engage actively with content, rather than passively. They are asked to reason about content, rather than to memorize facts or follow rules to solve a string of similar problems. Over time, they develop a repertoire of reasoning skills (Koedinger & Wiese, 2015) and stratagems (Reznitskaya et al., 2008), such as “If I’m considering a claim, search for evidence against it,” and “If given evidence against a claim, find a counterargument.” With practice, these skills and stratagems become increasingly refined, and available to be used in other settings (Koedinger & Wiese, 2015). Third, Nussbaum and Asterhan (2016) have proposed that participation in classroom argumentation strengthens an even more basic set of capacities, those known as proactive executive control strategies. These strategies involve intentionally activating or inhibiting certain cognitive processes. Recent findings have shown that the acquisition and strengthening of these strategies can transfer to tests of fluid intelligence (Taatgen, 2013). Nussbaum and Asterhan suggest that similar processes may be at work during argumentationrich activities. For example, when one is considering someone else’s counterargument, one has to “protect the mind” from interference by one’s argument, and then switch attention back to one’s argument to advocate for or to evaluate it. Fourth is a Vygotskyian explanation that suggests the structure of talk in the classroom shapes what students think is expected of them. Some (e.g., Greeno, 2015) argue that the form of the question evokes from students the cognitive processes needed to respond. Thus when a teacher says to a student, “I’m not sure I have your thinking right. Are you saying…?,” the student is prompted to reevaluate and possibly further selfexplain or elaborate on his or her proposition. By contrast, a question such as “What is the answer to question 5?” may only prompt identification of an already workedout solution. Fifth, a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006)—the belief that working through intellectual challenges makes the brain smarter—is implicit in the dialogic classroom. Decades of research have shown that students who believe that the mind can grow are more successful academically than those who see intelligence as fixed (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Yeager & Walton, 2011). The implicit message in dialogic classrooms is that one becomes knowledgeable by investing more effort, by thinking more, and by searching for

different options and comparing their outcomes. Thus, children may learn not to shy away from intellectual challenges, to learn from their errors, and to persist when faced with failure— characteristics that have been associated with greater academic success.

13.6 Dialogic Learning in Practice: Why the Resistance? This chapter has presented evidence that dialogic teaching is capable of enhancing learning to a remarkable degree. We have also shown that dialogic teaching is now a major focus among scholars in the learning sciences. Despite the growing and increasingly convincing evidence for the power of dialogic instruction, however, not very much of it is going on in most schools. There are plenty of professional development offerings that claim to help teachers learn dialogic teaching skills, but most are shallow and not empirically tested. Many school textbooks contain suggested “discussion” topics as an extension of the “basic” instructional material they offer. But efforts to seriously adopt dialogic teaching as a core (and constant) instructional method are not common. And even when a school or district takes up a plan for increasing this kind of instruction, it is rarely fully implemented. Why is this the case?

13.6.1 Public and Professional Beliefs One answer may lie in deeply held, shared beliefs about learning and intelligence that underlie almost every aspect of schooling. The public at large continues to believe that differences in inherited intelligence explain most differences in learning success. Many assume that only some people can think and reason at high levels, while the rest can only work toward acquiring a fixed body of knowledge. In addition, many teachers (as well as parents) believe that children must learn facts before they can engage in the kinds of conversations that build conceptual understanding. “My students don’t know enough to have a meaningful conversation” is a frequent comment from teachers who first encounter dialogic teaching. If learning is understood as mastering the individual components of a task one by one, then “drill and practice”—the most common form of instruction worldwide—makes sense, especially in a field like math, where knowledge is relatively hierarchical. The view that knowledge consists of accumulating bits of information is supported by teacher training programs, school districts’ “scope and sequence” documents, and assumptions about learning that are embedded in the curriculum and within tests. It is also consonant with (although not required by) the still dominant psychological theory of better learning through direct instruction (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). This set of views supports the related belief that only some students—those already advantaged by race and social class—can benefit from dialogic teaching. Pauli and Reusser (2015); Klieme, Pauli, and Reusser (2009); and Pauli, Reusser, and Grob (2007) documented a systematic bias against using dialogic methods in classrooms in Switzerland and Germany— except for classrooms populated primarily by students at the top of the academic ladder within their school systems. The same bias against using these methods with “ordinary” or “weak” or

“less intelligent” students is also present in other countries. Students themselves may hold the view that they don’t “know enough” to engage in a deep classroom discussion. In a longitudinal study of talk in a biology classroom, Clarke (2015) found that students viewed discussion as a display of knowledge, rather than the site where knowledge is created. As a result, almost half the students she was studying remained mostly silent over a sixweek observation period.

13.6.2 Teachers’ Knowledge and Skills, and School Conditions Frequently, willing teachers have tried and failed to create and sustain dialogic classrooms. These may have been failures to manage or maintain discussions, or instances where teachers gave up because they did not see immediate improvement in student outcomes.3 These failures have not been systematically investigated, but we can propose a few explanations. Orchestrating productive discussions requires a set of complex skills that develop through extended practice, coaching, and reflection—time that teachers are rarely given. Especially in math and science, some teachers lack the necessary content knowledge to guide their students through the kind of discussions that result when students are encouraged to wonder aloud and share their observations. Without sustained support from peers and supervisors, teachers are likely to regress to “safe” forms of classroom talk—such as teacherled discussion in which students answer a sequence of questions that yields a shared correct answer to a complex question but does not engage them in cognitive struggle. In some cases, teachers and/or students are uncomfortable with argument in general, which may be associated with unpleasantness or disrespect. In others, teachers “water down” talk by focusing on social aspects of discussion such as how many students made contributions, instead of helping them build an argument that makes a claim on truth. Finally, testing plays an increasingly important role in schools, with two or even three rounds of diagnostic testing, weeks of state test administration, and months spent on test preparation. The focus on test scores crowds out other forms of instruction, and renders suspect anything considered to be innovation.

13.7 Next Steps It should be clear from the proceeding section that we will not see widespread dialogic teaching without social, as well as intellectual, change. Teachers, students, parents, and scholars have all been socialized into practices that assume knowledge can be transmitted. These practices actively—although not intentionally—block attempts to build students’ minds. Beyond new policies and pedagogies, we need a culture change in schools. To move in this direction, we first recommend placing this work in the hands of groups of committed teachers. Technology now allows individual teachers to look outside of their districts for training, coaching, and other kinds of support. In the future, scholars and foundations may create new ways of collaborating and new interventions to help provide teachers with the other elements they need to be successful: opportunities to try out new approaches, thoughtful feedback on their efforts to change their practice, and adequate time for

reflection. Perhaps most importantly, teachers will need a sense of “professional safety” while they attempt profound changes in social engagement within their classrooms. There will need to be “safe spaces” as teachers try out, and further develop, new ways of teaching. Scholars of learning and teaching must prepare themselves for new forms of interaction and partnership with educators. We will need to tell and retell the story behind the research evidence that makes dialogic teaching so promising. We will need to maintain our commitment to scientific standards of evidence, while simultaneously finding ways to describe and evaluate, and eventually perhaps spread, the difficult work that leading teachers are undertaking. Current research tells a promising and, to many, a surprising story. The research shows that in certain dialogic classrooms, all kinds of students learned more than they were directly taught. We do not see these results in classrooms where drill and practice is the norm. And this is not just the latest version of “discovery education,” which often turns out only to benefit already advantaged students. Dialogic teaching and learning, then, may be a game changer, offering the possibility of creating more intellectual competence among more individuals. In short, this is a story about human potential. It can no longer be ignored.

References Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 267–285. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (2015). The effects of cognitive acceleration. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 127–140). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 170–186). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Anderson, R. C., NguyenJahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S.Y., Reznitskaya, A., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussionbased approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with Questioning the Author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the Author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385–414. Bill, V. L., Leer, M. N., Reams, L. E., & Resnick, L. B. (1992). From cupcakes to equations: The structure of discourse in a primary mathematics classroom. Verbum, 1(2), 63–85. Bitter, C., O’Day, J., Gubbins, P., & Socias, M. (2009). What works to improve student literacy achievement? An examination of instructional practices in a balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14, 17–44. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. Chapin, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Project Challenge: Using challenging curriculum and mathematical discourse to help all students learn. In C. DudleyMarling & S. Michaels (Eds.), High expectation curricula: Helping all students succeed with powerful learning (pp. 113– 127). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Chinn, C., & Anderson, R. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315–368. Clarke, S. N. (2015). The right to speak. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 167–180). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Education Endowment Foundation. (2015). Philosophy for children: Evaluation report and executive summary. London, UK: Education Endowment Foundation. Great Books Foundation. (1987). An introduction to shared inquiry. Chicago, IL: The Great Books Foundation. Greeno, J. G. (2015). Classroom talk sequences and learning. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 255–262). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground line control rooms. Journal of ComputerSupported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(1), 69–94. Heath, S. B. (1991). “It’s about winning!” The language of knowledge in baseball. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96(1), 67–93. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561–579. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problembased, experiential and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Koedinger, K. R., & Wiese, E. S. (2015). Accounting for socializing intelligence with the KnowledgeLearningInstruction Framework. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 275–286). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kuhn, D., & Zillmer, N. (2015). Developing norms of discourse. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 77–86). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837–880. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lipman, M. (1981). Philosophy for children. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: Programs for teaching thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 35–38). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricular Development. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Matsumura, L. C., & Garnier, H. E. (2015). Embedding dialogic teaching in the practice of a large school system. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 415–426). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2015). Effective classroom talk is reading comprehension instruction. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 51–62). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Mead, G. H. (1922/1964). A behavioristic account of the significant symbol. In A. J. Reck (Ed.). Selected writings: George Herbert Mead (pp. 240–247). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ highlevel comprehension of text: A metaanalysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764. Nussbaum, E. M., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2016). The psychology of far transfer from classroom argumentation. In F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, & S. Felletti (Eds.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion (pp. 407–423). London, UK: College Publications, Studies in Logic and Argumentation series. O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., & Chapin, S. (2015). “Scaling down” to explore the role of talk in learning: From district intervention to controlled classroom study. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 111– 126). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2015). Discursive cultures of learning in (everyday) mathematics teaching in German and Swiss classrooms. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 181–193). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Pauli, C., Reusser, K., & Grob, U. (2007). Teaching for understanding and/or selfregulated learning? A videobased analysis of reformoriented mathematics instruction in Switzerland. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 294–305. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London, UK: Routledge. Pontecorvo, C., & Fasulo, A. (1997). Learning to argue in family shared discourse. In L. B. Resnick, C. Pontecorvo, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (Eds.). (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Resnick, L. B., Bill, V. L., Lesgold, S. B., & Leer, M. N. (1991). Thinking in arithmetic class. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to atrisk students (pp. 27–53). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Li, Y., Kim, I.H., & Kim, S.Y. (2008). Learning to think well: Application of argument schema theory to literacy instruction. In C. C. Block & S. R. Paris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Researchbased best practices (2nd ed., pp. 196–213). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184. Shayer, M. (1999). Cognitive acceleration through science education II: Its effects and scope. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 883–902. Suchman, L. (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In L. B. Resnick, C. Pontecorvo, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Sun, J., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.J., & Morris, J. (2015). Social and cognitive development during collaborative reasoning. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 63–75). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Sun, J., Anderson, R. C., Perry, M., & Lin, T.J. (2017). Emergent leadership in children’s cooperative problem solving groups. Cognition and Instruction, 1–24. doi:10.1080/07370008.2017.1313615 Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 339–471. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in lowincome schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121–165. Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive effects at 10–12 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,

271–288. Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007b). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children: Cognitive gains at twoyear followup. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 787–796. Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2015). The role of dialogue in Philosophy for Children. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 99–110). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wheelock, A. (2000). The Junior Great Books program: Reading for understanding in high poverty urban elementary schools. A report prepared for the Junior Great Books Program. (ERIC No. ED441927). Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogueintensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. In L. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 37–50). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Socialpsychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301.

Notes 1 This statement is a comparison of the number of journal articles produced by the search term “classroom dialogue” published between 1900 and 2000, and between 2000 and 2016. The search was conducted in July 2016. 2 Accountable Talk is a registered trademark of the University of Pittsburgh. 3 A substantial body of research shows that the benefits of dialogic teaching are often delayed (e.g., Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; Crowell & Kuhn, 2014; Howe, McWilliam, & Cross, 2005; Kapur, 2011, 2012; Schwartz & Martin, 2004).

14 Guiding and Promoting Student Learning: Applying Theory to Practice LeAnn G. Putney1, Connie L. Malin2, Teresa Miller2, Sarah Crosby2, and Bobbie Stanley2 1 University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2 Innovations International Charter School of Nevada If we teach today As we taught yesterday, Then we rob our children Of tomorrow

14.1 Introduction These words from John Dewey (1916/1966) express the essence of the changing education in our society today. While many of us were taught a variety of teaching methods on how to engage students in learning, it is evident that teachers need to be aware of the changing needs of our world and to be flexible enough to incorporate new methods of engaging today’s learners. Whether we use paper and pencil, technology, lecture, discovery, or anything else that becomes fashionable for our time in teaching, one thing remains the same. No new element can become a substitute for wellprepared teachers, school leaders, or building a strong school climate/culture. The typical path for prospective teachers is to develop knowledge of educational theory and pedagogy, see how these can become a part of their own mission statement, and then make these methodologies a part of who they are when they begin to teach. This involves experimentation, developing a comfort zone, and feeling out what level of children with which one prefers to work. At the basic elementary level, this involves looking at the whole child while developing curricular knowledge and learning proficiency. At the middle and high school level, while the whole child is critical, it becomes about how much content the student can master to show proficiency and mastery. Recent research conducted by the Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education, supported by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2015), resulted in an itemization of 20 principles related to teaching and learning. Of those 20, two principles were common to directing classroom learning so that students are highly involved and engaged in their learning processes. For purposes of this chapter, we will highlight the two principles from the APA study, and through our dialogic inquiry among the authors discuss how we have addressed those two principles throughout our work together as a team in a public charter school.

The authors of this chapter have been together as a team for many years. While we all come to the table with different backgrounds, varied strengths, and a preference for how we teach, we all share one common goal. Simply put, we believe that all students are capable of learning and that our job as educators is to tap into this ability, customize the learning environment to foster this learning, and celebrate the successes of each child on a daily basis. Here now begins the story of a journey we have all taken with different aspects of teaching practices to establish a learning community where all students learn. Our intention with this chapter is to demonstrate how the theories we examined in our education courses were enacted in our educational spaces. While we each developed our individual teaching sense, when we came to instruct together in an alternative public school setting, we pooled our individual understandings into a more collective knowledge of what has worked for us in the past while recognizing that we are learning as we go when we bring our knowledge together in a collective educational space. We entered into a selfreflective study to better understand the lived experiences of five educators who came together in an alternative school setting for underrepresented children. We wanted to know what it was in our educational past that brought us to this setting in which we work together to facilitate learning in a K12 public charter school, sponsored by the local school district. From the initial formation of the charter, through a decade of working in the school, our focus has been on rewriting “the 3Rs” of education to form a collaborating space in which student and student learning are the central focus. Our charter includes the notion of constructing an educational space that builds relevance, responsibility, and relationships. While we were interested in what started us on the journey to become education specialists, we also wanted to show how our theoretically based practice changed over time. By focusing on what we have seen work in our educational space, especially given a different context of working in a public charter school, we can indicate what implications our work may have for novice and preservice teachers.

14.2 School Reform Initiatives In the decade since our charter school opened, we have witnessed a number of educational reform efforts touted as promoting student learning. As answers to the legislative mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), then Race to the Top (RTTT), and now Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), educational reformers have implemented numerous reform efforts with varying approaches to holding teachers and schools accountable. At the same time, those of us involved in the school have experienced reform efforts such as the Accelerated Schools Project (Levin, 1996; McCarthy & Levin, 1992), teacher leadership capacity (Lambert, 2005), professional development schools (DarlingHammond, 2005), and more recently, professional learning communities (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). Many of these initiatives are still being used in some form in schools today. The essential elements of each of these initiatives differ somewhat, and yet the premise behind each of them is the belief that teachers are the most important instructional element in the

classroom. In addition they build on the notion that empowerment of teachers leads to empowerment of students and therefore school improvement. For example, one of the key elements of Accelerated Schools (Levin, 1996; McCarthy & Levin, 1992) is a philosophy based on shared leadership. The expectation is for all stakeholders, parents, students, school staff members, and community members to carry the vision of the school so that all are prepared to help learners achieve success. The principles of unity of purpose, empowerment coupled with responsibility, and building on strengths are the cornerstones of the learning foundation. Under this effort, dedicated administrators and staff work together through an inquirybased process to problem pose and problem solve issues directly related to their school, with student academic progress as the likely outcome. In a similar vein, Lambert (2005) defined leadership capacity as “reciprocal, purposeful learning together in community” (p. 38). Lambert (2005) further identified critical elements of high leadership capacity schools. These elements ranged from core values of democratization and equity to all members of the school accepting responsibility for all students’ learning. In such schools, teachers defined themselves as learners as well as teachers and as leaders as they encouraged experimentation and discovery with their students while they engaged in experimentation through inquiry and reflection on their practice. Research on professional development schools (PDS) indicates that a “common goal among PDSs is to improve the education of teachers by forming centers of collaboration between higher education and public schools that serve as models for inquiry and best practice” (Byrd & McIntyre, 1999, p. vii). The rationale behind these schools was to move beyond the traditional relationship of K12 classrooms to universities and colleges by “forming true partnerships with efforts to jointly improve the education environment for children, beginning teachers, practicing teachers, and college and university faculty” (p. viii). While each partnership was carried out in particular ways, the PDS movement had key elements in place that were common as standards of practice. These included standards related to constructing a supportive learning community, addressing accountability and quality assurance, developing university and school relationships, promoting equity and diversity, and addressing the need for infrastructure that supports the school (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2014). The expectation for a PDS is that the increased focus on collaborative efforts toward professional development for teachers will result in increased student achievement. More recently schools have established professional learning communities (PLCs), As noted by Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008), “professional learning communities focus around the central need to improve student learning through the improvement of teaching practices” (p. 82). Characteristics of PLCs relate to shared values and norms, clear and consistent focus on student learning, and dialogic interactions among teachers by embedding student learning and teacher collaboration into the culture of the school. Thus, purposeful teacher discussions concerning students in conjunction with ongoing professional development empower teachers to engage in methods of instruction that align with student needs to accomplish goals set in academic content standards.

Each of these initiatives shows promise in improving schools and yet we continually seek new answers to the question of how to improve the K12 school systems. As we came upon the recent APA (2015) study that listed 20 principles for K12 schools, we were struck by how much the works of the educators we came to know through our educational psychology courses still resonate in the new composite of “what works.” In particular, we focused on Principles 16 and 17 as they answer the question, “How can the classroom best be managed?” Specifically these two principles answer the question as follows: (1) Principle 16— Expectations for classroom conduct and social interaction are learned and can be taught using proven principles of behavior and effective classroom instruction; and (2) Principle 17— Effective classroom management is based on (a) setting and communicating high expectations, (b) consistently nurturing positive relationships, and (c) providing a high level of student support. We believe that the principles we initially carved into the charter, in relation to the theorists who support those, are still critical to our work as a K12 team to foster teacher leadership, innovation, and positive student outcomes that may not necessarily be directly related to test scores. We will outline the theoretical foundations for composing the charter and establishing the school a decade ago. We then will demonstrate the practical application of those theories as we constructed the culture of the school together as a leadership collective. Our intention is not so much to conduct a review of literature related to teacher education as it is to show what it means to put into practice our working educational theories, and to demonstrate how educators from different educational spaces can bring their theories and actions together in ways that complement each other as we work together to create a relevant, responsible, and relational educational space.

14.3 Theoretical Foundations of the Charter School When we began the preliminary work together of writing the initial charter that governs our school, Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN), we envisioned a school that fit the notion of a “thought community” from the work of JohnSteiner and Mahn ( 1996, p. 204). Their study of collaborative groups at work from a sociocultural perspective suggested four patterns of activity among group members: distributed, complementary, family, and integrative. The patterns suggest that working methods, values, and roles are shared and become increasingly interwoven as groups work more closely together in collaborative decisionmaking. What we intended to achieve in our charter school was the integrative pattern from John Steiner and Mahn’s (1996, p. 200) study. The integrative pattern suggests that working methods move from the “dynamic integration of expertise” seen in the family pattern to a “unified voice.” In this respect, the participants bring together their ideas and ideals in a way that adds a unity of purpose to their curricular activities. Furthermore, the values move beyond being shared goals and objectives to becoming a “construction of shared ideologies” while the roles of the collaborators move from being “fluid” to becoming “braided.” JohnSteiner and Mahn (1996) further note that the integrative pattern from a sociocultural approach to learning can

lead to transformative educational practices, particularly for “the linguistically and culturally diverse who historically have been marginalized by traditional models of pedagogy” (p. 204). We did not expect to find that this integrative pattern would happen immediately, but our intention was to continue to have that as our overarching goal, both at the schoolwide and classroom levels. We believed that working toward the integrative model would best serve the teachers and students in constructing an engaged school and classroom community. As college students prepare to enter the teaching profession, preservice teachers are obligated to study a variety of educational theorists in order to finetune their own pedagogy. In alternative routes to licensure, the theory and pedagogy of education is critical to understanding child development and the intricate steps to how a subject is actually delivered for student mastery. Shulman (1986) developed the idea of pedagogical content knowledge, meaning the knowledge of content and pedagogy should be reciprocal and their relationships studied, instead of being taught in isolation. Knowledge of disciplinary subjects and pedagogical strategies is not sufficient. Rather, teachers need to take into account issues of content and pedagogy taken together. They must incorporate strategies needed to unfold and reorganize the understandings of each of their learners in order to best make knowledge accessible to learners. Pedagogical content knowledge continues to be extended, critiqued, and updated by scholars and has been examined relative to specific content areas such as science and math and the use of technology to help students learn the content. (See also Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Magnuson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001; Stoilescu, 2015.)

14.3.1 Humanistic Psychology and Abraham Maslow In a broader sense of what is needed for successful classrooms, educational psychologists have examined the socialemotional needs of learners. Not only must teachers be prepared to cope with content knowledge dissemination in the most effective ways, but they also must understand the psychological aspects that can affect student learning. CrainThoreson and Dale (1992) noted that Maslow was one of the initial people to move toward a humanistic psychology for investigating what motivates people. In so doing, Maslow (1943, 1970) formulated his hierarchy of needs noting that each person has six specific kinds of needs that move us to action or the lack thereof. The most basic of human needs are those involving the need to survive, including the need for water, air, food, and sleep. Once these basic needs are met, humans progress into the need for safety. The need for safety is critical to survival, but not as demanding as the basic need for food and shelter. Progressing forward, people have the need to belong to a group, to be loved, and to have affection. Relationships, friendships, families, and companionship all fall into this category. Higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy include the need for an intact selfesteem, personal worth, social recognition, and finally, a highly developed sense of selfawareness and personal growth. Tay and Diener ( 2011) conducted a longitudinal international study and found that the needs were indeed universal, while the hierarchical nature remained in question as perhaps being too rigid. They noted that some of the higherorder needs can be attained before the lowerlevel needs may be totally met.

While not a current theory, Maslow’s work still resonates with those in the field who work with children whose basic needs are not being met to the degree that one would expect. This can be illustrated at the charter school where each of the five authors of this chapter is educationally involved. Each morning the school opens at 6:30 to help students with homework, tutor them in classes where they struggle, provide physical movement to help them manage their energy for the day, and serve them breakfast so they can focus on their class work, thus meeting some of the most basic needs (Maslow, 1970). The afterschool program is also designed to help with homework, offer tutorial assistance, provide organized sports participation, and provide dinner for the students who have stayed for the program. Essentially, many of the students receive free breakfast, lunch, and dinner at the school each day the school is open. These services allow parents to work the hours they need to provide clothing, security, and a home for the children knowing that their children are fed and that they are receiving academic assistance each day. What educators may not fully understand until experience becomes the teacher is that not all children sitting in the classroom have even the most basic of needs met. In schools with underserved populations, children may enter the classroom each day without food, without adequate sleep, and without a feeling of being safe from environmental and neighborhood influences. In establishing these wraparound services, the leadership team is seeking to bring theory and practice into play at the school. Those higherlevel needs of affiliation, self esteem, personal worth, social recognition, and sense of selfawareness and personal growth are essential components of the classroom. Thus, theory and practice meet at the crossroads in the teaching experience whereby teachers develop a classroom culture that supports all children in their care based on individualized student needs. For preservice and novice teachers the recognition of these underlying issues may come as a surprise initially, and they may need more mentoring to be able to adequately mediate the conditions of their students. For example, for the first week before classes at the beginning of our charter school each year, we devote a portion of our professional development seminars to understanding the sociocultural context of our students. We match new teachers with more experienced colleagues and then we ask the returning teachers to list the strengths of the students who were in their classrooms the prior year. Then we ask them to list the challenges they faced with some of their students. By celebrating the strengths first, we establish that the potential challenges are ones that can be overcome as long as we meet the most critical needs first, and then begin to address the higherorder needs throughout the year.

14.3.2 Progressive Education and John Dewey While Maslow established a needs hierarchy from a psychological point of view, other theorists have approached education from a more pragmatic view. Progressive educators maintained the purpose of education as being the means of preparing youth for responsibilities and success in life (Dewey, 1938). Dewey (1916/1966) recognized children to be active participants, who constructed knowledge in classroom activities through experiential learning. In addition, he believed that the school experience should benefit the whole child by approaching the child from artistic, intellectual, social, and moral perspectives. Furthermore,

Feeney, Moravcik, and Nolte (2013) recognized the critical contributions of Dewey as the pioneer of progressive education. They stated, “in Dewey’s view, the school community must offer children an opportunity to practice democratic ideals in a group situation and to learn through activities that involved investigation and meaningfulness” (p. 81). The role of the teacher was noted as one of the most critical elements in a child’s learning process as teachers set the stage for learning and prepare the learning environment for success. However, given that Dewey (1916/1966) calls for active participation of students, the ideal application of his theory may depend upon the teacher’s preference for an interactive style of teaching versus a more direct instruction style of delivering content information. This may depend in part on a classroom teacher’s management skills and it may also be influenced by the school leadership’s development of the school culture as it relates to accountability measures. In a time of highstakes testing and reporting of school progress to stakeholders, a school’s typical culture may have to evolve to incorporate legislation and a change in curriculum standards that seemingly may not be compatible with the more interactive curriculum supported by Dewey’s work. The challenge, then, for a teacher who is appreciative of Dewey’s theoretical base is to be able to meet the requirements imposed by outside authorities, while maintaining an interactive classroom addressing the whole child.

14.3.3 CulturalHistorical Psychology and Lev Vygotsky Vygotsky’s learning theory (1978, 1986, 1997) examines the impact of one’s social and cultural environment on the learning process. Vygotsky suggested that learning takes place through the interactions of students with their peers, teachers, and others. Particularly, he viewed students as individuals who are social and cultural beings calling upon their emotional, cognitive, and cultural interactions as tools for mediating language and making sense of what they learn (Wink & Putney, 2002). This sense of interaction with others is key to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, which indicates that learners progress in relation to others and in collaboration in problemsolving situations with more capable others. Through this process learners “grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 88). The significance of this theory then plays out in the understanding of the roles that students and teachers play within a classroom setting and the ways in which students interact with each other. Moreover, the significance of Vygotsky’s theory needs to be particularly understood when working with children who utilize English as a language beyond their heritage language. While university training may emphasize the need for teacher classroom management it may not adequately address the activation of social and academic language attainment and literacy development within the classroom setting. As noted by Wink and Putney (2002), teachers may be able to translate theory into practice yet still be “unable to make effective change in their educational space because of a sociocultural context that is tenaciously holding on to unexamined assumptions and past educational practices” (p. 26). In addition, teachers new to the field may equate classroom management with classroom silence with the teacher requesting studentgenerated answers. However, Vygotsky would have us understand that more student interaction and language development would be

beneficial for students to truly understand and master the concepts being presented in the curriculum. As Vygotsky (1986) noted, “thought undergoes many changes as it turns into speech. It does not merely find expression in speech; it finds its reality and form” (p. 219). Therefore, the teacher, encouraging language use, becomes the actuator of knowledge rather than the dispenser of information. As further explained by Wink and Putney (2002), The relationship between thought and language is reciprocal, dynamic, and constantly changing. As students learn and use new language, the process impacts their thinking, and vice versa. It is through the fusion of thinking, speaking, and our experience that we construct our knowledge. (p. 30) Thus, new teachers viewing experienced teachers using learning centers or group work may find it difficult to handle the noise in the classroom. In all actuality, a walk around a busy classroom can provide the new teacher with insights of active learningbased interaction and peer teaching taking place as groups of students share the expertise for learning new concepts. From this perspective, classrooms become a forum for constructing knowledge in the common interactional spaces through dialogue. In addition, the language used becomes an academic resource for all students, which is particularly important for linguistically diverse classrooms (Putney, 2007). As part of his educational theory, Vygotsky (1997) also offered a way for teachers to enact his theory by suggesting the following pedagogical principles for classroom teachers: (1) begin instruction with what is familiar to students, and what brings about their interests naturally, (2) interconnect topics to ensure common interest around a theme, and (3) focus instruction by reviewing and relating topics; adding new facts, generalizations, conclusions; and unpacking learning from a new perspective. Our intention is to illustrate how these theories are enacted at our school to promote classroom and schoolwide cohesion.

14.4 Setting of the Charter School The charter school in which we are engaged is a public K12 school in an urban setting with 650 students in the K6 setting and another 300 students in the 7–12 grades in a second building several blocks away. Both schools draw from the surrounding neighborhoods and also further away as parents drive their children to the school each day. Many families are able to place all of their children together in this school, which offers convenience and consistency for the families. The demographics show this to be one of the most diverse public charter schools in the local area, and similar in population to the highly diverse local urban district schools. The student population is 66% Hispanic, 16% African American, 11% White, and 7% multiracial; 17% of the children have special needs, and 42% are English language learners. In addition we issue breakfast, lunch, and afterschool meals with 95% of our children qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Students may arrive as early as 6:30 as we have many working families who need to drop their

children off on the way to work. These students receive breakfast and tutoring as needed before classes start. Regular classes begin at 8:00 and extend until 4:00, with the last hour of the day dedicated to our specialized global curriculum. The school day ends at 4:00, but additional wraparound services continue for students who are enrolled in homework sessions and afterschool courses. During the planning phase and in writing the charter that guides the school’s course offerings, our global curriculum was developed. We began with our languages and world culture classes. Here, the students learn to appreciate varied international cultures, travel, and languages associated with nations around the world. We were looking to celebrate diversity that encompassed the backgrounds of our students and families. We focused on the historical aspects of individual families, their geographical origins, their customs, languages, and cultures. We have since expanded our definition of global to describe our comprehensive approach to instruction. In other words, the classes have been designed to help students apply the theory and content of general education course work to reallife, practical experiences of activitybased classes. The global curriculum has become the hallmark of our school and has become an apprenticeship with teachers and community members serving as coaches and mentors, and students being able to select from among such offerings as ecology, recycling, batons, martial arts, girls empowerment, engineering/building structures with Legos, prerobotics, forensics, gardening, skateboarding, and sports/athletics. Many of the global courses are designed to illustrate to the students that academic concepts learned in the scholastic core classes have practical applications in reallife cases. An example of how the global classes relate to core learning is the skateboarding global, a class that was initiated in year one from a proposal written by one of our freshman students. The students learn the techniques of skating, balance, speed, thrust, and drag. However, they also learn the physics and mathematics involved in the act of skateboarding by measuring, calculating, and building their ramps used in the class. They learn how to fall and the importance of the safety equipment needed for participation in the class. They also learn the difference in the wheels, trucks, and body configurations of their boards, all tailored to their own height, weight, and size. Globally, then, the students incorporate physical agility, safety, physics, mathematics, and body awareness to enjoy the class of skateboarding while enjoying it as a sport and participating in an activity they love. While the global curriculum began as a way of celebrating languages and cultures, it has expanded into other areas of interest to students and teachers. If you ask the parents and guardians what differentiates IICSN from other schools, they will tell you, “the family atmosphere.” If you ask students in this school what makes it different from other schools they have attended, they will say, “Our global!”

14.5 Participants in Our Journey The impact a teacher has on a young child can have a longlasting effect on that child through adulthood as well as having an impact on his or her choice of a career. What we rarely examine is how early educational experiences lead to decisions we make about becoming and sustaining ourselves as educators. In what follows we illustrate the educational beginnings of

our five participants. We then discuss the educational foundations that the five brought together in terms of understanding student learning, and how those theoretical bases play out in our work together. The five participants were selected due to their collaborations in leadership activities over time in the school. We chose the cofounders, LeAnn and Connie, who also take on administrative roles of Governing Body President/Director of Research and Chief Educational Officer respectively. Teresa is the primary gradelevel chair and Sarah is the intermediate gradelevel chair, while Bobbie is the special education facilitator. Individually these participants bring their own educational approaches to the school leadership team. Collectively we bring together expertise on teaching and learning that we share with the other educators in the school. The following introductions give the reader a sense of how we each approached education to contextualize our educational support of the school. LeAnn, school cofounder, Governing Body President, and Research Director, seemed destined for a career in education. As the youngest of nine children in a rural setting, she was a creative and languagedriven student. From a young age she was playing teacher and helping tutor her peers throughout her school experience. She began as a secondary teacher, and although she did not spend her entire adult life in the field of education, she used her education skills to develop her business sense, her multicultural perspective for working with people, and her desire to work with older students as a focus for her teaching expertise. Her move into academia sparked her interest in ethnographic research, and her university position brings additional resources to the school that might not otherwise be available. Connie, the school cofounder and Chief Education Officer, was always a good student because her parents demanded that of her. As she approached high school graduation, she considered a career in teaching, but her true preference was music. Having received multiple rejections to major in music because she lacked theory classes in high school, she had to make an alternate decision to choose elementary education as her major. Fortunately this was not a great leap for her as she had many experiences in her life with small children. What was a leap was her moving into administration to oversee the political side of education to ensure the best of what was available to her staff, students, and families. Her degrees in literacy and in special education plus her educational experience in charter schools afford her a unique perspective as the instructional leader of this school. Teresa, lead firstgrade teacher and primary gradelevel chair, had always had a nurturing side. Her desire to take care of people and to be a “mommy” brought her to education. Her sense of providing an environment that enriched education and the development of the whole child was critical. At a time later in life, she finished her formal degree but as an elementary teacher, she has always carried through her need for creating a safe and nurturing environment where children can learn and thrive while being happy to intake and process knowledge at all levels. Sarah, fifthgrade teacher and intermediate gradelevel chair, had always loved school and has taken on curriculum challenges in advanced studies to better herself. Math at one time held a huge challenge for her, especially since she utilized her creativity and need for expression to

develop her literacy skills. Since Sarah has never been one to back away from a challenge, she worked to master that which caused her problems and began to feel more confident and comfortable with math and its subskills. Taking that sense of accomplishment to a higher level and actually using what she learned about persistence brought her to education. Each day she works with children, she uses her own struggles to draw parallels and analogies to what individual students can overcome in order to be more powerful in their own learning. Bobbie, special education facilitator, came from a family where education was not necessarily a high priority. After high school graduation, she took a job working with children with hearing impairments and found that she had a special knack for working with children having special needs. She received her university degree and has worked in the field of special education ever since. One of the masterful pieces that Bobbie brings to being an educator is that of leaving her comfort zone to champion those who need her most. This can be seen as she reminds people of the individuality of each student but also assists them in realizing that a disability does not make a student less than a person. She advocates daily for her students to be as normal as possible in the classroom while instructing teachers on methods for individualizing and customizing the instruction to meet the needs of her students. Looking at the educational beginnings of these five individuals, we note that each was guided by her own experiences with education. While each came away with her own strength within the education field, one common factor affecting them all was that of taking the children from where they are at any moment and moving them forward using their diversity, theory, and background experiences. Each individual described above came to education with the need to work with children, yet the environment they have established for their students focuses on the individual child as part of a larger community of learners. In what follows, we examine three major educational theories that have provided the foundations for our work with children from underserved populations in our own educational spaces in an alternative school setting.

14.6 Individualizing the Collective Charter School Mission Each of the five educators in this selfstudy subscribes to the school mission of providing our students with a safe learning environment focused on academic success by utilizing our global curriculum while preparing students for life. We work collaboratively to ensure that the school culture is productive and conducive to student learning. While we come from different orientations, we put into practice educational theories to enhance student learning. In what follows we examine how each of the five educators relates to the mission and to each other.

14.6.1 Research in the School As the Research Director, LeAnn has guided research conducted in the school to be related to the school’s mission and vision as a studentcentric focus. University researchers, from master’s and doctoral students to full professors, have conducted research in the school. Individually they have conducted research on numerous topics such as:

The benefits of teaching argumentation as a form of logical inquiry in a sixthgrade science classroom. The effects of peer tutoring through technology to improve literacy for thirdgrade English language learners (ELLs). A study of transformative multicultural science through robotics in a middle school classroom. A simulation project on environmental science. An action research project on the benefits of martial arts as physical education curriculum. A study of teenage obesity and diabetes prevention. Best practices for elementary and intermediatelevel teachers to develop academic language for ELLs. Developing practices and strategic lesson planning for developing literacy for all students, including ELLs. Understanding the benefits of differentiated instruction for students with special needs. Using gestures to improve language acquisition among early childhood learners. Understanding the use of assessment data to improve lesson planning and developing learning strategies. The researchers left materials for teachers and worked with individual teachers so that what was learned in the research could be applied in the classroom. The research conducted in these classrooms resulted in dissertations, theses, and journal articles so that what was learned with our students and teachers could benefit others as well. In addition to the outside research being conducted, LeAnn conducted research with a fifth grade teacher, Ms. Falls, to examine the discursive practices of a linguistically and culturally diverse classroom community. This ongoing research from a Vygotskian perspective on how learning leads development (Vygotsky, 1978) resulted in several practitioneroriented articles to demonstrate how constructing a cohesive community could result in student success (Putney, 2007). In addition, LeAnn and a colleague developed a Vygotskian developmental take on Bandura’s self and collective efficacy to examine student teacher efficacy (Putney & Broughton, 2010) from the work in Ms. Falls’s classroom. We also evolved the construct of Bandura’s (1997) schoolwide collective efficacy by examining the work of the classroom teacher as community organizer to facilitate the development of collective classroom efficacy (Putney & Broughton, 2011). Bringing a Vygotskian perspective as a way of looking at efficacy development brought an updated way of considering what it means to build efficacy and academic confidence through classroom interactions. Through professional development, LeAnn brought forward characteristics of highly effective teachers and teachers as classroom leaders as key facilitators of collective classroom efficacy (CCE). For example, she has shared the motivational and classroom organizational techniques

of a highly effective teacher in constructing a selfmonitoring student culture within the classroom. The structure of student empowerment and engagement then becomes a focal point in the classroom where the teacher receives feedback from students concerning their own behaviors and what could be done to have a better classroom environment. In this setting, the students take responsibility for self and others whereby they actually guide each other into making better choices as they become more immersed in their own education. They are taught to ask higherlevel questions and to use academic vocabulary in the context of paraphrasing and offering evidencedbased answers. By encouraging students to mentor each other, they actually develop a more indepth mastery of the content. As they take up a teaching role with their fellow students, they begin to create an overall sense of collective classroom efficacy (Putney & Broughton, 2011). The work that the teachers and students conduct together, in classrooms in which students are encouraged to take responsibility for their learning together, becomes a critical component of ensuring academic success. Research that encapsulates the teacher and student roles in efficacious classrooms such as this one can be used for teacher professional development to promote student empowerment and engagement.

14.6.2 Administrative Accountability As the educational leader of the school, Connie has had to cope with the everchanging student accountability mandates to empower teachers, parents, and students to follow the mission of the school while integrating high levels of critical thinking and performing as student outcomes. Professional development of stakeholders has resulted in a sharing of student achievement across and within the school while noting areas of strength and weakness in order to drive instruction. Remaining current with legislation, national standards, and researchbased curriculum has offered some challenges in maintaining studentcentered instruction. We have found in some specific cases that more direct instruction is needed for remediation, combined with our initial use of shared practices of expertise on the part of teachers, and through the use of student centered work in the classrooms. Our teachers have begun incorporating the four levels of depth of knowledge (DOK) in the classroom based on student need and performance while integrating testtaking skills necessary for documenting student achievement. DOK (Aungst, 2014; Hess, 2013; Webb, 2002) levels measure and address the levels of complexity associated with student output based on student performance levels. The base level one is usually associated with lower levels of problem solving, namely recalling information, and progresses to level four with an extended investigation and higher level problemsolving skills. Intervention classes are designed in the professional learning communities weekly, noting student progress on formative assessments that are aligned with individualized work in the content areas and based on the need for reteaching or enrichment of current academic skills. Providing parent meetings and instruction has been a powerful element in empowering families to become more aware of what is expected of their child’s educational process while enlisting them as active members of the school’s learning community. Working with community partners has been a continual vision of Connie to enlist their expertise as

tutors, volunteers, and resources to support student learning. As noted by Lambert (2005), core values of democratization and equity in high leadership capacity schools must be prevalent throughout the school, and all members of the school must accept responsibility for all students’ learning. Therefore, empowering teachers as grade level chairs and mentors has allowed Connie to share the oversight of the school with people who effect the greatest change in student behaviors and learning in the classrooms. These chairs have become the voice of their teachers in advocating for students and in mentoring their teachers to remain true to the mission of the school as it affects student learning and outcomes. In turn, the gradelevel chairs help to empower the teachers to recognize what type of professional development they need as they reflect on their teaching and student learning in gradelevel meetings. This translates to professional development that is targeted to the needs of the school rather than generating general information that may not be useful to improve student learning. Connie, as the educational leader of the school, is the developer of the school’s mission, the mentor of instructional best practices, and the overseer/manager of student behaviors. In these roles, Connie has had to help teachers take a different approach to classroom management. Many school administrators find themselves having to micromanage all aspects of running a school. This philosophy is counterintuitive of Connie’s leadership style. Since the school has been opened, Connie has developed a cadre of lead teachers/gradelevel chairs to be the first line of support for students and staff members. Following one of the key elements of the accelerated school philosophy (McCarthy & Levin, 1992), empowerment coupled with responsibility, teachers, administration, support staff, parents, and students take responsibility for putting schoolwide policies into place. Empowering all of the school’s stakeholders to unify around the culture that has been created whereby the main focus is empowering and believing that all children are capable of learning has enabled Connie to share her leadership with the gradelevel chairs. Rather than all mandates being delivered from a topdown model, the chairs meet with administration to share in implementing the decisions and outcomes. This collaborative administrative model encourages the chairs to work within their departments with staff members to design the methods and sequences for meeting the instructional standards, providing discipline, guiding mentorships, and assessing student performance to strengthen the school’s mission and vision. Connie’s style of student management has become the groundwork for the school’s mission as it looks at positive behavior supports. Through the development and use of a progressive schoolwide discipline system, the teachers and students have learned to nurture positive attitudes, celebrate good student work habits, and teach the characteristics of a respectful classroom environment. Connie also has modeled what she wants from the teachers and support staff, even though at times they have been frustrated because students were not asked to leave the school. She has had to note that when students and parents develop a sense of predictability and security for the rules of the school, they are able to better control their actions to conform with what is expected. Essentially Connie has spent many hours counseling and teaching students about the

power of choices and the positive and/or negative consequences that come with the choices. The suspension rate of the students has decreased significantly over the 10 years since the school opened. As the school has developed and refined its progressive discipline policies, it essentially has found ways to improve student behavior such as an inschool refocus of a poor choice, lunch detention, meeting with the counselors, behavior plans, and inhouse detention. The school also has taken on the mantra of do it, own it, and fix it, concerning poor student choices. In reciting the mantra, the students have to assist in developing means of communicating with others their plan to extinguish poor choices in favor of better choices. Making their own better choices affords them the opportunity to retain their own responsibility for determining their actions and consequences. As the leader of the school, Connie has taken the approach that if the students come to her over and over again for the same behaviors, nothing has changed and the students do not understand why what they did was wrong. Just as she does with her staff, Connie helps the students to note they are successful people who at times allow life to get in the way and then relinquish their power to select positive choices to others who may not yet be ready or willing to follow the rules or confines of the school.

14.6.3 Classroom Management Approaches Teresa comes to education with a strong nurturing style. She gives her students choices, comforts them when they are sad or discouraged, and uses a handson approach for teaching. She continues this approach with the teachers in her care. The early childhood teachers look at the development of the whole child when they teach. They see the interaction style and hands on approach of the parents when they bring their children to school each day. The teachers in these lower grades have acclimated their teaching styles to integrate these tendencies for working with the students in their care. She knows that asking her teachers to model what is appropriate for the young children means that she must show them what this looks and feels like. She scaffolds the teachers’ development the way she expects them to scaffold student learning in their classrooms (Palincsar & Brown, 1986). She takes care in her own department meetings and in her visits to the classrooms to model and demonstrate a teachingcaring model. Much like she does when conferencing with her students in the classrooms, she uses positive feedback and probing questions to get teachers refocused and keep them on track with the mission of the school. In doing this, she invites them to meet her for lunch each day as they informally brainstorm and share ideas for how they can improve their teaching or classroom management. She invites the teachers into her classroom to view what she does, and then when she teaches, she points out to them a variety of sound instructional practices that could easily be played out in each of their classrooms. While modeling and encouraging them, she also reminds the teachers of the developmental stages of the young child and what expectations can be met with the students and which ones set the students and themselves up for failure. Teresa’s teachers welcome her style of mentoring and willingly have developed a strong, supportive instructional team that has

coordinated their weekly planning, student talks, and homework lessons at each grade level in order to show consistency and sound educational practices. Sarah comes to education with a strong teambuilding approach. Her personal style in working with the teachers in her care is to set the rules, provide the no nonsense information that she is directed to share, give examples of what good teaching should exemplify, and then stand back and cheer them on to be a strong cohesive team. She also focuses on the needs of the students at her grade level, but since her grade team is departmentalized, she has to encourage the integration of content and positive student interaction into each of the teacher’s subject delivery. She also models what the teachers should be doing and shares how she successfully works with the students who may be having difficulties with instruction. She does this in a manner that is not demeaning or accusatory to the other teachers. She comes to her gradelevel discussions with strategies for how improvements can be made and researchbased information that shows how content delivery can be made successful for struggling students. Sarah then pushes her teachers to try new approaches and new interactional styles with each other, the students, and their families. Sarah has had to be firm at times with the teachers under her direction, which has caused her to feel frustrated, but by being firm, she has reaffirmed her positive approach to helping teachers model the positive approach needed to work with the upper elementary students. Sarah also helps the teachers understand that the whole child (Dewey, 1916/1966) is still a major consideration in teaching at their levels; however, the presence of peer pressure is yet another factor with which they have had to contend. She has done this very well again as the team builder. Sarah and her teachers have also elected to eat lunch together to discuss best instructional practices, the needs of the students and how to meet them on their levels and move them forward, and how to match what they do in the classrooms with the mission of the school. Bobbie looks at the students in a different yet similar light to the other teachers in the building. Because of her background she has become the problem solver for the teachers while they also look to her to show them how to differentiate their classroom instructional practices. The special education population of students (approximately 17% of the school) shows a high incidence of learning disabilities, a moderate number with autism syndrome, a moderate number with emotional disabilities and other health impairments, and a small number with a speech and language impairment. They spend 100% of their day in general education classrooms with occasional pullout for additional testing as directed by their accommodation plan. Bobbie does not allow teachers to let the students’ disabilities become an excuse for watering down the curriculum or for letting students sit quietly in the classrooms learning or doing nothing. She has become known as the teacher without a classroom inclusively instructing individual and small groups of children within the classrooms of other teachers. Not only does she have high expectations for all students, but she also models good teaching and the use of alternative approaches to instruction to support all students who struggle within the classroom setting. In this setting, the classroom teacher is the lead teacher while Bobbie models strategies to her

students. In this consultativecollaborative model, Bobbie may take the class through specific lessons as the lead teacher to demonstrate particular strategies through differentiated instruction. The classroom teacher can then pull higherlevel students into smaller groups while Bobbie is teaching to the remaining group. Due to her background and training, Bobbie has learned to break tasks into smaller steps or phases for completing the larger expectation. In doing this, she is able to see the performance and discuss with the students where they are having the breakdown in skills and remediates them immediately within the confines of the academic setting. The benefit of this approach is that Bobbie is now able to not only work with her assigned students, she can pull other struggling students into her group and help them overcome the obstacle that keeps them from moving forward with their own learning. Bobbie has been trained to teach a formula for learning to her students. In other words, she must break learning tasks into subtasks and subskills in order to backward chain the prerequisites of each content lesson. This approach has allowed her to predict where the students are going to have problems and intervene as necessary to offset these potential problems with students. She can then share these problem areas with the teachers so they can address them as they teach lessons to the entire classroom. Students are learning to advocate for themselves by asking questions and becoming active listeners and engaging more in academic discussions. Their communication with peers has increased as well. An example of how communication is facilitated with her students can be seen with a young man we will call Martin. Martin began with Bobbie as his advocate nine years ago when he entered second grade. At this time, his behavior was unpredictable, his academic skills were poor, and he went into a panic every time he was asked to communicate with others. He did not like being singled out in a crowd, yet needed added assistance to even establish eyetoeye contact with others for a conversation or to request assistance. Bobbie sat with the parents, the student, his teachers, and administration at an individualized education program (IEP) meeting and discussed what needed to be done to help him feel good about himself at the end of the day. They made suggestions for his action and put together a calendar by classroom and hour to work on rewarding approximations of desired skills. Martin was asked to give feedback or goal set what he wanted as a reward for his accomplishments. He was also asked to give a list of things that happened during the day to make him happy and/or sad. Martin communicated the periods of time during the day when he felt the most stress and how these times made him feel physically ill. All of those times were placed on a planning sheet with a recording/tracking sheet devised to help him through each time period of the day. Martin and Bobbie also designed a businesssized time out card. When he was overly stressed or anxious, he flashed the card to the teacher who gave permission for him to seek out Bobbie, regain his composure, and reenter the class with her. This system worked well and over the period of the school year, the time that Martin was able to remain in class and remain in control of his emotions increased. Today, Martin is one year away from graduation, sang in front of 100 people at a talent show, plays a high school sport, and still has his time out card to use when he is feeling overanxious. Bobbie, like Sarah, is a team player who has to work across multiple grade levels. She has

learned to infuse each teacher’s personality and teaching style into her approach for working with students assigned to her. However, she has also had to learn how to politely but firmly tell teachers when they are not following a student’s IEP while helping teachers get back on track so this does not become an issue for them. Ultimately, she is the enforcer of the IEP and the leader of differentiated instruction within the school setting. Children learn to live by the standards that are set for them. Ultimately students want the approval of the adults in their lives and will do what it takes to get what they are looking for. At the school, teachers have been given a series of positive reinforcements that can be used as guidelines for incentivizing students and rewarding powerful choices. These choices are making a difference in working with the students in areas of learning and discipline. Just this year alone, behavior problems have decreased by 45% as students and teachers work together to incentivize and reward positive choices and extinguish poor ones. Knowing that students are working for positive recognition, the teachers, classes, parents, and school are celebrating student learning. One of the key elements for the current school year has been the student accountability software. The system targets the assessment of students monthly to track student growth. The system allows students and parents to see their own progress and allows the entire class to look at individual and classroom assessment scores, questions missed, and misunderstandings corrected. Students are able to explain their answers, discuss their knowledge or lack thereof of the wording of the assessment questions, and gain a broader indepth knowledge for how to work through academic content skills. In essence, students are able to communicate their choices and what they need to do on the next assessment to clarify wrong choices. While this refined system has been in place for only four months, students are able to communicate what they need to do on the next month’s assessment, where they made errors, why they made their answer selections, and what they need to do to master test questions. Classrooms celebrate and parents are given access and assessment scores to reward their children at home as well. The school has shown a 5–15% increase in schoolwide achievement growth in mathematics and language arts for the last few months. The positive attitudes that students have chosen to make regarding their learning can then be modified within their classrooms or used as guidelines for recognizing the students who are making good choices daily. Some of these rewards are: (1) Pizza with the Principal, (2) incentive socials, (3) treasure chest rewards, (4) Caught You Being Good cards, (5) student of the week recognition, (6) verbal praise and classroom celebration, (7) awards/certificates, and (8) student assemblies recognizing teachers, students, and classrooms. While at times some students make poor behavioral choices that have very definite consequences, these are very rare and usually handled with added sessions with the school counselor and/or parents in order to redirect unwanted behaviors. For example, inhouse detention and inhouse suspension are the first lines of defense for students who habitually ignore the school rules or who have committed an action that demands more rigid consequences. While this happens, however, the learning environment continues and children refocus their entire day on learning rather than socializing with their friends. Once this time is

served, the student begins again on a new day working to make better choices and being invited into the classroom again with a fresh start. The counselor is integral in ensuring students remain on task and that teachers learn to advocate for their students’ success.

14.7 Guiding Student Learning in the Classroom Technology proficiency and assessment have become an extended focus for today’s education. However, it is critical to note that not all students come to school with the same background experiences with technology, making it one more critical issue for teachers to address in leveling the playing field for student achievement. One of the major changes made in our classrooms was the addition of technology. The state legislature provided grant monies for schools with student populations that were eligible for free or reduced lunches (FRL). These grants allowed for increased personnel as well as increased computer purchases. The grants were fortuitous because at the same time the new standardized testing procedures in the state required that standardized testing be technologybased, not all of our students had access to technology at home. It became critical then to bring additional technology to the classroom so that students could become more proficient in their understanding and use of computers.

14.7.1 Technology Proficiency Another puzzle for teachers is how to use technology to enrich the educational process while teaching keyboarding, research, and presentation skills to children who have had little or no opportunity to use technology in the past. As a whole, we are moving away from teachers being the sole user of technology to making technology an integral component of the curriculum and learning process where students use technology to develop critical thinking skills (Radecki, 2009). In addressing the need for technology mastery, our charter school has issued its students in grades K8 an Android tablet, using Moby Max software curriculum. Each day the students are directed to participate in a schooladopted software program to remediate and enrich their current levels in language, reading, vocabulary, and mathematics. Teachers are able to assign students individualized lessons in content subject areas that match their current academic performance level. As the students complete the assigned lessons, it allows students and teachers to see performance levels, skill mastery, time on task, and proficiency levels associated with gradelevel content standards. In corroboration with the continual student scores, the school has established a master schedule that allows for common planning time daily. Here, teachers receive professional development and share strategies and ideas for remediating and enriching student achievement. This enables the teachers to share ideas, use data to drive instructional decisions, and to plan as a group for student success. In these established learning communities, teachers find themselves “integrating teacher learning into communities of practice with the goal of meeting the educational needs of students through collaboratively examining their daily practice” (Vescio et al., 2008, p. 81).

14.7.2 Early Childhood Literacy Development

Teresa, a primary education teacher who also serves as a gradelevel chair, has been empowered to mentor her team of teachers as instructional leaders while assisting them in remaining true to the development of the characteristics of the young child. Her team has been charged with introducing technology so it becomes a learning tool in preparation for standardized testing while also promoting creativity in expression through reading, writing, drawing, and speaking with fellow students and community members. They have integrated the critical components of being a child: socialization, creativity, movement, and emotional stability while continuing to teach parents the rigors required of their children’s academic performance. For example, a typical K2 classroom still incorporates journaling, reading aloud, and poetry development, while in a learning center, children are working on reading, math, and language skills using an Android tablet and prescribed software to measure their gradelevel performance in literacy development. This approach then gives the teacher an opportunity to see where children struggle so oneonone assistance can be arranged with a teaching assistant to remediate problem areas while the teacher moves forward with new concept development. Essentially, this allows the teaching assistant and the tablet to become an electronic tutor for the students moving at their own individualized pacing. In this teacher’s classroom, we have seen an improvement of one year, six months in the language arts scores of her firstgrade students and an increase of one year, one month in mathematics in the first six months of the current school year.

14.7.3 Intermediate Teaching Strategies Sarah, an upper elementary teacher who is also a gradelevel chair, has the empowerment to mentor her team of teachers as instructional leaders. The difference for Sarah is that standardized testing is the norm for her level and an element that needs incorporation into the daily instruction of the students. Sarah and her team still use individualized instruction through teacher interaction and conferencing, journaling, research development, and interactive learning to engage students in the learning process. However, an emphasis for her grade level is reading comprehension of informational text, using the text as supportive evidence for student responses to predetermined questions. In addition, students need to validate and show how an answer was obtained. In other words, at this level, not only must students receive instruction as to how to obtain an answer, they must now be taught how to validate and prove their answer using evidentiary information from the learning process. At this level, school wide tutors have been used to assist in the computation skills of mathematics while leading them to use the generalization of mathematics rules in a variety of applied problem settings related to word problems, graphs, charts, and other visual realworld settings. As in the primary classrooms, the Android tablets and prescribed Moby Max software are used at the intermediate level as well to measure and remediate literacy, mathematics, language development, and testtaking skills. The use of this Android technology also allows the teacher to work with areas of need as she looks at the dataproduced student work on the tablets in order to prescribe remedial lessons each day. The teacher determines whether the data suggest remedial work on the computer is in order, or rather if she needs to reteach content or skills either individually, in small groups, or even to the entire class. In this

teacher’s classroom, what we have seen is an improvement of two years, two months in the language arts scores of her fifthgrade students and an increase of one year, one month in mathematics since the beginning of the current school year.

14.7.4 Special Education Perspectives The special education department is supervised by Bobbie, the facilitator. As the head of her department, she must meet the needs of each student’s IEP while working to ensure that accommodations and instruction used by the general education teachers complement what the school is using as curriculum to meet the accountability measures dictated by the state. Her job is one that demands individualized or customizable instruction for students based on their documented disabilities. The philosophy held by Bobbie and the school is that instruction by the general education teacher is critical for her students to gain access to the content measured by the standardized testing. Therefore, Bobbie works in tandem with the teachers to present the subject matter to students in a variety of ways. This can be viewed as large or small group learning, pullout or pushin instruction, oneonone tutoring of concepts, and/or project based instruction in a collaborativeconsultative inclusion model. The collaborative consultative model provides teachers opportunities to learn how to differentiate their instruction to meet the needs of all students in their classrooms. Like the rest of the school, Bobbie and her department also use the Android tablets and prescribed software as well as laptops to prepare students for research, Internet use, literacy, math development, and testtaking skills. Data about her students’ achievement are shared with the classroom teachers to assist them in preparing lessons for students and for making datadriven decisions for academic achievement. This special education teacher oversees the upper elementary grades. Through an examination of Bobbie’s students’ data, we saw an improvement of two years, three months in the language arts scores and an increase of one year, three months in mathematics since the beginning of the current school year. Taken together, the work of each of these educators is theoretically grounded, and at the same time situated into their everyday practice with teachers and students. We continue to visit the work of the foundational theorists, while encouraging university personnel to engage the teachers and students in the latest research.

14.8 Applications and Implications Pulling all perspectives together to work with the students in an urban alternative school setting has not been easy. However, with each person’s perspective and background, the culture of the school has been developed and carried through to meet the needs of the students and their families. Specifically, two elements arise as focal points for the school’s culture. First, the school is a safe and positive learning environment for all students and staff members. The school’s progressive discipline policy sets guidelines and strategies that are followed by all teachers and students. The school’s administrator has two specific school rules that are the basis for the culture. These are: (1) keep your hands, feet, and other objects to yourself, and (2)

be nice. These two rules, while seeming to be simplistic, are actually the central tenets for schoolwide disciplinary practices as well as classroom rules. Students from all grade levels K12 can recite these rules and note how they have either broken them or enforced them for the day. Along with these rules, the leading motto is “Power is in the choices that you make,” and teachers, administrators, and staff ask students what choices they could make in the future to improve their behavior. When students hear this motto constantly from all the adults in the building, they begin to use the motto with each other to avoid conflict by asking, “What other choices could you make right now?” Next, the school’s environment is conducive to a variety of learning needs. This can be seen in the response to instruction (RTI) teamwork and in the purposeful professional development sessions where the teachers from grade levels and from various content departments work to align the curriculum within and between grade levels. Examples of this process would be the team approach and the assignment of teachers and counselors to be case managers and data collectors on students brought to the RTI team to work with individualizing instruction for students having academic difficulties. This can also be seen as the secondgrade teachers meet with the firstgrade teachers at the beginning of the school year to determine what first grade skills had been mastered the previous year that would impact the learning of the students in the secondgrade classroom. Midyear the same secondgrade teachers meet with the thirdgrade teachers to note the current skill levels of students, seeking input for what would be needed by the thirdgradelevel teachers to have students on grade level at the end of second grade and to be on target for skill development in the following school year. From the teacher’s perspective, building the culture of the classroom within the larger school setting means infusing individual personalities and styles with classroom delivery of content and classroom management of student behaviors. This strategy has been orchestrated through the use of the teachers profiled in this chapter who are the gradelevel chairs. As selected gradelevel chairs, they have been assigned to mentor the teachers at their grade level while offering suggestions for methods of instruction, assessment, community and family engagement, curriculum infusion for the students who have educational needs, and following the school’s mission of providing our students with a safe learning environment focused on academic success utilizing our global curriculum while preparing students for life. Interestingly enough, each teacher included in this chapter has taken on these responsibilities with her own style or finesse. Each teacher has also adopted the school’s 3Rs for education in their daily teaching, interaction styles, and selfreflection (Putney, 2012). The first R is relevance or making learning relate to the real world. This goal ties into our global curriculum, using content subject matter as a foundation for interactive, reallife skills. The second R is responsibility in which the students and teachers become responsible for each other in their community and for themselves. Again, this incorporates the central tenets of the RTI and student support services as well as the school’s second rule—Be Nice. The final R is relationship or the building of connections between our students, adults, community members, and staff members at the school. This particular R involves the active engagement of parents and families in the school’s learning culture. Evidence of this R has been the monthly family engagement and

family literacy nights used at the elementary level to teach the parents how to help their children read, write, listen, and speak. We recognize that children cannot learn in isolation what they need to know for academic achievement. While we believe that family members are the first teachers, we also recognize that building from that early knowledge base is critical to accomplishing the learning goals and objectives set by accrediting bodies. In order for academic accomplishments to happen, students need to be in school regularly and be actively engaged in the learning process. Examples of building on early knowledge bases can truly be seen with our family literacy nights. Once a month, a theme is selected to coordinate a reading skill, a book for families to read together, and a handson activity to allow for shared interaction with family members. During this twohour time period, a teacher models a reading skill for parents and students to practice together and to problem solve. An example of this would be to find the main character of a story and identify the setting and the story’s plot. A copy of a book is then passed out for families to do a shared reading. During this time, parents and/or students take the lead, read the book to each other, and discuss the pretaught reading skill. The teacher then steps forward, finalizes the instructional portion of the session, summarizes what is learned, and leads the families into the handson portion of the lesson. The first family literacy night had approximately 15 people in attendance. The word has spread and the school has improved our advertising the events, inviting parents, and marketing the book and project. The literacy nights now average 50–125 people in attendance and usually have a request list for the following month. Listening to the laughter and seeing the parents and children share in the reading of their books and completing a variety of projects together has been heartwarming. Data from parent surveys noted a 96% satisfaction with the evenings and a wish for more of these types of classes. Comments from parents noted that these evenings allowed parents to spend quality, uninterrupted time with their children and were helpful in teaching parents how to ask comprehension questions to note where their children were progressing or needed more assistance. Throughout the process, parents and guardians are invited to become active members in the learning environment of the school and are invited to assist in the celebration or interventions of behaviors with their children. Parents can be seen communicating formally and informally with teachers as they pick their children up at the end of the day and/or drop them off for school in the morning. Many of the parents have given teachers their cell phone numbers whereby the teacher can call or text during the day to keep the parents aware of what is happening in school. Many of the teachers send weekly progress reports home to inform the parents of their children’s academic progress and behavior. The counselors also make themselves available to meet with parents and help them understand what is happening during the day with their children. The school hosts a variety of family interaction classes and strategies monthly to invite parents into the school to participate in the learning process. Families are invited to participate in educational field trips and family literacy nights to help them understand what they can do to support their children at home. The specialized

instructional staff also contact parents and invite them to attend school or visit classrooms to view their children’s participation style in the classrooms to get a realtime picture of how the child learns. These activities allow our staff to help parents not only understand what they are seeing, but also to ask questions about how to help their children at home so they can be better students in the classrooms. Finally, our staff work with parents who are seeking additional community resources as they may be homeless or have run into hard times financially. They are introduced to a variety of community organizations, provided with food and clothing, and given shelter if available to get their lives reorganized. We provide this support to parents because we believe that supporting families in meeting their basic needs is a dynamic system that leads to the academic achievement of their children. Part of understanding education as a dynamic system is recognizing the need for a focus on family involvement. We have incorporated numerous literacy and technology activities to bring families together around academics. In a recent survey of our parents we found that they wanted more tutorial efforts for their children regarding homework, and for themselves related to using technology and improving their language skills. In addition, they responded highly in favor of taking field trips to educational sites with their children. In accommodating their requests, not only did we achieve positive outcomes from the parents and students, but also we felt that the additional family connections helped improve the overall school climate. The comments below were among the typical responses from family members regarding their experiences at our school: I took my child out of the local district school because the teachers didn’t seem to care. I love this school because they take care of the needs of my child and my family. We are treated with respect. We love this school. The family nights have provided me and my child with some of the best oneonone time we’ve ever had uninterrupted. This school treats our family as people. They listen to what we say. The security at the school makes me feel as if my child is safe so I can concentrate on my work. The school and the teachers go out of their way to communicate with me each day. The teacher treats me as an equal and helps me have ideas for helping my child do homework. I don’t feel afraid to ask for help. I love this school. Everyone knows my child. He’s not just a number—he’s a person. For the first time ever, he hops out of bed ready to go to school each day. Thank you for helping my son graduate. He was so far behind when he came to you, and you believed in him enough to get him motivated to finish. Without you he would not have made it.

14.9 Promoting Learning by Integrating Theory with Practice

What we intended to illustrate by bringing together these stories of instructional practice is that educational theory is necessary but not sufficient to promote learning and school achievement. Schooling is complex because people are complex. We continue to engage in the process of amalgamating our philosophy, theory, and experiential practices into a systematic venture that works for us as we work in schools because a school is a dynamic system. As we (teachers, administrators, lead teachers, special education facilitators, and university researchers) work together at the collective purpose of promoting learning and achievement, we bring together our personal educational philosophies and theories, and work together, integrating them through our individual and collective practice to strengthen the whole system. As we discover “what works,” we finetune our personal systems so as to get them in tune with each other. Just when we think we have our collective engine humming, the sociocultural context of our educational lives changes and we regroup and finetune again. We recognize that “individual students do not live largescale, replicable lives. They live local and situated ones” (Putney, Green, Dixon, & Kelly, 1999, p. 375). In the same vein, we recognize that teachers need to understand the localized situations surrounding them, their school, and the learners who come to them for engagement in learning activities. This is why we continue to research and collaborate, bringing together a variety of perspectives and experiences to better understand “who is coming to school” (McCarthy, 2014), and what practices best serve them in our educational spaces.

References American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK12 teaching and learning . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/toptwentyprinciples.pdf Aungst, G. (2014, September). Using Webb’s depth of knowledge to increase rigor. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/webbsdepthknowledgeincreaserigorgerald aungst Bandura, A. (1997). Selfefficacy: The exercise of control . New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Byrd, D., & McIntyre, D. J. (1999). Research on professional development schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–271. CrainThoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 421– 429. DarlingHammond, L. (2005). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Feeney, S., Moravcik, E., & Nolte, S. (2013). Who am I in the lives of children? An introduction to early childhood education (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hess, K. K. (2013). A guide for using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge with Common Core State Standards. Common Core Institute ISBN: 9780985721947. JohnSteiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 191–206. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? CITE Journal, 9(1), J60–70. Lambert, L. (2005). What does leadership capacity really mean? Journal of Staff Development, 26, 2(2), 38–40. Levin, H. (1996). Accelerated schools after eight years. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 329–352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Magnuson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. GessNewsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row. McCarthy, J. (2014, February). Who’s coming to school? Response to intervention for all students. Presented to the Preservice Teacher Strand, Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, St. Louis, MO. McCarthy, J., & Levin, H. (1992). Accelerated schools for students in atrisk situations. In H. Waxman, J. Walker de Felix, J. Anderson, & H. BaptisteJr. (Eds.), Students at risk in atrisk schools: Improving environments for learning. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2014). Professional development schools. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/ProfessionalDevelopmentSchools/tabid/497/Default.aspx

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771–777. Putney, L. G. (2007). Discursive practices as cultural resources: Formulating identities for individual and collective in an inclusive classroom setting. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(3–4), 129–140. Putney, L. G. (2012). Collectively transformative pedagogy: Enhancing educational opportunities for Native American students. In B. Klug (Ed.), Standing together: American Indian education as culturally responsive pedagogy (pp. 135–147). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. (2010). Developing teacher efficacy through reflection: A Vygotskian perspective. Critical Issues in Teacher Education, 17, 4–17. Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. (2011). Developing classroom collective efficacy: The teacher’s role as community organizer. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 93–105. Putney, L. G., Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., & Kelly, G. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research methodology: Looking beyond defense to possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 368–377. Radecki, B. (2009). Technology integration in a Title I elementary school: An exploratory case study. UNLV Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones. Paper 1033. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 1–26. Stoilescu, D. (2015). A critical examination of the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework: Secondary school mathematics teachers integrating technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4), 514–547. Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective wellbeing around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press. Webb, N. (2002, March 28). Depthofknowledge levels for four content areas (unpublished

paper). Wink, J., & Putney, L. G. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

15 A Smile is Universal: Building Sensitivity to and Understanding of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners through International Field Experiences Amanda J. Laichak University of Pittsburgh

15.1 Introduction This chapter highlights a qualitative study of the practice of international field programs for preservice teachers. The main elements involved in developing and executing an international field program are discussed in detail. International field program development and execution elements experienced by preservice teachers and faculty members nationwide are compared and contrasted to those found by the author while observing and surveying six preservice teachers in Costa Rica in May 2015. This chapter explores how several elements of international field experiences may help or hinder program participants in building their capacities to become sensitive to and understand culturally and linguistically diverse students. In the last 30 years, the United States has witnessed a significant increase in the number of culturally and racially diverse students in schools across the country (Malewski, Sharma, & Phillion, 2012). Many teachers in the K12 classroom today bring deficitoriented stereotypes about culturally diverse students and little or no cultural background knowledge of their students to their teaching (Sleeter, 2008). The result is that teachers often lack the capacity to build relationships with students from diverse ethnic and racial groups and/or resist working in diverse classrooms altogether. Oftentimes when teachers have the opportunity to work with students from diverse cultural groups, they have lower academic expectations (Banks, 2006). Many teachers experience some ambivalence toward immigrant students and students of color (Hollins & TorresGuzman, 2005; Sleeter, 2001) and doubt their efficacy in teaching students whose cultural backgrounds differ from their own (Helfrich & Bean, 2011). Malewski et al. (2012), DarlingHammond (2006), MacPherson (2010), and Nuthall (2005) note that culturally diverse students relate better to instruction that connects to their background knowledge and prior experiences. Literature in this field also indicates that culturally diverse students resist teaching practices that reflect the knowledge and beliefs of dominant or majority groups (Causey, Thomas, & Armento, 2000). When teachers lack crosscultural perspectives, they are unable to help culturally diverse students integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge, which results in students’ lack of interest in learning and low academic achievement (Banks, 1995, 2007; Banks & Banks, 2010; LadsonBillings, 2007). This lack of crosscultural capacity of teachers entering the profession has a detrimental

effect on students whose cultural backgrounds and knowledge differ from those of their teachers. Cho and DeCastro Ambrosetti ( 2005), as well as LadsonBillings ( 1999), argue that preservice teachers’ illpreparedness to meet academic and psychosocial needs of immigrant students and students of color and sometimes their lack of understanding of how cultural identities play out within the classroom context may be partly attributed to poor preparation by teacher preparation programs. Therefore, teacher education programs are currently faced with figuring out how best to prepare future teachers for global awareness and crosscultural teaching that is sensitive to the histories and experiences of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008). In an effort to educate preservice teachers for culturally diverse classrooms, colleges and universities in the United States have reorganized teacher education programs to offer a variety of crosscultural experiences. These crosscultural experiences range from state, community, and university experiences to international experiences that include short, mid, and longterm study abroad programs (Stachowski & Mahan, 1998). Accrediting bodies of schools of education and the U.S. government have taken notice of the need for all preservice teachers to be prepared to effectively teach students of all backgrounds before graduating. For example, NCATE developed a standard for schools of education to follow in order to address the importance of preparing preservice teachers to teach diverse learners. NCATE’s Standard 4 is as follows: Diversity requires teacher education programs to demonstrate evidence of providing curriculum and experiences that would prepare future teachers in effectively addressing the needs of all students, that is, “students with exceptionalities and of different ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, language, religious, socioeconomic, and regional/geographic origins.” (NCATE, 2008, p. 29)

DeVillar and Jiang (2012) note that “firsthand contact in a school setting within a representative culture is a direct way of providing a solid foundation for NCATE’s diversity requirement” (p. 8). Experiential education can come in the form of an international field experience. Some sort of international teaching experience is “the key ingredient if the United States wants its future teachers to be culturally and globally literate to meet the challenges of this new age” (Quezada, 2005, p. 464). Even though schools of education have increased the number of immersion experiences abroad they can offer preservice teachers (Pickert, 2001; Schneider, 2003), preservice teachers enroll in these experiences in lower numbers than students in other disciplines (Cushner, 2009). Schneider (2003) explains the low participation rate by noting a multitude of barriers with the most influential ones being the students’ financial aid needs; the lack of time and space in the already crowded teacher education curriculum; the lack of human resources; few overseas programs that are appropriate and creditable for education students; and the limited appreciation by faculty and other advisors for experiencing other cultures. How can schools of education overcome these barriers while offering an international field

experience program to the majority, if not all, of their preservice teachers? Extensive institutional change is sometimes required. In addition, students sometimes have their own limitations (as noted earlier), and teacher educators may lack their own lived experiences with diverse communities. All of these barriers can be challenging to overcome. However, “support for international field experiences for preservice teachers is growing at both the state and national levels” (Shiveley & Misco, 2012, p. 53). Mahon (2007) acknowledges that while “institutional change can be a formidable opponent,” it can be done by choosing the most compatible framework for an international teaching experience, ensuring the commitment to internationalizing preservice teachers from all involved at the school of education and engaging in conversations with local and state stakeholders involved in teacher education. In addition, Schneider (2003) notes that, “planning [ahead] for an international field experience, particularly for preservice teachers, needs to start at the beginning of freshman year—or even before” (p. 24). This will help to find the time for it in an already crowded curriculum. Costs and risks also need to be better defined, analyzed, and well prepared. Malewski et al. (2012) note that literature on teacher education and international field experience programs reveals that teachers’ crosscultural awareness has two important implications for teacher education programs: (1) teachers’ cultural knowledge derived from their lived experiences dominates pedagogical knowledge of the classroom and therefore affects teaching of students from diverse cultures; and (2) crosscultural field experiences offer greater opportunities for teachers, student teachers, and inservice and preservice teachers to question as well as address their lack of crosscultural awareness. Findings in literature reviewed by Malewski et al. (2012) have shown that after engaging in international field experiences, preservice teachers have reported some of the following benefits: improved foreign language skills, increased ability to navigate in crosscultural contexts, heightened interest in foreign travel, and a more critical view of their country of origin (Mahan & Stachowski, 1990; Quezada, 2005; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007). In addition, it has also been found that when preservice teachers experience living and working in a culture different from their own, they are more inclined to think positively about cultural differences that involve gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation (Merryfield, 1995, 2000; Rios, Montecinos, & Van Olphen, 2007; Talburt & Stewart, 1999). They also show a greater willingness to teach students from culturally diverse groups (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; Malewski & Phillion, 2009). The move toward developing crosscultural competencies in preservice teachers through international field experiences has been a welcome development in teacher education (Cushner, 2009). A number of studies on international field experiences have shown the beneficial outcomes of preservice teachers’ abilities to negotiate diverse contexts, reflect on their own cultural beliefs and backgrounds, and compare and contrast the cultural beliefs and values held by the host community with the beliefs and values of their communities of origin (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; McCabe, 2001; Rios et al., 2007; Roberts, 2007). However, Malewski et al. (2012) point out that little literature examines how international field experiences for preservice teachers promote the goals of crosscultural awareness, cultural responsiveness, and relationship building through experiential learning.

Marx and Moss (2011) also have noted the lack of literature on international field experience programs. They note that studies of this topic have generally found that international programs for preservice teachers provide opportunities for them to develop cultural awareness and empathy for diverse student populations and that exposing preservice teachers to international field experiences causes attitudinal changes toward diverse learners in the United States (BradfieldKreider, 1999; CasaleGiannola, 2005; Cushner & Mahon, 2002). Others have noted limited literature focused on international field experience programs’ impact on participants’ dispositions, knowledge, and teaching methodologies (Biraimah, 2001; Kruger, Gandy, Bechard, Brown, & Williams, 2009). Thus, there remains a significant need for an extension of this literature, particularly related to the program development of an international field experience and the program elements that contribute to or hinder building the cultural responsiveness skills of preservice teachers. This chapter examines the particular elements of programming that are the most beneficial to participants and the most challenging to the program coordinators and/or program participants.

15.2 Defining Cultural Responsiveness Gay (2010) defines cultural responsiveness as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them. It teaches to and through the strengths of these students” (p. 31). Sleeter (2008) defines a culturally responsive educator by noting what diverse students need. Sleeter indicates that diverse children need an educator who can: hold high expectations for their learning, regardless of how they are doing now; encourage them academically by building on what they know and what interests them; relate to their families and communities and read them as well as their families in accurate ways; and envision them as constructive participants in a multicultural democracy. (pp. 214–215) According to Sleeter and Owuor (2011), culturally responsive teaching is based on teacher– student relationships—particularly their ability to establish caring relationships with students from historically marginalized backgrounds. A culturally responsive teacher will be able to demonstrate firm beliefs and expectations that students can achieve academically. The best models of international field experiences can provide opportunities for preservice teachers to witness and participate in building a skill set with which to serve diverse students using skills as noted in Sleeter’s list above. Various models of international student teaching programs exist worldwide to provide preservice teachers experiences with students from diverse cultures so that they may be better able to build positive relationships with students as well as have appropriate expectations set for their academic success. Ten different models are reviewed, compared, and contrasted for this chapter. Acknowledging that the term culturally responsive is usually used by authors as a way to describe an educator’s pedagogy and behavior toward marginalized African, Latino, Native, and Asian American students (Gay, 2010), the meaning and theory of cultural responsiveness

have been broadened for the purposes of this particular research. Cultural responsiveness will serve as a framework to discuss how an international field experience, when developed and facilitated properly, enables K12 educators in the United States to respond better to the educational needs of and build better relationships with refugee children, foreignborn children, and children who speak a language other than English in the home. For the purposes of this research, the terms diverse/culturally diverse/culturally and linguistically diverse students are used to indicate refugee children, foreignborn children, and children who speak a language other than English in the home.

15.3 Level of Demand for Preservice Teachers to Acquire an Opportunity to Teach Abroad: Current Demographic Mismatch Using the valid and reliable Intercultural Development Inventory, Mahon (2003) found that “a large majority of teachers (90% in one case) had ethnocentric understandings of culture” (p. 138). A review of literature exploring preservice teachers’ current attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs toward diverse learners (Bodur, 2012; Cho & DeCastroAmbrosetti, 2005; Dong, 2004; Gay, 2010; Kyles & Olafson, 2008; Middleton, 2002; Polat & Mahalingappa, 2013) reveals the urgent demand for preservice teachers to gain international teaching experience prior to their career in an evergrowing diverse U.S classroom. Preservice teachers live in very different worlds from most of the students they will teach, and their prior interaction with diversity is sporadic and superficial. Their knowledge about students from diverse cultures is generally obtained from society at large and the mass media, which are sometimes misinformed. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2010), the United States witnessed significant shifts in its ethnic composition in total population between 1980 and 2008. Although the White population represented about 80% of the total population in 1980, this number decreased to 69% in 2000 and 66% by 2008. This shift has not slowed down, as shown in Figure 15.1. In 2014, the White population represented 61% of total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).

Figure 15.1 Population shift of Whites in the United States (1980–2014). Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a).

15.3.1 Public School Student Population This swift demographic shift is mirrored in schools. According to the NCES Mobile Digest of Education Statistics (NCES, 2014), the percentage of students in public elementary and secondary schools who were White decreased from 67 to 51% between 1992 and 2012. As shown in Figure 15.2, the percentage of students who were Hispanic rose from 12% to 24%, and the percentage of students who were Asian/Pacific Islander rose from 3 to 5%. The percentage of students who were Black rose from 16 to 17% between 1991 and 2001, and then decreased to 16% in 2011.

Figure 15.2 Population shift of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students in U.S. public schools (1991–2011). Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2014).

Figure 15.3 shows that the percentage of students who are White is expected to continue declining as the enrollments of Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and students of two or more races increase through at least fall 2024. Specifically, between 2011 and 2022, enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools is projected to: (1) decrease by 6% for White students; (2) increase by 2% for Black students; (3) increase by 33% for Hispanic students; (4) increase by 20% for Asian/Pacific Islander students; and (5) increase by 44% for students who are two or more races (Hussar & Bailey, 2014).

Figure 15.3 Projected percentage increase in the diversity of the U.S. student population (2011–2022). Source: Hussar & Bailey (2014).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of students aged 5–17 who speak a language other than English in the home is on the rise. In just a fiveyear period (2009–2014), the number of students identified as speaking a language other than English in their home rose by nearly 1 million, as shown in Figure 15.4.

Figure 15.4 Number of students aged 5–17 speaking a language other than English at home (2009–2014). Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2014b).

15.3.2 Public School Teacher/Administrator Population In stark contrast to the above data on the rise of a diverse student population, in 2011–2012 nearly 82% out of a total of 3,385,200 public elementary and secondary teachers in the United States were White (NCES, 2013), as shown in Figure 15.5.

Figure 15.5 Ethnic and racial diversity of public school teachers (2011–2012). Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2013).

In addition to a cultural gap, K12 teachers are known to have: Misconceptions about various ethnic groups (Jennings, 2007; Trent, Kea, & Oh 2008; Vaughan, 2005; WalkerDalhouse & Dalhouse, 2006). Feelings of inadequacy in teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students (Helfrich & Bean, 2011). A lack of experience with diverse populations (Hollins & TorresGuzman, 2005; Milner, 2006). Administrative leaders of these teachers are also overwhelmingly White. In 2000, 5.1% (113) of the superintendents participating in a study by Glass, Bjork, and Brunner (2001) reported that they were a superintendent of color (out of a total of 2,262 surveyed). In 2011, Kowalski, McCord, Peterson, Young, and Ellerson surveyed 1,867 superintendents. Among those surveyed, 94% identified themselves as White. Therefore, between 2000 and 2011, there was only a 0.9 percentage increase in superintendents of color. Simultaneously, faculty members at schools of education add to the challenging mismatch in demographics with K12 teachers and K12 students. The majority are White, middleclass males in their fifties who have had minimal experiences with diverse cultures or inequities (Merryfield, 2000). In addition, research has demonstrated schools of education as offering insufficient preparation for preservice teachers to work effectively with diverse populations (CochranSmith, Davis, & Fries, 2004; Gay, 2002; LadsonBillings, 1999).

15.4 International Field Experiences Currently, schools of education across the United States (and worldwide) are using a variety of methods by which to best prepare their preservice teachers for an evergrowing culturally diverse student population. Cultural competence has been identified as a key element important in the development of future teachers by state and national initiatives for schools of education. Gay (2002) has shown that “explicit knowledge about cultural diversity is imperative to meeting the needs of ethnically diverse students” (p. 107), while Siwatu (2011) has called for “incorporating selfefficacybuilding activities in the preparation of culturally responsive teachers” (p. 368). Despite studies such as these, understanding how to effectively change current programs in schools of education to address cultural responsiveness and promote application of new skill sets continues to prove challenging for most teacher education programs (Siwatu, 2011; Sleeter, 2001; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Mahon (2007) urges schools of education to “consider this experience [of sending preservice teachers abroad to teach] a process” (p. 142). While Villegas and Lucas (2002) recommend that “field experiences be carefully planned and guided by a theoretical framework with clear purposes to successfully promote culturally responsive teaching” (p. 136). Participating in an international field experience as a preservice teacher is paramount to building cultural responsiveness through handson experiential learning while abroad. According to Sleeter and Owuor (2011) culturally responsive teaching is based on teacher– student relationships—particularly their ability to establish caring relationships with students from historically marginalized backgrounds. A culturally responsive teacher will be able to demonstrate firm beliefs and expectations that students can achieve academically. Various models of international student teaching programs existing worldwide provide preservice teachers experiences with students from diverse cultures. These experiences may help preservice teachers to be better able to build positive relationships with students from diverse groups as well as have appropriate expectations set for their academic success. In this section 10 different models of international field experiences will be compared and contrasted (Baker, 2000; Batey & Lupi, 2012; Dunn, Dotson, Cross, Kesner, & Lundahl, 2014; Jiang, Coffey, DeVillar, & Bryan, 2011; Landerholm & Chacko, 2013; Lu & Soares, 2014; Malewski et al., 2012; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007; Yang, 2011). These models are organized in five main programmatic elements: (1) collaboration between countries, (2) role of faculty, (3) preparation of participants, (4) the experience itself, and (5) assessment/evaluation of programming. Through this literature review and data from the observation of an international field experience, a case for an “ideal” international field program is built.

15.4.1 Collaboration and Communication: Program Development and Organization Between Two Countries Communication and closer collaboration between the home university and host school/university is the first and foremost challenge faced by international teaching programs.

In the Costa Rica program, many of the challenges could have been avoided with better collaboration, communication, and prior planning between the home/host program coordinators. Baker and GiacchinoBaker ( 2000) affirm that guidelines should be established for supervising faculty from the home university to maintain positive working relationships among the student teachers, hosts in the foreign country, and the host university. Pence and Macgillivray (2008) note that, “Supervisors could arrive early [in the host classrooms] to observe, talk with teachers and administrators, and make final placements” (p. 24). Yang (2011) notes similar suggestions, as program participants’ observations frequently mentioned the issue of inadequate communication between partnership universities and placement schools. Lu and Soares (2014) also note confusion occurring between their home university in the United States and their partner university in Taiwan by describing the difficulty with “corresponding with very limited English speakers with whom to negotiate school locations, teaching expectations and scheduling” (p. 70). Paradoxically, Jiang et al. (2011) focus much of their study on the high level of collaboration between the preservice teachers and collaborating teachers. The collaborating teachers were even interviewed. Mahon (2007) describes three overarching frameworks for collaboration: (1) a consortium of universities that pool together to combine resources (or even two universities partnering in the home/host country); (2) a universityled effort centralized through its main international study office; and (3) a program housed within a school of education itself that does its own placement with a host country K12 school system. Overall, 50% of the 10 programs reviewed for this literature review were developed and implemented by the school of education itself. They were established and/or led by one or two faculty members, without a partner university abroad or a universityled effort from their own study abroad office. This pattern was the case in the Costa Rica program, which was led by one U.S. faculty member partnering with one K12 teacher in Costa Rica. A program housed within a school of education generally offers the most flexibility and autonomy but may have the potential for communication or collaboration issues (e.g., Dunn et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2011; Landerholm & Chacko, 2013; Malewski et al., 2012; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008). Mahon (2007) found that As all programmatic responsibilities may fall on one or two people (who generally have other responsibilities as well), resources and staffing are a concern with this framework of choice. This may not be seen as a profitable option as it may also interfere with tenure and promotion responsibilities. (p. 137) In addition, relying on faculty members to initiate and organize such programs can add an extra challenge. Faculty members usually do not have the management background or administrative expertise required to put those programs together, and unlike permanent, on site staff members who coordinate other studyabroad programs, they typically arrange the trips from afar, juggling them with other teaching and research responsibilities. (Fischer, 2007, p. 1)

Moreover, Dunn et al. (2014) note that, in the absence of a wellorganized program [as was the case in some portions of their Sweden program], participants begin to then discuss related [programmatic] challenges in their writing and interviews which then illustrates the difficulty of attempting transformative learning [when lacking a wellorganized program]. (pp. 296–297) After a review of the literature and observations in Costa Rica, an argument can be made that a partnership between the universities in the home and host countries serves as the strongest framework for collaboration. This is due to the fact that the host university could have one person who works fulltime for the host university to manage these international partnerships and may be more deeply knowledgeable about the local K12 system. This person would be responsible for coordinating all the details with the local host K12 schools—instead of being directly coordinated by a U.S. university faculty member from afar. In general (but not always), a partnership between two universities provides placement opportunities and strong host country ties that one university cannot do alone so easily (e.g., Baker, 2000; Batey & Lupi, 2012; Lu & Soares, 2014; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007; Yang, 2011). Baker (2000) is the only researcher who included a “Chart of Responsibilities” that explicitly lays out visually and in detail the roles and responsibilities of every party involved in a host/home university partnership and how they connect to one another. Yang’s (2011) study of preservice teachers in Hong Kong describes an eightweek experience in which the cornerstone of its success was due to “effective collaboration and communication among the partnership universities and the linking schools” (p. 92). Even though Lu and Soares (2014) noted communication issues between their home university in the United States and their partner university in Taiwan, their partner Taiwanese university chose the host school to which the program participants would go. This process seemed to work out well for them as they noted that their Taiwanese university partner chose to work with a Tainan City public high school principal who was “passionate and supportive” about this program. This high school principal became the home university’s point of contact and arranged classroom placements throughout the district. The principal also assigned two Tainan City teachers who spoke English to become key contacts with the researchers and participants throughout the program. Even though this partnership had a few difficulties due to language barriers, a great deal of care and forethought was given to it by the host country partners. A U.S. university may collaborate with a strong and reliable U.S.based partner to assist them in developing an international field experience. For example, Stachowski and Sparks (2007) describe the wellknown and popular Overseas Student Teaching Program (OSTP) which has served over 2,000 preservice teachers over the course of 30 years at Indiana University Bloomington in conjunction with the Foundation for International Education. The authors note that OSTP is a proven model of success for overseas student teaching that “can be replicated at any college campus, and includes a support network of an international education foundation, collaborating U.S. colleges and universities, and school placement consultants the world over” (p. 118). Based in Wisconsin, the Foundation secures the actual overseas school placements and provides this service for a number of colleges and universities around the United States.

A great example of preparing cooperating teachers abroad through close collaboration was noted by Yang (2011). In this case, each preservice teacher was assigned to a cooperating teacher, and two supervisors were involved—assistant professors from their host university partner. A coordinator from the host university partner acted as the mediator between the cooperating teachers and the student teachers “to make sure that the student teachers’ experience in Hong Kong was as rich as it could be” (p. 94). This is a great assistance—as the U.S. preservice teachers should not have to negotiate their own experiences abroad. In another study the researcher noted that placing more of the responsibility on the preservice teacher to negotiate the partnership may enhance their learning and growth while abroad. Jiang et al. (2011) note that their study concentrated on the gradual release of responsibility model, which is a “collaborative practice preparing students for independent achievement” (p. 40). This model shifts the responsibility for learning from the teacher to the preservice teachers. As preservice teachers gradually learn to assume responsibility for their own learning, they may themselves be more likely to provide appropriate guidance to their students and become teacherleaders during student teaching and in other contexts.

15.4.2 Faculty Role in Collaboration and Communication Strong collaboration between partners also implies the involvement of U.S. faculty members in the process. Faculty members from the home university need to be deeply involved in the process of an international field experience prior, during, and after the experience. Mahon (2007) urges schools of education to “consider this experience [of sending preservice teachers abroad to teach] a process” (p. 142). Dunn et al. (2014) noted that faculty support while abroad is critical as “it cannot be assumed that students will be able to negotiate these challenges on their own” (p. 301). Dunn et al. (2014) note that schools of education administrators might explore granting course release time for faculty to travel abroad with preservice teachers for longer than one initial week, support them at various periods during the semester, and potentially research their experiences while abroad. Pence and Macgillivray (2008) describe how their participants’ faculty supervisors were responsible for coordinating with the designated individual at the host school regarding the host schools’ minimum expectations for home faculty presence on their campus (and vice versa) and observing the participants. Preservice teachers from this study noted the importance of feedback from the home faculty supervisors’ observations: “I think after hearing the feedback from my teacher as well as from [my supervisors] I felt more comfortable as the days went on” (p. 22). Deep involvement on the part of U.S. faculty is also described in Landerholm and Chacko’s (2013) study. Landerholm, the program’s supervisor, visited all the students twice each semester for 10 days at a time. Landerholm met with the principal, cooperating teachers, and students to discuss the students’ progress at each visit. District officials also accompanied Landerholm at each visit to facilitate translation and communication. Landerholm arranged additional individual or smallgroup appointments as well as one wholegroup meeting/dinner at each visit to South Korea to facilitate student learning and help with the adjustment to the new school and culture.

Batey and Lupi (2012) have one U.S. faculty program leader who travels with the program participants to help them adjust to the living accommodations, get settled in their school placements, and identify possible problems. During Week 3, the second faculty leader travels to the country to evaluate the students and then returns to the United States with them. In contrast to the reviews of literature where the home university faculty travels abroad, participants in the Dunn et al. (2014) study were without faculty support while abroad. The participants noted the importance of developing their own “peer community” in helping to develop a “strong, supportive, mutually beneficial … professional learning community while abroad for an extended period of time … without immediate daily or even weekly access to a faculty member” (p. 300).

15.4.3 Preparation of Participants A great deal of preparation is involved on the part of the faculty to ensure not only that the host country is prepared to receive their program participants and understand the program expectations, but also that the program participants themselves are fully prepared. 15.4.3.1 Prior to Departure: Meetings and Orientations with Faculty and Past Participants Predeparture meetings and orientations are important. Malewski et al. ( 2012) report that their program begins with three preparatory meetings on the home campus prior to departure. These meetings include travel information and documentaries on everyday life in Honduras. Lu and Soares’s (2014) program have their preservice teachers receive three preparatory orientations prior to departure. Batey and Lupi (2012) require their participants to meet for five trip preparation meetings prior to the trip. 15.4.3.2 Prior to Departure: Coursework and Teaching Experience Varying levels of preparation were required from the participants prior to departure throughout the literature. Pence and Macgillivray (2008) and Malewski et al. (2012) ask their participants to take 1–2 courses prior to the experience. The participants in the Dunn et al. (2014) study completed a virtual course on international education the semester before they left. However, Landerholm and Chacko (2013), Batey and Lupi (2012), and Stachowski and Sparks (2007) reported that their participants complete domestic teaching assignments prior to departure. These assignments are all 8–10 weeks in length. Stachowski and Sparks also mandate that candidates be certified by the state before departure. Stachowski and Sparks by far have the most extensive preparation prior to departure. Participants complete preparatory seminars, interviews, readings of abstracts and papers, and workshops prior to departing to the host country. 15.4.3.3 Funding Sources How most of the international field experiences are being funded is difficult to determine. Some international experiences appear to be funded directly by the program participants themselves (Baker, 2000; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008). Funding dictates who can participate

and is exclusionary to some preservice teachers. Landerholm and Chacko (2013) learned that full funding by the home university made it possible for many firstgeneration college students to participate. Funding can be the difference in whether a student can participate. It can also be the determinant for a university to establish/develop an international field experience program for its preservice teachers. Policymakers at the state and federal levels should be helped to understand the value of an international field experience and provide additional financial support to schools of education. International experiences could be supported by policymakers as an economic development tool. K12 teachers are educating the evergrowing diverse workforce of tomorrow. Shouldn’t they be better able to relate to and build relationships with diverse learners? Title 6 funding through the U.S. Department of Education can be used to establish an international program (or enhance an existing program) for student teachers to study abroad, intern, or do research. However, this program is designed to benefit the U.S. international education (capacity) first and any direct benefit to international schools should be a costmatched activity. This funding has been available since the late 1970s (personal email exchange with Tanyelle Richardson, Senior Program Officer, International Studies Division for International and Foreign Language Education for the U.S. Department of Education). However, how many universities are aware of this funding and have applied for—and been awarded—funding for their own international field experience program? 15.4.3.4 Group versus Solo While group models of international teaching experiences “eliminate the fear of traveling alone” (Batey & Lupi, 2012, p. 25), Quezada (2005) favors giving preservice teachers the option of traveling solo. The result of this option is that preservice teachers become more motivated, resilient, and maintain a greater sense of selfefficacy. Stachowski and Sparks (2007) reported on the only program that emphasized an individualized experience. Each of their participants spends at least eight weeks in their host nations. “Although participants may request to be placed near one another, they are seldom assigned to the same school. Rather, each student is encouraged to approach Project participation as an individual experience, shaped by the student’s own objectives and personality as well as by his or her interactions and friendships with host nation people” (p. 120). 15.4.3.5 Choice of Country and Culture The variety of countries to which preservice teachers completed their field experiences was extensive, but could be more diverse. In the majority of the programs reviewed, English was widely used as the official language in the host country. Some programs purposefully send their preservice teachers to a country where English is not widely used so that transformative learning through a high level of dissonance (Brindley, Quinn, & Morton, 2009) and feeling of being “the other” occurs. However, one of Yang’s (2011) participants noted that she had difficulty building relationships with students due to the language barrier. Therefore, some similarities in language may be advantageous. In addition, the choice of culture to work within is also paramount. International field experiences are a vehicle by which to prepare preservice

teachers for a diverse classroom with a multitude of cultures present. In two of the studies, preservice teachers went to Belize (Jiang et al., 2011; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007). Jiang et al. (2011) note that international contexts, such as Belize that have similar multicultural settings to those found within U.S. public schools, may be conducive to a student teacher’s learning and may positively influence a student teacher’s future practice as a teacher within culturally diverse U.S. public school settings. (p. 48) Other programs have placed participants in classrooms that were widely diverse. For example, Pence and Macgillivray (2008) studied a program in a private school for expats in Italy with 57 nationalities represented. Dunn et al.’s (2014) preservice teachers were in a school in Malmo, Sweden, that utilizes the International Baccalaureate curriculum and includes a large population of immigrant students for whom English and Swedish are second and third languages. 15.4.3.6 Duration and Timing of Trip Sleeter and Owuor (2011) note that shortterm field experiences with minimal [to no] engagement in actual classroom teaching are not sufficient to provide prospective teachers with the exposure and cultural learning connections they need to make with students as they work in diverse classroom settings. Such programs fail to change most White preservice teachers’ earlier beliefs about students of color and their parents and may reinforce existing stereotypes. (p. 528) Sixty percent of the programs reviewed offer international field experiences that are three to eight weeks in length; 40% are four to five months in duration. While Dunn et al. (2014) are in favor of preservice teachers going abroad for any length of time, they note that “the brevity of the experience (in France) was a missed opportunity” (p. 299) and that their program participants were not happy about the brevity of the experience. Malewski et al. (2012) recommends “longerterm study abroad programs” to “maximize the benefits … by offering extended opportunities for crosscultural interaction” (p. 36). The longer the stay, the more opportunities there will be not only for visiting schools, but also to have handson teaching experience. 15.4.3.7 Setting and Obtaining Professional and Personal Goals Stachowski and Sparks (2007) allowed their participants to develop their own goals for the program—both personal and professional—and evaluate and revise their own goals, as necessary, throughout the program (prior to the trip and during the trip). However, the authors noted that through this program, their goals for the participants were to

instill in their K12 pupils an appreciation of and thirst to learn more about the larger world of which they are a part. In this post9/11 society, these are the kinds of teachers we need providing instruction and leadership in our nation’s schools, and we look to teacher education programs to graduate new educators who “think globally” … [and] who have broadened their perspectives on others’ ways of thinking, doing and living. (pp. 116, 118) With the U.S. population growing ever more suspicious of its international counterparts, as well as an increasing number of incoming refugee and immigrants arriving to the K12 classroom, teachers need to be able to relate to all students and think more globally. Having educators who can instill in their pupils firstperson accounts of their stories abroad is much needed in this era of increasing fear of anything international. In addition to setting personal and professional goals, Baker (2000) had preservice teachers develop strategies, prior to departure, to link their international experience with their local field experience. In addition, a conference at the end of each day provided time for the preservice teacher and cooperating teacher to outline the expectations for the rest of the field experience. Baker (2000) and Stachowski and Sparks (2007) have noteworthy goals and ways to obtain them. In this way, program participants can become more attuned to what to look for and what to focus on as they are in their classroom abroad. They have a set goal prior to departure and ways to redefine goals and expectations while abroad. The Costa Rica participants were not guided to set any goals prior to departure or during the trip. By clearly defining goals prior to departure (either on the part of the faculty, the participants themselves, or both), participants are then able to focus more on relationship building with the students they encounter abroad and less time worrying about everyday tasks in the classroom. 15.4.3.8 Classroom Experience Abroad and the Role of Cooperating Teachers Beyond simply visiting local schools, participants strongly valued opportunities to teach lessons to international students. Dunn et al. (2014) note that “the highlight [of the program participants’ experiences in Sweden] was the ability to practice their craft in an international setting” (p. 299). While some studies touted the benefits of observations solely or in addition to teaching (Malewski et al., 2012; Yang, 2011), other studies described teaching as the main goal of the international experience. In addition to observing and teaching classes abroad, Batey and Lupi (2012) note the importance of a variety of teaching experiences offered, such as those with special needs students. Pence and Macgillivray’s (2008) preservice teachers work full days at the school from Monday through Thursday. Some cooperating teachers in this program have their practicum students teaching classes while others rely on them mainly as assistants. This flexibility in the home university faculty’s expectations for the relationship of the cooperating teacher and preservice teacher can be a benefit or a cost. The home faculty may not be able to ensure that all preservice teachers are gaining the same level of benefit from the classroom experience. In Landerholm and Chacko’s study (2013), participants teach English conversation fulltime in schools in South Korea for five months. They have the opportunity to teach primary, elementary, middle school, or high school students. Some students were placed in rural schools

and some in urban areas. In the Lu and Soares study (2014), three participants taught in elementary schools while one taught in a high school for over a fiveweek period in Taiwan. The four preservice teachers were told they had to rotate among school settings while student teaching in Taiwan. This rotation schedule “proved to be challenging” (p. 62). Baylor University participants in Australia plan each day with the cooperating teacher (Baker, 2000). Participants “engage in all duties of the teacher including swimming, playground and coaching” (p. 5). They are expected to teach and have the opportunity to present topics of American and Texan history and culture. In addition to teaching and observing classrooms, the program offered a variety of opportunities for relationshipbuilding experiences with the students, which is also important. 15.4.3.9 Housing and Transportation Various housing options should be given to preservice teachers in an ideal international field experience due to varying comfort levels as well as safety in a country. Such options could be: a university dormitory, a homestay, or an independent stay in an apartment near the host school. In the latter case, students would have opportunities to grocery shop and transport themselves, rather than rely on a host family to do it for them. That option increases cultural immersion and critical incidents of dissonance—especially if some preservice teachers are placed in rural environments such as Landerholm and Chacko’s (2013) group. Studies of participants staying in groups in residences among local residents included Pence and Macgillivray (2008), Yang (2011), and Landerholm and Chacko (2013). The distance and type of transportation available between the residence and host K12 school are also important. Participants in the Lu and Soares (2014) study had a challenge with housing, which was in a much more remote area than the schools. This situation proved difficult for the participants as they were only given a bike for transportation between their home and the school, and it was difficult for them to do laundry, find diverse food, and travel with this mode of transport, especially during evening hours. Some studies reported that participants stayed in universityowned housing or very close to their university partner. Participants in the Batey and Lupi (2012) study traveled as a group and lived together in small townhouses on the edge of campus at the university. Participants in the Baker (2000) study were housed on campus at Griffith University in Australia, the collaborating partner with Baylor. Participants in the Malewski et al. (2012) study stayed at a local universityowned guesthouse in Honduras. However, they had the option of selecting a homestay with a Spanishspeaking family for three days. 15.4.3.10 The Role of Reflection Several studies (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; Dunn et al., 2014; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007) noted that the value of a program is dependent upon participants engaging in continuous and supported critical reflection. Stachowski and Sparks (2007) note that systematic, guided reflection is an important way for preservice teachers to explore their lived experiences and is one key component of them becoming “a worldminded educator” (p. 118). Pence and Macgillivray’s (2008) preservice teachers were observed several times by

their home country faculty supervisors and provided with feedback after each observation. These preservice teachers noted the importance of feedback from their faculty supervisors: “I think after hearing the feedback from my teacher as well as from [my supervisors], I felt more comfortable as the days went on” (p. 22). The home faculty also held regular group meetings in the evenings (as is recommended by Villegas and Lucas, 2002) where the students had the opportunity to process any difficulties they were experiencing. All of Yang’s (2011) participants agreed that the feedback given by their supervisors in the postobservation discussions was useful. The participants in the Malewski et al. (2012) study completed daily written reflections based on a number of topics outlined in the course syllabi—as well as categories they created. While abroad, Dunn et al.’s (2014) participants completed their program’s student teaching requirements via an online system (virtual meetings and classroom observations with supervisors). The participants also completed weekly journals and daily lesson plans. 15.4.3.11 Cultural Tours Participants in the Malewski et al. (2012) study traveled to various cultural sites on weekends and evenings. Landerholm and Chacko’s (2013) participants also had opportunities to travel and experience the culture of the host country. Participants in the Dunn et al. (2014) study appreciated tours of “nontouristy” areas and the opportunity and support for personal growth as they were immersed in cultural experiences on their own such as public transport, grocery shopping, and speaking to locals who do not speak English. The most impactful cultural experiences may be the ones program participants find on their own. 15.4.3.12 Community and ExtraCurricular School Activity Involvement Longerterm trips provide students the opportunity to participate more fully in the community and not just through cultural/sightseeing tours on the weekends. Several authors discuss the benefits of preservice teachers having the ability to engage more fully in the communities in which they are teaching (Brown & Kysilka, 2001; Pence and Macgillivray, 2008; Stachowski & Mahan, 1998; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007; Zeichner, 1996). For example, Pence and Macgillivray (2008) found that preservice teachers were able to be more involved in their Italian community every day by helping serve lunch in the lower elementary grade levels and staying after school to play basketball with some of the middle school students. Yang’s (2011) participants were involved in their school’s extracurricular activities, and two participants noted that it was a good way for them to become a “part of the school community” (p. 97). Landerholm and Chacko’s (2013) participants participated in afterschool programs as well as engaged in dialogue with community members. Stachowski and Sparks’s (2007) participants were “clearly more than just visitors” (p. 127) to the host nation. They were required to participate in host communities through service learning projects, events, and activities as well as write essays in which they talked about local issues with community people outside of their host family.

15.4.4 Assessment and Evaluation

To enhance the validity and importance of international field experience to potential funders and policymakers, faculty members should follow up with program participants one to three years after program participation to measure and evaluate program impact on the participants themselves—as well as on the students in the diverse U.S. classroom in which they may now serve. In addition, faculty members’ weekly followup (inperson as well as virtually) with preservice teachers while they are teaching outside the United States would also be most beneficial to not only assess/evaluate the experience but also to troubleshoot any issues that arise during the experience. Several studies (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; Dunn et al., 2014; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008; Stachowski & Sparks, 2007) also noted the value of their program participants engaging in continuous and supported critical reflection as a way to assess program impact.

15.5 Experiencing an International Field Experience: Costa Rica In May 2015, the author followed nine preservice teachers who were juniors and seniors at a small liberal arts university near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cartago, Costa Rica, for a 10 day international field experience. Most of the participants had never been outside the United States; most grew up in the area in which the university is located. The group included seven females and two males who were 19 to 21yearold White students who did not speak Spanish. The students received three credits for completing the Multicultural Practicum Costa Rica Experience. Many of the challenges faced in the Costa Rica program could have been solved had there been a strong partnership in place between the home university in the United States and a host university in Costa Rica. This type of partnership could have helped overcome—prior to arrival in Costa Rica—many of the language, cultural, and buyin barriers faced at the host school. Closer collaboration may also have helped in developing an incentive for the K12 cooperating teachers and administrators in the host school to want to be involved in the program. In the Costa Rica program, participants met only twice before departing for Costa Rica, which was definitely not enough. One meeting was to discuss how to get a passport and a few general bullets about Costa Rica given to us by Scholastica, Inc. (our partner travel agent). The second meeting was just a few days before departure and was too late to be effective or helpful. The information provided by past participants in meetings with me, which were held long before we departed to Costa Rica, was much more in depth and useful than the 10 to 15minute presentation for the 2015 participants. During the trip, the participants were able to observe Costa Rican classrooms, teach, and experience the culture through a variety of tours and excursions. Observations and teaching were four days in length. Some participants chose a private PreK school and others chose a semiprivate middle/high school. Each participant stayed with a Costa Rican host family (one of the host school’s teachers or administrators) for four days of their stay in Costa Rica. Two

faculty members were on the trip for the entire duration of the time, but did not do daily observations at the two schools. Program participants submitted daily journal entries with guided prompts from the faculty. They received informal feedback from the faculty throughout the trip. According to the university’s faculty member who established this program in 2013, the goal of this program is “to help preservice teachers become models of global competence while increasing their sensitivity to and understanding of students in their classrooms who come from diverse cultures and languages.” During the first year of this program in 2013, four preservice teachers observed and taught Costa Rican high school students. In the spring of 2014, I met, surveyed, and interviewed in depth two of the initial four program participants. As I was preparing to go to Costa Rica in May 2015, I touched base again with the participants from the May 2013 trip. I was able to ask them how the trip had affected their teaching locally—now that both of them were employed. They provided a wealth of information to assist in designing my study of the Costa Rica program in May 2015. The two 2013 program participants reported that the program had lasting impacts for them—two years after they participated—such as: Costa Rica helped us to overcome “barriers of the unknown.” I would have never accepted my first teaching job as the aide of the only blind student in the entire school district—and accepted having to learn braille so quickly—if it weren’t for all the challenges I overcame in Costa Rica. Seeing the poverty there made me better understand the poverty of the students I work with in my poor school district now. Other teachers who have not been abroad are SO much more fearful of working with students who are “the other.” In May 2015, as I traveled to Costa Rica with nine preservice teachers, I collected data from participants in a variety of ways, including classroom observations, pre/postsurveys, informal interviews, and review of participant reflective journals. Out of the nine program participants, six completed both the pre and postsurveys. They reported the following five themes (beneficial outcomes): Relationship building: Several participants were surprised to see the “warm, hugging, touching, personal relationships” their cooperating teachers had with the students. Adaptability: They observed a “gowiththeflow” attitude of educators. Empathy: They developed a better understanding of how students from another country would feel if they moved to the United States and of different ways of doing everyday tasks, and a recognition that students from a culturally and linguistically diverse population may feel intimidated, alarmed, terrified, frightened, or even excited when they first arrive at school. Role of teachers and administrators in the United States with students from diverse cultural backgrounds: Administrators and teachers should appropriately celebrate ALL cultures,

should be willing to learn, and must show interest for the students to show interest. Confidence: The preservice teachers felt “very confident” to tackle challenging situations in the U.S. classroom. When asked how prepared they felt to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students in the United States, all of the respondents indicated that they were “more prepared,” “very willing,” and “more confident,” but most noted they are still anxious about working with the family. They indicated that culturally and linguistically diverse students “add an intrinsically unique element to the classroom that elevates the learning/teaching experience for everyone involved.” One participant said, “I cannot WAIT to teach [culturally and linguistically diverse students]”; “ALL kids should be given the chance to be understood”; and “I hope my U.S. classroom is diverse”!

15.6 Conclusion The participants of any international teaching program very well may receive job offers upon graduation in an urban or diverse student population setting. Will they be prepared to teach students from diverse cultural backgrounds they have never before seen or may know little to nothing about? What if they find a job upon graduation in a suburban school with a small pocket of students from diverse cultural and linguistic groups? Will they be able to assist in their social and academic growth? Will they understand the importance of reaching out to them —as many of these students may be refugees and immigrants whose parents do not speak the language and cannot help in their academic journey to success? Will they be prepared to add on to—and welcome—the cultural and academic knowledge these students are already bringing to the classroom from their native countries? Will they be able to understand students’ feelings of isolation? Will they know what it is like for these children to be looked at by their peers—and even by teachers and administrators—as “the other”? How will they handle this? Most importantly—which elements of an international teaching program itself will best assist preservice teachers in achieving many of the abovelisted objectives? “Current efforts to close the academic gaps that exist between diverse student groups require today’s teachers to become multiculturally literate” (Salmona, Partlo, Kaczynski, & Leonard, 2015, p. 49). A deep cultural gap between students and teachers, an academic achievement gap between learners, as well as the push for schools of education by accrediting bodies to increase their effectiveness in building culturally responsive teachers, all lead to a more urgent demand for schools of education to initialize or enhance an international field experience for their preservice teachers. Schools across the nation continue marching toward greater student diversity while K12 teachers and administrators’ diversity remains virtually locked in place (Jiang et al., 2011). The U.S. Department of Education and accreditation bodies have begun addressing this issue by holding a common goal of “ensuring a high level of educational quality at the institutional level” (Jiang et al., 2011, p. 2). Therefore, the goal for schools of education, in turn, is to “develop competent teachers … who can, within their school setting, function and respond in a meaningful and timely manner to their diverse students’ individual and collective

needs, regardless of context or circumstance” (Jiang et al., 2011, p. 2). K12 schools have an intersecting goal, and that is to eliminate the achievement gap across groups of students in various categories of race, ethnicity, language, gender, and socioeconomic status thereby equipping all learners with the ability to succeed in an ever growing diverse workforce. Therefore, the funds of knowledge, pedagogical skills, attitudes, and ability to develop relationships with diverse learners are of utmost importance as preservice teachers work with students of cultures different from their own. International field experiences have been successful in demonstrating ways preservice teachers can develop these skills in order to bridge the deep cultural divide that currently exists. Teaching and immersing oneself in a culture other than one’s own and learning what it is like to be the “other” can greatly assist future teachers in understanding the importance of building relationships with any learner. As was noted by two of my postsurvey participants—a smile truly is universal.

References Baker, B. (2000, April, 17–20). Moving beyond our education community: Student teaching abroad. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Childhood Education International, Baltimore, MD. Baker, F. J., & GiacchinoBaker, R. (2000). Building an international student teaching program: A California/Mexico experience. (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED449143). Banks, J. A. (1995). Crosscultural awareness and curriculum transformation. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 390–400. Banks, J. A. (2006). Race, culture, and education: The selected works of James A. Banks. New York, NY: Routledge. Banks, J. A. (2007). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Batey, J. J., & Lupi, M. H. (2012). Reflections on student interns’ cultural awareness developed through a shortterm international internship. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 25–44. Biraimah, K. L. (2001). Teacher perceptions and methodologies: a Fulbright–Hays experience in Southeast Asia. World Studies in Education, 2(1), 81–94. Bodur, Y. (2012). Impact of course and fieldwork on multicultural beliefs and attitudes. The Educational Forum, 76(1), 41–56. doi:10.1080/00131725.2011.627981

BradfieldKreider, P. (1999). Mediated cultural immersion and antiracism: An opportunity for monocultural preservice teachers to begin the dialogue. Multicultural Perspectives, 1(2), 29–32. Brindley, R., Quinn, S., & Morton, M. L. (2009). Consonance and dissonance in a study abroad program as a catalyst for professional development of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 525–532. Brown, S. C., & Kysilka, M. L. (2001). Applying multicultural and global concepts in the classroom and beyond. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. CasaleGiannola, D. (2005). The meaning of international experiences for the professional development of educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY. Causey, V. E., Thomas, C. D., & Armento, B. J. (2000). Cultural diversity is basically a foreign term to me: The challenges of diversity for preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 33–45. Cho, G., & DeCastroAmbrosetti, D. (2005). Is ignorance bliss? Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward multicultural education. High School Journal, 89(2), 24–28. doi:10.1353/hsj.2005.0020 CochranSmith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931–975). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Cushner, K. (2009). The role of study abroad in preparing globally competent teachers. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 151–169). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal, professional, and global competencies in an age of globalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(1), 44–58. DarlingHammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. DeVillar, R. A., & Jiang, B. (2012, Summer). From student teaching abroad to teaching in the U.S. classroom: Effects of global experiences on local instructional practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 7–24. Dong, Y. (2004). Preparing secondary subject area teachers to teach linguistically and culturally diverse students. Clearing House, 77(5), 202–206. Dunn, A. H., Dotson, E. K., Cross, S. B., Kesner, J., & Lundahl, B. (2014). Reconsidering the local after a transformative global experience: A comparison of two study abroad programs for

preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 36(4), 283–304. doi:10.1080/01626620.2014.948227 Fischer, K. (2007). Ghana fiasco shows risks of facultyled study trips. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(13), A1–A26. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003 Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 143–152. doi:10.1177/0022487109347320 Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2001). The study of the American superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Helfrich, S. R., & Bean, R. M. (2011). Beginning teachers reflect on their experiences being prepared to teach literacy. Teacher Education and Practice, 24(2), 201–222. Hollins, E. R., & TorresGuzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. CochranSmith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2014). Projections of education statistics to 2022 (NCES 2014051). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education. Jennings, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in US teacher preparation programs: A survey of elementary and secondary programs’ priorities and challenges from across the United States of America. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1258–1271. Jiang, B., Coffey, D. J., DeVillar, R. A., & Bryan, S. (2011). Student teaching abroad inter group outcomes: A comparative, countryspecific analysis. Journal of International and Global Studies, 2(1), 36–55. Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, P. I., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Kruger, D. P., Gandy, S. K., Bechard, A., Brown, R., & Williams, D. (2009). Writing a successful Fulbright group projects abroad grant: Voices from a journey to South Africa. Journal of Geography, 108(4–5), 155–162. Kyles, C. R., & Olafson, L. (2008). Uncovering preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity through reflective writing. Urban Education, 43(5), 500–518. doi:10.1177/0042085907304963 LadsonBillings, G. J. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical

race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211–247. LadsonBillings, G. (2007). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th ed., pp. 221–245). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Landerholm, E., & Chacko, J. B. (2013). Student teaching abroad: An experience for 21st century teachers. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540609.pdf Lu, H.L., & Soares, L. (2014). U.S. elementary preservice teachers’ experiences while teaching to students in Taiwan. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 59. doi:10.14434/josotl.v14i1.4170 MacPherson, S. (2010). Teachers’ collaborative conversations about culture: Negotiating decision making in intercultural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 271–286. Mahan, J. M., & Stachowski, L. L. (1990). New horizons: Student teaching abroad to enrich understanding of diversity. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 13–21. Mahon, J. A. (2003). Intercultural sensitivity development among practicing teachers: Life history perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent, OH. Mahon, J. (2007). A field of dreams? Overseas students teaching as a catalyst towards internationalizing teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 133–149. Malewski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). Making room in the curriculum: The raced, classed, and gendered nature of preservice teachers’ experiences studying abroad. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(3), 48–67. Malewski, E., Sharma, S, & Phillion, J. (2012, August). How international field experiences promote crosscultural awareness in preservice teachers through experiential learning: Findings from a sixyear collective case study. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–44. Marx, H., & Moss, D. M. (2011). Please mind the culture gap: Intercultural development during a teacher education study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 35– 47. McCabe, L. T. (2001). Globalization and internationalization: The impact on education abroad programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 138–145. Merryfield, M. M. (1995). Institutionalizing crosscultural experiences and international expertise in teacher education: The development and potential of a global education PDS network. Journal of Teacher Educationi46(1), 19–27. Merryfield, M. M. (2000, May). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 429–443.

Middleton, V. A. (2002). Increasing preservice teachers’ diversity beliefs and commitment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 343–361. Milner, R. H. (2006). Preservice teachers’ learning about cultural and racial diversity: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 41(4), 343–375. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). Mobile digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/mobile/TeachersFacultyAndStaff_ES_Teacher_Characteristics_Pu

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). Mobile digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/mobile/Enrollment_ES_Enrollment_by_Race_and_Ethnicity.aspx and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/mobile/TeachersFacultyAndStaff_ES_Teacher_Characteristics_Pu National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author. Nuthall, G. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895–934. Pence, H. M., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.003 Pickert, S. (2001). Survey of international initiatives in teacher education programs. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Polat, N., & Mahalingappa, L. (2013). Pre and inservice teachers’ beliefs about ELLs in content area classes: A case for inclusion, responsibility, and instructional support. Teaching Education. doi:10.1080/10476210.2012.713930 Quezada, R. L. (2005). Beyond educational tourism: Lessons learned while students teaching abroad. International Educational Journal, 5(4), 458–465. Rios, F., Montecinos, C., & Van Olphen, M. (2007). Lessons learned from a collaborative selfstudy in international teacher education: Visiones, preguntas, y desafios. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 57–74. Roberts, A. (2007). Global dimensions of schooling: Implications for internationalizing teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 9–26. Salmona, M., Partlo, M., Kaczynski, D., & Leonard, S. N. (2015). Developing culturally competent teachers: An international student teaching field experience. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 40(4), 35–53. Schneider, A. I. (2003). Internationalizing teacher education: What can be done? (A research report on the undergraduate training of secondary school teachers). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Shiveley, J. M., & Misco, T. (2012). Student teaching abroad will help you get a job: Exploring administrator perceptions of international experiences for preservice teachers. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 11(1), 52–68. Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching selfefficacy forming experiences. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 360–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.487081 Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002002 Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In M. CochranSmith, S. FeimanNemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research in teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559–582). New York, NY: Routledge. Sleeter, C. E., & Owuor, J. (2011). Research on the impact of teacher preparation to teach diverse students: The research we have and the research we need. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5–6), 524–536. doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.627045 Stachowski, L. L., & Mahan, J. M. (1998, Spring). Crosscultural field placements: Student teachers learning from schools and communities. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 155–162. Stachowski, L. L., & Sparks, T. (2007, January). Thirty years and 2,000 student teachers later. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 115–132. Talburt, S., & Stewart, M. (1999). What’s the subject of study abroad? Race, gender, and “living culture.” Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 163–175. Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers for cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74(3), 328–350. U.S. Census Bureau. (2014a). American Community Survey 1year estimated. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t U.S. Census Bureau. (2014b). 2010–2014 American Community Survey 5year estimate. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml? src=bkmk Vaughan, W. (2005). Educating for diversity, social responsibility and action: Preservice teachers engage in immersion experiences. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 12(1), 26–30.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003 WalkerDalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. D. (2006). Investigating White preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Negro Educational Review, 57(1/2), 69–84. Yang, C. C. R. (2011). Preservice English teachers’ perceptions of an overseas field experience programme. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), Article 5. Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 133–175). New York, NY: Teachers College.

16 Envisioning Alternative Futures: Elliot Eisner’s Challenge to Industrial Educational Practice Richard Siegesmund Northern Illinois University

16.1 Introduction During the twentieth century, curricular reform in the United States, and in much of the rest of the world, sought to align educational curriculum and pedagogy to a model of industrial mass production (Tyack & Hansot, 1982). Outputs were standardized and operations refined according to efficient time management in order to contain operational cost. Elliot Eisner was an American pragmatist educator who eloquently and passionately challenged this conceptual model of schooling. With penetrating intelligence, he explicated problems of teaching and learning as well as problems and potentials of conducting educational inquiry. His thinking concerned issues of curriculum, teacher assessment, program evaluation, and the structure of research methodologies and methods that would allow us to thoughtfully address a vision of education profoundly different from our current standardsbased practice. Eisner tirelessly questioned complacent assumptions of education, such as the meaningfulness of the concept of general intelligence (g) and the statistical evaluation of this factor as a determination of intelligence. For Eisner (1994a), intelligence manifested itself in boundless ways. Therefore, education was not an exercise in convergence to a single destination of “g,” but a celebration of divergence. In educational practice, while we should certainly attend to where we think we are going, we should also attend to and constantly reconsider other potential destinations of our inquiries. Educators should have the presence to realize new potentials that unfold in their classrooms and seize these moments to help attain unforeseen learning possibilities. Such a view was contrarian to the drumbeat of the latter part of the twentieth century with a rise in nationally supervised best practice through everinsistent demands for the accountability of schools through standardized testing of all students. In Eisner’s words:

Taking charge means simplifying and standardizing. Without standardization, comparative assessment of school performance is made virtually impossible, and without comparative assessment, it is very difficult to establish a ranking. Without a ranking, excellence is difficult to determine. So the idea of the race emerges: each child on the same track, jumping the same hurdles. To the victor go the spoils. Whether one track is appropriate for all children in this nation of ours or whether all children [are] starting at the same start line when the gun goes off is a neglected consideration. Thus, our culture’s not so tacit meritocracy supports the idea that in schools, as in socks, one size fits all. Ironically, this idea is often embraced in the name of educational equity, as if sameness and equity were identical. (Eisner, 1994a, p. 4)

Eisner’s critique of educational practice based on the metaphor of industrial production stems from his grounding in his home discipline of the arts. The arts prize individuality and creativity. An assembly line model of education is not appropriate; the arts recognize that learning is not so simple. Although the arts, like other academic disciplines, may sometimes follow convention, oftentimes the arts prize the outlier. The arts frequently celebrate the unexpected and the work that breaks the mold. Eisner championed this independence. He challenged education to build systems of curricula, teacher preparation, assessment, program evaluation, and educational research that would reward students who conceptualized alternative pathways. These alternative pathways were present in school in arts curricula. The attempts to change the arts to look more like standard school practice—or eliminate the arts altogether as they did not conform to standardsbased practice—were misguided. The more our nation embraces a form of technical rationality to manage its schools, the more it pushes toward practices that tend to standardize, the more our children need the kind of experience and opportunities that the arts provide. (Eisner, 2002, p. 236)

Coming out of a personal background in the visual arts, and steeped in the ideas of John Dewey through his academic training at the University of Chicago, Eisner advocated throughout his career a vision of education as empowering the specific needs and purposes of the individual, rather than the attainment of mass, predetermined standardized outcomes. This chapter will introduce the career of Eisner beginning with conceptual salient ideas to curriculum and pedagogy and tracing their developments, followed by a discussion of two central ideas within this writing. First is his vision of the arts as providing a curricular and pedagogical model for education. This section has two parts, both the contribution of the arts to all of education and an analysis of the appropriate forms of curriculum and pedagogy within the arts themselves. The second section is a discussion of his belief that the arts provide a model for the assessment of student learning and the evaluation of educational programs. This will include a brief discussion of artsbased research methods to evaluate teacher and student performance.

16.2 Eisner in Context

16.2.1 Pragmatist Origins Throughout his career as an educational provocateur, Eisner consciously situated his work within the context of American pragmatism, a philosophical movement that began in the late nineteenth century and was best represented by the philosophical work of William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey (Hookway, 2015)—three very distinctive thinkers, whose visions of education often conflicted. A contribution by James (1907/1975) was his promise of a synthesis for the tough minded and the tender minded. He maintained that our aspirations of content learning should be balanced against the holistic needs of the child. Peirce, as cited by James, claimed that truth was to be found in finegrained specifics. Generalization—such as adherence to global theory like national core standards—would lead to error. In his view, pragmatism sought direct, elegant solutions to problems. A criterion for validity was the solution of a problem that met a human need or improved the human condition. For example, if following theory resulted in harm to children, a pragmatist would change the theory. A pragmatist would not assume that theory was irreproachable and therefore institute a search for the guilty, blaming teachers, schools, or children for a theoretical failure. 16.2.1.1 Eisner’s Application of Pragmatism Demonstrating his pragmatist leanings, Eisner (2002) challenged our conceptions of standardized testing to measure educational achievement, by questioning how it values a child’s demonstration of the operational mechanics of reading over attending to fostering in the child a desire to read. Learning was not simply the technical mastery of skills, but the fostering of a curiosity to inquire and question the world. The sense of vitality and the surge of emotion we feel when touched by one of the arts can also be secured in the ideas we explore with students, in the challenges we encounter in doing critical inquiry, and in the appetite for learning we stimulate. In the long run, these are the satisfactions that matter most because they are the only ones that ensure, if it can be ensured at all, that what we teach students will want to pursue voluntarily after the artificial incentives so ubiquitous in our schools are long forgotten. (Eisner, 2005, p. 212)

In this view, the central problem of education was aesthetic: the nurturing of craving to learn, to question, and to grow. It’s not what you know as much as what you are motivated to do with it. Can you pragmatically question, explore, examine, and assess the world? In Eisner’s view, our educational goals (test performance) were misaligned to our educational aims (self guided learning). 16.2.1.2 Materiality and Sense in Education The latter educational work of Dewey explores the problem, how do we recognize a problem and maintain the energy and focus to work through it? To better understand this question would provide the promise of better understanding the authentic aim of education. In the twilight of

his life, Dewey (1934/1989) argued that thought begins in our direct interaction with the materiality of the world. Through our physical manipulations and interventions—as simple as a finger that traces a line in the sand, or our whistle that seeks to mimic the call of a bird and summon a response—we initiate inquiry. We remember, gather, and catalogue. From such actions, before the intercession of language and semiotics, we begin to infer and hypothesize about our world. For Dewey, these are the origins of thought, and they need to be taken seriously within our curricular structures. Eisner agreed: Activities that appear to rely on the use of the senses or upon affect are often regarded as nonintellectual, that is, as activities that make little demand upon thinking or human intelligence. This tradition, one that is reflected not only in our psychological discourse but in our educational policies, is based upon a limited and, I believe, educationally counterproductive view of mind. The formation of concepts depends upon the construction of images derived from the material the senses provide. (Eisner, 1994a, p. 28)

16.2.1.3 Pragmatism and Social Action Pragmatism championed more than individual learning. Learning had to contribute to social improvement. It needed to solve problems and make lives better. It could not focus on abstract ideas—like a randomly selected benchmark for achievement on standardized tests—but it had to lead to more inclusive functional social constructions (Stikkers, 2009). Education had to promote desire to participate in inclusive behavior. This is not an issue of cognition; this too is an issue of aesthetics. As such, Eisner was most inspired by Dewey’s claim (1934/1989) that this reordering of social dynamics is the foremost contribution of art to civilized society. Schools are the place where Dewey’s vision of art and education could be implemented. Eisner took that charge seriously. When the primary game in town is the denotative use of language and the calculation of number, those whose aptitudes or whose out of school experience utilize such skills are likely to be successful; there is a congruence between what they bring to the school and what the school requires of them. But when the school’s curricular agenda is diverse, diverse aptitudes and experience can come into play. Educational equity is provided not merely by opening the doors of the school to the child, but by providing opportunities to the child to succeed once he or she arrives. (Eisner, 1998b, p. 50)

16.2.2 The Pragmatist Outsider to Contemporary Educational Practice Scientific rationalism is the dominant conceptual model for contemporary “best practice” in curriculum and pedagogy, with its fixation on alignment of instructional objectives to a conceptually absolute goal (Callahan, 1962). Scientific rationalism has its origins with the early Greek philosopher Plato for whom knowledge was alignment to pure, ideal forms. This ancient vision has numerous iterations that continue to the present day. Most prominent is our

contemporary educational fixation on objective data that supposedly lead us out of subjective relativity as we aspire to cogent datadriven decisionmaking. In our current educational culture, the purity of generalizable data, most commonly secured through standardized tests in mathematical and linguistic competencies, is near sacrosanct. Anything that impedes the best data collection on the conceptually absolute measures is time off task. This conceptual framework marginalizes pragmatism as a teaching model in schools.

16.2.3 The Dominance of the Industrial Metaphor of Education Modern schools tend to be physically constructed like eggcrates: each year students (grouped by age rather than cognitive ability) move from classroom to classroom, down the assembly line with a standardsbased curriculum. Our time stamps for progress are so finegrained, we can even identify the month in which agebased benchmarks should be achieved. Our daily control of time is micromanaged with systems of bells. This is a scientific rationalist conception of education. The individual in the first half of the twentieth century who had the most influence on creating this structure was Edward Thorndike, who persuasively argued for the applications of standardized scales and measures of student learning to monitor both student growth and teacher effectiveness (Haertel & Herman, 2005). Thorndike championed the newly created field of statistics. As statistics were based on the apparent objectivity of numbers as opposed to the messy subjective process of psychological evaluation, it was a seemingly more scientific—and thus more modern and better—way of evaluating student and school performance. Thorndike’s vision of best practice within American education was built on the metaphor of the assembly line. His premise was that modern advances in knowledge would allow for efficient mass production of student success. The tools of industry, such as the time efficiency studies of Frederick Taylor, would be applied to education (Eisner, 2005). Thorndike’s ideas of measured outcomes and Taylor’s concerns for rapid standard output were furthered by the curriculum theorist Ralph Tyler (1950), who championed both of these outcomes through clearly articulated learning objectives. Education was standardized and harnessed to the neoliberal vision of economic productivity—as verified through valid, reliable, and generalizable standardized testing. This model ascended at a time when behaviorism dominated educational psychology. Behaviorism claimed that mind was an antiquated metaphysical concept and that the only educational outcomes that mattered were observable behaviors (Graham, 2015). Eisner spent his career, in a phrase that he used in his retirement address, swimming upstream against this current. 16.2.3.1 Eisner in Opposition Eisner (1998b, 2005) voraciously challenged this view that education was the expeditious attainment of predeclared performance goals on standardized tests. He eviscerated glib, unwarranted extrapolations that researchers, school administrators, and policymakers make from testing. Along with his critique of testing, he challenged the prevalent corresponding image of the successful teacher as one who astutely calibrates the path to high test scores before the journey begins, and executes the charted course—straight and true—with a deft efficiency of means. Eisner was appalled by this homogenized, vacuous conception of

teaching: “a wellintentioned but conceptually shallow effort to improve schools” (Eisner, 1998b, p. 178). He regarded it as a bureaucratic fantasy that ultimately rendered more harm than good to children as well as teachers. In his view, such a conception of curriculum and pedagogy was educationally irresponsible: We cannot know much about the educational quality of schools simply by examining test scores. We need a finer, more refined screen, one that focuses on the processes as well as the outcomes of schooling. (Eisner, 2005, p. 143)

16.2.3.2 The Agency of the Student The hubris of testing is based on the metaphorical assumption of the student as an empty vessel —the blank canvas—to be filled at the font of edification through topdown standardsbased curriculum models. However, students have their own goals and desires in the process of education. They may grasp another vision, identify another point on the horizon of experience —that may not be in alignment to the horizon of proper behavioral outcomes—and seek to cut another path. These students exhibit desire. Eisner referred to this as aesthetic sensibility. Such individuals take exception, see new opportunity, and have the courage to pursue a vision —a new outcome—that long accepted method and practice dismisses. In Eisner’s view, such moves are at the essence of our larger goals for education: Plato once described a slave as someone who executes the purposes of another. I would say that, in a free democratic state, at least a part of the role of education is to help youngsters learn how to define their own purposes. (Eisner, 2005, p. 189)

One focus of education should be helping students cut free from the root in order to understand that one does not wither and regress, but one can find new ways to thrive. However, our educational adherence to a homogeneous attainment of outcomes rejects alternative paths— new routes to previously unconsidered destinations—as educationally insignificant. 16.2.3.3 The Innate Inequity of Statistical Measurement Furthermore, at the heart of a bureaucratic conception of educational progress is a reliance on statistical measures of achievement. There is an inherent problem with such a statistical vision as on any single measure, by definition, 50% of the measured population will fall below the mean. Even if an arbitrary criterion is substituted for the mean, on any measure there will be those who fall below the mark. In such a model, the students who lie just below the benchmark receive the greatest allocation of resources for they show the most promise to rise above the bar. The students just above the benchmark receive the next allocation of resources in order to maintain their position. Students falling far below the cut line can be dismissed as outliers. Thereby, our methods to assure that no child is left behind—when grounded in simplistic numeric data and ignoring the robustness of the multivariate qualitative data that the arts provide—virtually guarantee that children will be left behind.

Although there are many issues that need attention in schooling, we search for the silver bullet and believe that, if we get our standards straight and our rubrics right and make our tests tough enough, we will have an improved school system. I am not so sure. (Eisner, 2005, p. 187)

16.2.4 Seeing Education through the Arts As an art educator, Eisner was blessed with inherent aversion to visions of education as industrial standardization. As it was impractical to construct widespread valid, reliable, and generalizable standardized tests in the arts, the educational system—infatuated with Thorndike’s testing and Tyler’s efficiency—assumed that the arts were irrelevant. Eisner was acutely conscious of working in this space of neglect. He knew the pain of being told that the subject you teach is academically irrelevant. Therefore, a focus of his research was on what forms of learning were denied to students when the arts were not taught. He referred to these lost opportunities for knowing and making meaning through conscious administrative neglect the null curriculum (Eisner, 1998a): knowledge that a school consciously denied to a student. From this place of negligence, Eisner constructed alternative measures of assessment and evaluation. By providing multimodal data on student achievement and teacher performance, Eisner sought to demonstrate the indispensability of the arts within our educational structures. These methods could ultimately also serve as an alternative pathway from which all subject areas could learn and in general improve educational practice, as demonstrated by the contributions that Eisner’s students made to the founding of the Narrative Research Special Interest Group (SIG) and the ArtsBased Educational Research SIG of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Shortly before his death the Elliot Eisner SIG – devoted to continuing to work with his alternative ideas of educational practice – was founded.

16.2.5 Personal Development and Career 16.2.5.1 University of Chicago In the mid1950s, before beginning his doctoral studies at the University of Chicago, Eisner studied art at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Institute of Design—the American iteration of the Bauhaus. He completed his doctorate under the supervision of two other American pragmatist educational scholars: Joseph Schwab and Phillip Jackson. Schwab advocated for the recognition of the complexity of learning— particularly the affective dimensions of student engagement—and criticized topdown educational research models that boasted datadriven theoretical models of best practice (Schwab, 1969a, 1969b). Late in life, Eisner (2005) claimed that Schwab shifted the ground of educational research by his insistence that skillful teaching lay in attention to the particular characteristics of the classroom and not in adherence to generalizable principles. Eisner stated:

Those interested in curriculum matters and in teaching began to recognize that the conditions teachers addressed were each distinctive. As a result, abstract theory about general relationships would be of limited value. Each child needed to be known individually, at least as far as possible. Each situation, even in the same classroom was unique. It was a grasp of these distinctive features that the teacher needed, not in order to produce knowledge about teaching, but, rather to make good decisions in the classroom. (Eisner 2005, p. 200)

Phillip Jackson, who would go on to serve as a president of AERA, also conceived the authentic problems of teaching and learning as belonging to Dewey’s conception of aesthetic endeavor (Jackson, 1998). Eisner’s fellow student from the University of Chicago, Lee Shulman, proved to be a lifelong colleague and critical friend in the area of support of excellence in curriculum and pedagogy (Uhrmacher & Matthews, 2005). 16.2.5.2 Stanford University Eisner taught over 40 years at what is now called the Stanford Graduate School of Education, which historically promoted a milieu amongst its faculty of providing national and international intellectual leadership to issues in education (Tyack & Hansot, 1982). An example that demonstrates the gravitas of this assumed responsibility is that during his career at Stanford, Eisner and an additional six of his professorial colleagues served as presidents of the AERA. Similarly in this time, colleague Lee Shulman would be named president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and transfer the headquarters from the East Coast to Palo Alto, next to the Stanford campus. Within this culture of leadership, Eisner was indefatigable in his insistence of the primacy of aesthetic understanding of curriculum and pedagogy to achieve pragmatic educational outcomes—often in the face of scalding criticism from his faculty peers. For example, Eisner is renounced by name in the 2002 report on standards for educational research of the National Research Council (Shavelson & Towne, 2002) coauthored by the then Dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education. Eisner’s association with Stanford allowed him to engage in sustained, intense, intellectual discussions with scholars who challenged his thinking. He in turn challenged theirs. The dialogues included philosophers Denis Phillips and Fred Dretske, educational testing statistician Ed Haertel, feminist theorist Nel Noddings, along with sustained discussion on the assessment of teacher quality with Lee Shulman. At a time when Stanford professors and graduates were inventing the Silicon Valley, Eisner vociferously questioned the claims equating analytic philosophy to thinking. Stanford professors were deeply engaged in the policy and practice of educational testing, and Eisner was an incessant gadfly to the initiatives by his colleagues to find the best topdown, datadriven solution: Pluralism has become more salient in our approach to knowledge. We are, in general, less confident about finding the one best way, even though in some circles this ambition still lingers. (Eisner, 2005, p. 193)

Through these oftentimes contentious debates, the enduring role of his wife, Ellie Eisner, who served as critical friend through over 50 years of marriage, is also noteworthy.

16.2.6 Paradigm Shifts in Educational Psychology during Eisner’s Career There were two major shifts in cognitive science during Eisner’s career in curriculum studies. Eisner came of age in the era of behaviorism: a psychological doctrine that focused on the training of behavior and denied the existence of mind (Graham, 2015). Psychological constructivism (with roots in nineteenthcentury German philosophy) usurped and dominated educational discourse (Phillips, 1995). This revival included the postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty’s (1980) resuscitation of American pragmatism as a credible theoretical foundation for practice. The second shift occurred in the last decades of Eisner’s work. Findings from the field of cognitive science suggested that mind was a product of embodied interaction with the material manifestations of our environment (Damasio, 1999; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Eisner’s work evolved parallel to these changing conceptions of what it means to learn.

16.2.7 Eisner as Academic and Teacher Eisner believed in careful, systematic thinking. He did not engage in polemical arguments; he understood deeply that there were two sides to each issue. He demonstrated a command of the conceptual frameworks, pertinent literature, and disciplinary logic that could be raised in objecting to his thinking. At Stanford, Eisner’s Wednesday night seminar during the winter quarter on graduate research was legendary as it brought together both doctoral students and faculty to grapple with a wide range of multidisciplinary educational research questions. Through this command, he could be a fierce and sometimes devastating debater. His continuing debates with Harvard cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner as to whether a work of art could meet the demands of a doctoral dissertation—sustained between 1996–1998 over three annual meetings of the AERA—exemplify his extemporaneous skill in the engagement of finely honed ideas, without ever defaulting to vapid rhetoric. In this particular debate, Eisner argued that it was a task, indeed a duty, of higher education to apply new forms of the representation of mind to the shaping of doctoral dissertations. Gardner argued that the structure and form of a dissertation was not research as much as a gateway performance into academia. Therefore, a dissertation was not a place to be creative; it was an obligation to meet an established benchmark. In such debates, Eisner did not seek to discredit the opposing view; he sought recognition of alternative pathways as fully cogent systems for ways of knowing. As an educator, Eisner nurtured a diverse range of scholars. His concern was with intellectual rigor, and he would judiciously inform students that they were not meeting his academic expectations. He might famously write “So what?” at the end of a term paper. Research had to make a difference. At the end of a wellwritten paper, he would sometimes comment, “You can publish this,” and would continue to work with the student in coming months to realize this potential. His critical eye was matched by an authentic curiosity and a need to understand.

Eisner’s interest was in thinking well. He believed there were multiple approaches to this task, and that while numbers and words were assuredly methods for exacting analysis, they did not hold a monopoly on thought. In this sense, Eisner’s work was a harbinger and deeply sympathetic to the work of Howard Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences. Guided by the employment of intelligence rather than adherence to theory, Eisner’s students spanned an impressive range of disciplines and theoretical perspectives. Paramount to Eisner was that research engage authentic issues of education. It was not enough to think well; one should be committed to leading educational change. It was of great importance to him that work that he nurtured would make teaching and learning better. The careers of his students testify that there are a multitude of ways in which this might be achieved.

16.3 The Arts as Core to Education Eisner followed in the trend of the British educator Sir Herbert Read (1958) who argued that the arts were core to all education as they offer a point for the student to emotionally and sensorially engage with learning. Such a position is continued today by British educator Sir Ken Robinson (2008) and Canadian educator Kieran Egan (2008). In this view, the purpose of education is to cultivate curiosity and generate the aesthetic reward that follows authentic inquiry. While skills in disciplinary knowledge provide tools to facilitate the finegrained pursuit of inquiry, acquisition of the tools is all too often confused with the process of inquiry. Therefore our systems of education focus on mechanics and fail to address forms of emotional engagement that drive authentic learning. To make this point, Eisner (2005) would repeatedly return to John Dewey’s distinction between standards and criteria as modern usage obscures Dewey’s useful early twentieth century distinctions. For Dewey, standards help us know how efficiently we have arrived at a predetermined destination. Criteria provide checks along the way toward goals that we seek to achieve. They permit the acknowledgment that an unexpected outcome is not merely an acceptable solution to a problem, but it may be laudatory. Criteria allow us to reassess and change direction. Thereby, criteria allow for the recognition and praise of a student to take risks and think outside the box rather than being humbly compliant. In short, an end of education is to foster bold innovation. The Nietzschean strongpoet (Rorty, 1989) struck Eisner as the kind of student we want in all of our subject areas.

16.3.1 The Arts’ Applications to Teaching and Learning Eisner’s thinking both remained remarkably consistent and evolved in nuance over the span of the half century in which he worked. Ideas that first appeared at the beginning of his career were reworked and refined. At the beginning of the twentyfirst century a series of books that he authored provided insight into continuing formative refinements of the major streams of his thinking within his career (Barone & Eisner, 2012; Eisner, 1998b, 2002, 2005). For example, he first conceived of artsbased research as borrowing from the skills of the art critic to learn how to employ language to describe the life of the classroom. By the end of his career, he considered how aesthetic objects presented nonlinguistic forms of representation that might

initiate and report a journey of educational inquiry. In addition, scholars whom he influenced openly acknowledge his contributions to their thinking and provide another stream of the evolution of his work (Uhrmacher & Matthews, 2005). These broad efforts address the significant, yet neglected issues of education as well as how research methods must change so that critical and yet silent and unseen elements of education can come into appearance and be given voice in order to be seen or heard. 16.3.1.1 Challenging Reductive Conceptions of Mind Perhaps the single issue to which Eisner would return repeatedly—and perhaps most famously in his 1993 Presidential Address to the AERA (Eisner, 2005)—is the peril to education when we reduce our conception of rationality to rapid symbolic manipulation and our research to smug declarations of reaching in the fewest number of steps valid and reliable scores for general intelligence. He voiced concern for the ruin this induced into education: When students believe the text possesses a single correct meaning, it is not difficult to understand why they would regard their task as discovering the correct one, storing it in their memory bank, and being ready to retrieve it when called upon to do so. Being smart means being right, and being right means knowing the single correct literal answer to a question that might be posed. Such an attitude toward understanding does little to promote intellectual values that celebrate multiple perspectives, judgment, risk taking, speculation, and interpretation. (Eisner 1994a, p. 71)

Eisner’s vision of education was not one of efficient classification and treatment. Instead, he claimed that value of our careers as teachers was not in exacting high test performance but rather “our work lives its ultimate life in the lives that it enables others to lead” (Eisner, 2005, p. 160). Helping others to lead fulfilled lives is not only a benefit for learners, it is the teacher’s reward as well. We are not merely teachers of children, but we are engaged in a collective process of making our schools and communities better, more decent places in which to live. 16.3.1.2 Forms of Representation and Embodied Learning The fullest development of Eisner’s concept of forms of representation is found in Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered (1994a). Forms of representation—thinking in the relationships of qualities—represent an alternative way of demonstrating knowing distinct from symbolic manipulation. Eisner’s thought developed during and following a 1988 Fellowship at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where he was in residency with the cognitive philosopher Fred Dretske, whose research equated intelligence with symbol manipulation (an example of how intellectual challenge sharpened Eisner’s thinking). Eisner argued that we recognize qualities through our sensory experience of the materiality of the world—the moistness of skin on a Gulf Coast morning, the scent of smoke from a roaring fire on a snowy evening, the touch of smooth silk in the hand, the rhyme and rhythm of poetry to

both the ear and the heart. Recognition of qualities is an aesthetic response. Aesthetic response provokes consciousness and thrusts us somatically toward meaning making. While placing experiences into semiotic (linguistic or numeric) representation can augment, clarify, and intensify these experiences, somatic experiences have shape and agency before semiotic intervention. They can be manipulated and adumbrated through the materiality of the arts: such as the choreography of the body, musical notation, or paint on canvas. To focus solely on semiotic understanding—to only have an interest in what poems say, without attending to the aesthetic reverberation—reduces the meaning of poems. Literacy is more than the recognition of words, it works on different levels of emotional experience and thus is multimodal. Teachers, administrators, and educational researchers should have training in this form of knowledge. Assessing What Matters Instead of Reliably Measuring the Insignificant. We demonstrate our intelligence of engaging with the world in multiple ways. To insist solely on the manipulation of words and numbers as demonstrations of intelligence is to inherently discriminate and create systemic disenfranchisement in our educational systems. As Eisner was quick to point out, we test what we can measure, but not everything we can measure is worth testing. Our systems of educational assessment are so skewed to valuing reliability and validity that we construct tests around educationally insignificant content and make inappropriate extrapolations around student learning from them. Standardized testing guarantees that significant numbers of children will be left behind. The statistics from such tests do not reflect on the quality of teaching and learning, they simply report the educational wreckage these impoverished conceptions of learning incur. Educational methods are not neutral or benign. They shape minds: Curriculum is a mindaltering device. When we define the content and tasks that constitute the curriculum, we also define the kinds of mental skills we choose to cultivate. The absence of attention to the aesthetic in the school curriculum is an absence of opportunities to cultivate the sensibilities. It is an absence of the refinement of our consciousness, for it is through our sensibilities that our consciousness is secured. (Eisner, 2005, p. 103)

We think in metaphors and metaphors are rooted in embodied experience (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). If we limit learning to worksheets and rapid responses to short answer questions—if our teaching to standardized tests removes embodied experience as an inefficient use of precious instructional time—we limit the thinking that our students can achieve. Embodied learning is now well established by cognitive science. The arts, and aesthetic understanding, are a means of establishing important realms of human thought in our schools. However, our schools and the political systems that control them are still working in an outmoded late industrial conception of education and thinking. 16.3.1.3 The Confusion of Establishing Training as Learning As Dewey stipulated, learning is growth. Eisner frequently pointed to a biological definition of

culture—as in the petridish—where specific environmental conditions are brought to bear to foster growth. However, one set of environmental conditions does not induce universal growth. Some plants thrive in full sun; others require shade. Education should focus on the growth of all elements of the school culture. This applies not only to the students, but also to teachers, staff, administrators, parents, and the community. Instead of thinking of our schools and our curricula as growthinducing devices, we have converted education into a commodity that one purchases through tuition and then resells for employment. By teaching to past industrial models, we occlude the ability of our students to engage with a yet undefined future—a future that they could define if they were educated, but a future that will victimize them if they are trained for the present. This shift from learning to training is most readily recognized in the importance that is given to meticulously following instructions. This emphasis on obedience over thinking is present even in the arts. An example of this is the 1997 National Assessment of Educational Progress in the visual arts. Here, in a test that is ostensibly testing creative development in children, the students were instructed to construct a collage with supplied materials to address a stated theme. The students were also told that they could use markers to add color to their collage. However, if the student had the temerity to not use the collage materials and only used markers, their examination was marked unscoreable and considered a failure. Training to follow instructions trumps any concern for learning that might have been displayed. Eisner’s Expressive Outcomes as Opposed to Tyler’s Educational Objectives. Tyler’s promotion of educational objectives led Benjamin S. Bloom, then Associate Director of the Board of Examinations of the University of Chicago, to produce a groundbreaking taxonomy of objectives (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) that continues to be in widespread educational use today (Krathwohl, 2002). Eisner’s book, The Educational Imagination, first published in 1979 and revised twice (1985, 1994), benchmarks his criticism of Tyler’s and Bloom’s conflation to attaining predetermined educational objectives to learning. In different language, he returns to this topic again in 2002 in The Arts and the Creation of Mind where he speaks to the lure of this model for curriculum planning and evaluation: According to the standard view, ends are supposed to be well defined, firmly held, and used to formulate means, which are theoretically related to the achievement of those ends. Once means have been employed, evaluation is to follow. If means are found wanting, new means are conceptualized and implemented, and their effects evaluated. Again, if means are ineffective, even newer means are implemented. Ends are held constant in the standard view of rational behavior. Means follow goals. It’s all quite neat. The problem is that it’s too neat. Life does not proceed that way, and for good reason. (Eisner, 2002, p 78) A current popular model within educational curriculum planning—one that Eisner refers to as Tyler’s “standard view” with ends held firmly in view—is Understanding by Design (UbD),

but also known as Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This model begins with a declaration of educational objectives and then proposes that we work backwards through curriculum planning to align all actions within the lesson to the desired end. Eisner’s caution is that contexts in life constantly change. Conditions alter, new considerations emerge as others recede. Midcourse we might wish to evaluate and shift to a different opportunity—much like the running back in American football who in a millisecond must recognize that the play is not developing as drawn up by the coaches and must make an instantaneous decision to improvise in order to optimize the potentiality of the moment. Life does not provide a meticulous syllabus, with problems, tasks, and results carefully delineated months in advance. Life is messy. Furthermore, life is more than the attainment of neat objectives; it is about working toward larger goals. In The Educational Imagination, Eisner introduces the term of educational expressive outcomes to convey a categorically different kind of educational end that is distinctive from educational objectives. Expressive outcomes might include surprise, risktaking , careof self, and careofothers. Nel Noddings (2003) speaks to the expressive outcome of happiness. Happiness is something that is overlooked in education; in fact, we tend to associate a fair amount of suffering, as demonstrated by a long historical acceptance of corporal punishment, with education. In the dominant view, objectives establish an expected product. Objectives presuppose that the teacher will firmly envision the student’s final product, and will have a preconceived rubric at the ready to assess how well the student’s work fits a predefined canon. For many educators and educational administrators, the pursuit of highly designed instructional objectives renders expressive outcomes such as happiness irrelevant to education. By design, expressive outcomes value the process of and engagement with education. They do not predict or set the form of output. Flexible Purposing as Opposed to Understanding by Design. Expressive outcomes do not follow a neat “UbD” chain of logic, because expressive outcomes acknowledge that both students and teachers can change course to seize a teachable moment and maximize an opportunity for learning. From Dewey (1938), Eisner employs the phrase flexible purposing—a concept that the mechanics of education are not a goal in themselves, but tools for guiding inquiry to new ends. The intentionality of identifying and setting course for new horizons is a goal of education that in Eisner’s view fails to be taught in schools— even in the arts—and thus falls into the realm of a null curriculum: an opportunity to think that the child will never be able to experience:

A narrow focus on the technical mastery of the material or a preoccupation with the quality of form leads to neglect of matters of intention. To emphasize matters of intention is not to suggest that intentions must be fixed; they should not be. That is the point of flexible purposing. But although purposes should be flexible, there are purposes that should guide the work nevertheless. Work in the arts is purposive, and the character of those purposes should receive far more attention than they do. (Eisner, 2002, pp. 51–52) In contrast to specified outputs, expressive outcomes rely on the exercise of judgment by the student to sail to new and unexpected shores. Flexible purposing values the attentiveness to realize that in a moment of inquiry, new, unexpected, and potentially more valuable potential outcomes present themselves. Flexible purposing speaks to the ability to change course. It can be seen, for example, in how the student deliberately reinvents the problem. Here the issues of assessment ask how a student challenged a paradigm rather than how the student problem solved. It values how a child improvised; it places less emphasis on a homogenized outcome achieved through collaboration. 16.3.1.4 Aligning Goals to Educational Aims The expressive outcomes of education will likely do more than change our goals; they will ask us to reorient our aims. Our aims are our largest aspirations for education: these include producing students prepared to live personally rewarding lives and to function in civil society as competent citizens (Eisner, 1998b). Eisner suggests that expressive outcomes can perhaps reorient us and question our neatly packaged educational objectives that have possibly led us astray from the big issues of education—our overarching aims. For example, attention to expressive outcomes would make immaterial a research study on the relationship of music instruction to improved performance on standardized math tests. If music is valued as an expressive outcome, it could be valued for the happiness it brings to the children who participate in it, and for the care and attention given to individual skills developed in order to successfully present a community performance. Such expressive outcomes provide opportunities for the child to discover the intrinsic motivation of learning itself. With growth comes greater access to participation in webs of social engagement: to contribute and share. These are other shores than mechanical assessments of achieving benchmark performances in standardized testing. Expressive outcomes minimize the importance of following directions; they celebrate breaking the rules. Thus, they confront educators with considering their own values. In particular, they force educators to come to terms with the degree of importance they want to impart on compliance and control. Both of these may help us to neatly achieve our designed objectives through our carefully constructed means, but what does this do to our overall aims for education? For Eisner, that aim should be to foster a desire for growth through a sustained practice of reflection. Through our obsession with educational objectives we have lost sight of our educational aims of creating a citizenry that can think for itself.

16.3.2 The Evolution of Arts Education Curricula Although a powerful voice in general curriculum studies, Eisner always considered his personal professional training, classroom experience, and home discipline to be visual art education. Through his career he played pivotal roles in two major art education curriculum reforms that had international ramifications. The first of these was what would come to be known as disciplinebased art education (where he was perceived as a major contributor), and second was visual culture art education (where he was perceived as a critic). 16.3.2.1 DisciplineBased Art Education The 1965 conference of the Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development held at the Pennsylvania State University (commonly referred to as the Penn State conference) responded to Jerome Bruner’s conception, articulated in The Process of Education (1960), that curriculum should be structured according to disciplinary knowledge. Eisner was a participant. The outcome of this conference was a resolution that art education should make two changes: (1) abandon its quasiFreudian roots at the elementary level of providing a space of open expression to promote general mental health, and (2) drop its formulaic high school curriculum inherited from mechanical skills development exercises developed at the Bauhaus. Instead, the field should follow Bruner’s recommendation of a structure of disciplinary knowledge with sequential curricula and aligned assessments. After the Penn State conference, Eisner instituted one of the early largescale artcurriculum projects that treated visual art as a content area worthy of structural curriculum. It purposively eschewed educational objectives and included reliable and valid forms of assessment of students’ expressive outcomes (Dobbs, 2004). Afterwards, three of Eisner’s doctoral students, Gill Clark, Dwayne Greer, and Michael Day (all of whom went on to distinguished art education careers), formalized a proposal for a new curricular approach called discipline based art education (DBAE) (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987). DBAE formalized study and assessment in the areas of studio production, art history, aesthetic theory, and criticism. Simultaneously to Clark, Day, and Greer’s work, the educational wing of the Getty Trust—the Getty Center for Education in the Arts—resolved to promote DBAE across the United States as its vision of best practice. Although Eisner personally argued to the Getty Center’s board that art education would best be served with a diversity of curricular conceptions and not the single template envisioned by the Getty, he nevertheless worked with the Getty to make its vision as educationally robust as possible. As a result, the common misperception persists—which is often cited in curricular literature of art education—that the Getty initiative was Eisner’s creation. 16.3.2.2 Visual Culture Art Education At the end of the twentieth century, the rising interest in semiotics—particularly as articulated through the lens of postmodern French continental philosophy—propelled new concepts of what art might be and how it might be taught in schools. This brought issues of power, authority, the control of thought, and the body as a site of resistance into the art education

literature (Freedman, 2003). Rather than focusing on appreciation of masterpieces, or fostering expressive activities through arts material, curriculum became more focused on how students either manipulated or were manipulated by the visual culture around them. In a resonant published exchange with visual culture art educator Paul Duncum, Eisner reasserted the need to retain the engagement with materiality as core to the discipline of art education. … the concept of visual culture transforms the student from a productive young artist into an analytic spectator. In arts courses, the experience of bringing an image into being that is appraised by a sense of purpose held by a young creator requires students to think in very special ways, ways that are almost absent in most classrooms. Learning how to think within the constraints and affordances of a medium, learning to exploit the unanticipated opportunities that unfold in the course of doing a painting or a collage, making judgments about relationships that are rooted in one’s own somatic experience, entertaining alternative solutions to a problem and judging their respective merits—these processes are central to the making of visual art, and I would not like to see such opportunities compromised. I would not like to see such opportunities compromised because from my perspective they stimulate, develop, and refine among the highest and most sophisticated forms of human cognition; they marry thought and emotion in the service of meaning. They help us learn to see and to feel what we see. The arts are eye openers. (Eisner, 2001, p. 9)

Here, Eisner again cautions against the reduction of thinking to the manipulation of symbols— even when the symbols are visual. He advocates for a curriculum that incorporates thinking through the relationships of qualities afforded through a raw engagement with the materiality of the world driven by purpose and aesthetic wonder. 16.3.2.3 ArtsIntegrations and Multiple Literacies Eisner feared that in too many cases artsintegration was a mere decorative element to curriculum: where the arts were treated as handmaidens to more allegedly significant educational ends. Allowing children to cover inflated balloons with papiermâché in order to make a model of the solar system is not artsintegration in science education. Art contributes to the general aims of education through its distinctive ways of knowing—not as an illustration of other symbol systems (Albers & Sanders, 2010; RiddettMoore & Siegesmund, 2014). Art is not an addon, adjunct, or enrichment. It is not time out. Art is core to educating for the growth of the mind. If art serves as entertainment, then neither art nor the core subject are being taught.

16.3.3 The Pragmatic Classroom When asked what his ideal classroom would look like, Eisner readily quipped, “Kindergarten.” Here of course he summoned the importance of play and following desire in education. However, on multiple occasions (Eisner, 1998b, 2005), he spoke more deliberatively about the pragmatic classroom as opposed to the standardsbased classroom. Chief among these is that mathematics, language, and science—as important and indispensable

as they are—do not hold a monopoly on how we translate our experience of the world into meanings that guide our judgments and ultimately inform the decisions we make as to how we choose to function in the world. I am not sure that we can tinker to Utopia and get there. Nor do I believe that we can mount a revolution. What we can do is to generate other visions of education, other values to guide its realization, other assumptions on which a more generous conception of the practice of schooling can be built. That is, although I do not think revolution is an option, ideas that inspire new visions, values, and especially new practices are. (Eisner, 2005, pp. 207–208)

Eisner saw at least six ways to immediately rethink our practice. First, students gather, analyze, organize, and display qualities of experience to represent a declared purpose. This is a description of what happens in an arts class, with paint, sound, or the movement of a body. But it could also inform what happens in a science or literature class as well. Second, such an exercise requires students to think about their own aims for education. It changes the role of the student from a passive receptor of knowledge predeclared by the teacher to be significant, to the role of the inquirer. Third, how we say something dramatically influences the meaning of what is said. Details and nuance matter. It is through a student’s own passion to get something right that we can teach the lessons of nuance. The arts are a means for bringing passion to our schools. Fourth, science, math, and propositional language do not control meaning. Fifth, the materiality of the world can change with how we choose to think of it. Light can be either a particle or wave depending on the conditions that we wish to engage in. So, too, choosing to frame the world in different ways can change what the world can be. The end result of education is not always captured in the completion of a standardized multiplechoice test. What other ends can we envision? Sixth, the enduring value of education is to provide us the tools to make meaning of experience. This speaks to personal agency in preparation for becoming a responsible citizen: citizens empowered to invent the new and better worlds that we aspire to (see Eisner, 2005, pp. 208–214).

16.4 Educational Assessment and Evaluation Assessment is the appraisal of individual performance, either by a student or by the teacher. Evaluation is a comparative judgment across groups with an eye toward what can be said of collective achievement. Standardized testing has been and continues to be the method of choice for both assessment and evaluation, with individual teacher assessment simply mirroring the results of student assessment with the collective data becoming the numeric basis for evaluation. Eisner was not an opponent of testing. Eisner saw great worth in adroit gathering of numerical data on student and teacher performance and their skillful analysis. His own dissertation incorporated statistics and on occasion he was brought in as an external reviewer for statistical dissertations. However, Eisner was deeply troubled by an overreliance on statistical information, a privileging of these data that exceeded their worth, and the reckless generalization that educational researchers associated with statistical claims in pursuit of

political influence and promising bureaucratic efficiencies. For example, Eisner identified at least five functions of assessment that put it in opposition to evaluation: temperature taking, gatekeeping, verifying attainment, providing feedback, and judging quality (1998b, p. 138). Here he pointed to misapplications of assessment, in particular to the questionable assertion that literacy and numeracy equate to achievements on standardized tests. Numeracy and literacy are applications of knowledge. Standardized tests address a certain level of mechanics. Measurements of success in meeting mechanical educational objectives do not address an assessment of the aims of learning or an assessment of the quality of instruction, a point that continues to be emphasized by educational evaluators (Popham, 2014).

16.4.1 The Artistry of Teaching and Assessment The arts often provide metaphors for ways of thinking about curriculum. For example, in visual arts, a common exercise is to draw negative space. The student does not draw what is there, but concentrates on drawing the supposedly empty spaces around the object. By attending to what is not there the object ultimately is rendered into view. Therefore, the exercise develops perception by not myopically focusing on the object at hand, but looking at how the object resonates within the surrounding space. Eisner (1994b) carried such an idea into curriculum theory by calling for the examination of what one did not see in schools (the null curriculum). Furthermore, attention on the explicit would leave unnoticed the details and nuance of great teaching. Therefore, the evaluation of teaching practice required the eye of a critic who could look through the homogenized industrial practice of education. Eisner’s (1991) methodology of educational criticism requires constantly looking for what has been neglected, what has been left unnoticed. Following John Dewey’s (1934/1989) aesthetic theory that held that the purpose of criticism was not to tear down, but to expand our capacity to see more, Eisner’s work, while at times pointedly critical, was always about how schools could improve. It was not a rejection of education; it was relentless in its hope of moving to a better tomorrow. 16.4.1.1 The Arts as a Dissonant Lens to See Education The arts frame dissonant visions of curriculum and pedagogy that mark out new possibilities. For Eisner, these were horizons that established visions of what education could, and ought, to be. He viewed the study and analysis of schools as an artistic endeavor. For Eisner, the arts were the best lens to understand, refine, and evaluate the relativity of educational practice as it occurs in classrooms, as teachers face realworld, realtime weighted judgments as to what to teach and why. In his view, the artistry of teaching was achieved by the teacher’s perception of moments of insight and opportunity, and then—through skill and craft—of seizing these moments to render learning indelible. 16.4.1.2 The Need for Artful Teachers Good teaching displays artistry. It does not follow scripts. The classroom is a live environment. Skillful teaching recognizes shifting daily dynamics and the opportunity to seize teachable moments. The assessment of good teaching needs to trace the learning of all children and account for differences. A successful teacher does not necessarily lead all students to the

same place all the time. A variety of outcomes assures that all children learn at high levels (Janesick, 2003). Performance assessment needs to balance the ability of teachers to transfer technical skills (appropriate to the base knowledge of students at the beginning of the school year) with an ability to educate for critical inquiry and critical engagement with the world. Training teachers to accept standardized methods of evaluation and assessment deskills the professions. Inattention to the particularity of qualitative differences—in preservice teacher programs or inservice evaluation—makes it more difficult for schools to obtain the critical data that are needed for sharp, precise, and humanly sensitive decisions regarding students and overall school performance. 16.4.1.3 The Need for Artful TeacherResearchers The first level of expertise has to be the classroom teacher. If the classroom teacher lacks the skills to record and report the qualitative data at the heart of artistry of teaching, which promotes students to pivot to new educational outcomes, then the data run the risk of being lost from our educational discourse, unless the teacher has the good fortune of having an administrator trained in qualitative research methodology, or a qualitative researcher documenting the classroom. Furthermore, if teachers lack qualitative skills for rendering aesthetic judgments of teaching and learning, they are more at risk of defaulting to reducing and desiccating their curriculum to what is tested or mandated by baseline standards. What a teacher feels cannot be reported, will quickly become part of the null curriculum: what the student has no opportunity to learn. Therefore, teachers must be empowered to question the limits of multiplechoice testing and externally imposed standards. Teachers need to possess the skills to propose educationally meaningful alternatives for student assessment. Teachers often know how before they know why. They often take actions before they have the ability to articulate in language why they took the action. They have a sense of the classroom, withitness (Kounin, 1970), or eyes in the back of their head (an example of qualitative insight into teaching that delighted Eisner). This comes from a heightened sense of the nuances of qualitative engagement in a classroom, and the artistry of conducting the actions within these environments to appropriate learning goals. Teacherresearcher methods should honor the artistry of teachers in their ability to know how as a demonstration of intelligence.

16.4.2 Criticism in Educational Evaluation Program evaluation methods that follow reductive industrial models rely on general statistical significances. Statistical analysis removes the particular in order to attain a better sense of the general. As one lens for analyzing a problem, this has merit and can provide value. To hold it up as a gold standard for datadriven decisions is an egregious error. Proper program evaluation is not an issue of measurement; it is an issue of judgment. Judgment requires comparisons of more than how much; it requires an appraisal of worth. Eisner would caution that if it is not worth learning, it is not worth teaching well. It does us little good to

have confidence that an impoverished curriculum is being taught effectively. Rather than constantly reducing experience to the general, Eisner argued for the particular as data. When crafted ethically for the purpose of the enlargement of understanding, a single telling case can itself provide critical narratives that can shape a robust understanding of the dynamic realities of schools and contribute to responsible decisions. As early as 1976, Eisner (2005) advocated that evaluation model itself on art criticism. Dewey describes criticism as enlarging perception. The role of the art critic is not to render a verdict —although this comical role is often the common portrayal of the critic in popular culture (the thumbs up/thumbs down denouement of the reality television series). Instead, the critic is a guide into distinctions of qualities. The utility of these distinctions may be trivial and possibly pernicious if they are used for social mobility, cultural suppression, or economic advantage (Bourdieu, 1984). However, the ability to distinguish finegrained qualities can broaden perception: If we learn something about a case that we did not know at the outset of the study, not only have we achieved consciousness of that quality or feature, but also we learn to look for that quality or feature in other places. (Eisner, 1998a, p. 207)

Such a view aligns to pragmatist values of research, for it does not imbue special significance or infallibility to numerical renderings of validity, reliability, and generalizability. Rather, it puts great weight on an informed teacher, trained to distinguish nuance, and to consider multiple overlays of information to see, with his or her own eyes, what is in the best interest of the child. This view opened the door for the field of educational evaluation to attend to the qualities of the situation, not necessarily the preordained objectives (Stake, 2014). This does not absolve teachers from standards and assessment, it holds them to a higher accountability, since the teachers would not be able to point to facile evidence such as test scores—either positive or negative—as evidence of their pedagogical and curricular excellence. It would require that teachers be connoisseurs of their own practice and deploy the skills of educational criticism to allow administrators and parents to see the excellence of their teaching. However, the chief beneficiaries of such connoisseurship would be the students themselves, for such methods allow them to see themselves in context, rather than as deficient against an abstracted benchmark of excellence. In addressing Eisner’s contributions to evaluation, Robert Stake (2014) claims that Eisner brought to evaluation a concern for quality that could not be captured in statistics. In a course that he teamtaught with Eisner:

he urged that we work from realization of two meanings of the term, quality. He reminded me that quality refers not only to goodness but also to texture and to composition. Quality of a sunset can mean its beauty, its thrill, and its capacity for inspiration. But its quality also is its composition: pinnacles of cloud, pinks and the occasional green, radiating beams of light, and reflections on the water. And so with educational programs. What is the texture: the striving, the context, the sense of episode, challenge, and multiple realities? We spoke of the countenance of evaluation, drawing from two grand data banks, the observational and the judgmental: descriptive data on the left and judgmental on the right. (p. 453) Stake claims that Eisner changed the field of educational evaluation by changing its mechanistic datadriven preoccupation, to a field that reoriented itself to the humanities—and feelingful discipline of pragmatic communication and commitment to social improvement.

16.5 ArtsBased Educational Research Eisner is associated with developing forms of artsbased educational research (ABER). He coined the phrase. By calling it artsbased, he did not imagine research to mimic the products of professional practice from the fine arts. By inserting the adjective educational, he insisted that the work must inform the curricular and pedagogical practice of schools. He believed that the arts could provide insight into these issues: I did not expect artsbased research to culminate in the creation of paintings, poems, or pirouettes. I thought that crafting of evocative forms might enable us to address aspects of educational life that normally get neglected. I also hoped our social science colleagues would find such work credible. (Eisner, 2002, p. 18)

Eisner maintained that research methodology never speaks for itself and a methodology (such as a doubleblind experimental study) never becomes inherently selfjustifying. Just because a research followed a prescribed series of steps does not mean that the research is something of worth. Mechanically following a delineated pathway is not an assurance of success. It doesn’t work with a lesson plan; it doesn’t work with the conduct of educational research. In both teaching and research there is a demand to exercise judgment that will give the research a form that makes it intelligible. For Eisner, the exercise of judgment that provides form is a function of aesthetics (Eisner, 2005, p. 98). Thus aesthetics is a function of all research— quantitative and qualitative. In these cases, Eisner particularly breaks with contemporary artsdiscourse because of his pragmatic insistence on the applicability of the work. Eisner’s interest was never in an elite appreciation of a rarified form. Rather, Eisner was looking for finegrained distinctions that have been overlooked and ignored. Once brought to light for all to see, we reconsider our educational actions. While some ABER research of works has achieved presentational status in performance venues (Saldaña, 2005), the significance in the work is not its ability to provide a shortlived, satisfying experience. The importance of the research lies in its ability to provide insights that might change the life of classrooms. This is an example of Eisner’s

insistence that work of educational research should strive toward being referentially clear— while at the same time being imaginative enough that it invites us to see the world in a new way. This is similar to his concern that artsbased methods might regress to privileging the metaphorically novel over a case that has utility. The tension within this method is his permission for researchers and teachers to take risks, follow a hunch, and even allow one’s self to get lost in order to find a new direction. He exhorted his graduate students to work on the edge of incompetency. Nevertheless, from these forages into the unknown, one had to pull back, assess, and make sense of what was of value. Why is this important? Why should we care? It is not enough that this was a valuable experience for a researcher/teacher, or for even one student; it must provide insight into how we teach and foster pragmatic climates of growth that benefit others. As mentioned earlier, he would simply ask “So what?” Eisner’s specific ABER methodology, educational criticism (Eisner, 1991), provides for the analysis of artistry in the profession of teaching and offers a means for privileging the recording and analysis of expressive learning outcomes. Eisner’s methods are a means of reporting the unexpected outcomes of teaching and learning. They provide methods for recording the employment of flexible purposing, and demonstrate how directions change. Rather than defining what one expects to find before entering a classroom, artsbased methods demand close attention to discover what is there: to perceive before recognition and naming. These openings of vision may lead us to new consideration of value and importance in teaching and learning (for examples see Barone, 2001; Hofsess, 2013).

16.6 Extensions of Eisner’s Thinking With the resurgence of pragmatism as theory—and particularly with new interest throughout Europe (Hickman, Neubert, & Reich, 2009)—there is growing interest in reframing the central purpose of education as preparation for a better, more socially inclusive future, rather than the faithful duplication of an unsatisfactory past. The benefits of pragmatic education are always metaphysical for they reside in the future. Eisner’s insistence on reshaping consciousness through qualitative engagement of materials has found resonance with postqualitative theorists (Rosiek, 2013). Other scholarship connects his extension of Dewey’s insistence on the limits of semiotic knowledge to the philosophies of Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Rancière (Garoian, 2013; Siegesmund, 2013).

16.6.1 Education and the Lessons from the Arts Dewey argued that consciousness is artistic. It comes through our interaction with the world and sense of nuance—the rhythms and counterpoint of cascading water over rocks that trigger recognition of pattern, our speculation at the imprint of animal paws in the moist sand, and the delight from olfactory sensations arising from the melding of food and spice prepared over heat. Science is one form through which we begin to distill significance and knowledge from these experiences. But to focus on the mechanics of literacy and numeracy denudes these mechanisms of the soil from which consciousness—our desire to interact with the world—

springs. With the stripping of sense from our schools, we desiccate meaning. In his final years, Eisner turned repeatedly to the theme of what education can learn from the arts. Our educational imagination needs to be more artsbased and less sciencebased. Eisner closed his 1993 AERA presidential address with a projection of different interpretations of Lord Alfred Tennyson’s poem “Ulysses.” Each version, in shifting context, provided alternative meanings and interpretations to the same fixed sequence of words. A portion of the poem includes the following: The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends, ’Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. Eisner’s purpose was to provide teachers with the tools to cut loose from the known and predictable in order to dare to set new courses that might lie beyond future sunsets. For he held that the work of education was not to adhere to the objectives of the past, but to secure as yet unimagined futures.

References Albers, P., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (2010). Literacies, the arts, and multimodality. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Barone, T. (2001). Touching eternity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2012). Arts based research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Clark, G. A., Day, M. D., & Greer, W. D. (1987). Disciplinebased art education: Becoming students of art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 130–193.

Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1934/1989). Art as experience [John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953] (J. Boydston, Ed.). Vol.10: 1934. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dobbs, S. M. (2004). Disciplinebased art education. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 701–724). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Egan, K. (2008). The future of education: Reimagining our schools from the ground up. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school program. New York, NY: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (1994a). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. W. (1994b). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (1998a). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Eisner, E. W. (1998b). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Eisner, E. W. (2001). Should we create new aims for art education? Art Education, 54(5), 6– 10. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. London, UK: Routledge. Freedman, K. J. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Garoian, C. R. (2013). The prosthetic pedagogy of art: Embodied research and practice.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Graham, G. (2015). Behaviorism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Haertel, E. H., & Herman, J. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 1–34. Hickman, L. A., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (Eds.). (2009). John Dewey between pragmatism and constructivism. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Hofsess, B. A. (2013). Methodology in the afterglow. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 14, 1–21. Hookway, C. (2015). Pragmatism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Jackson, P. W. (1998). John Dewey and the lessons of art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. James, W. (1907/1975). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Janesick, V. J. (2003). Curriculum trends: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC CLIO. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–225. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books. Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. Popham, W. J. (2014). The right test for the wrong reason. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(1), 46–52. Read, H. (1958). Education through art. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. RiddettMoore, K., & Siegesmund, R. (2014). The visual space of literacy in art education. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Teaching dilemmas and solutions in contentarea literacy: Grades 6– 12 (pp. 103–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Robinson, K. (2008). Changing paradigms. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts. Retrieved from https://www.thersa.org/discover/videos/eventvideos/2008/06/changing paradigms Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rosiek, J. L. (2013). Pragmatism and postqualitative futures. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 692–705. Saldaña, J. (2005). Ethnodrama: An anthology of reality theatre. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Schwab, J. J. (1969a). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(5), 1–24. Schwab, J. J. (1969b). College curriculum and student protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Siegesmund, R. (2013). Dewey, a/r/tography, and abuse of global dialogue. In N. Denzin & M. Giardina (Eds.), Global dimensions of qualitative inquiry (pp. 137–155). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Stake, R. E. (2014). Eisner’s qualities and quality. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(3), 453–454. Stikkers, K. W. (2009). Dialogue between pragmatism and constructivism in historical perspective. In L. A. Hickman, S. Neubert, & K. Reich (Eds.), John Dewey between pragmatism and constructivism (pp. 67–83). New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Tyack, D. B., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820–1980. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tyler, R. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Uhrmacher, P. B., & Matthews, J. (Eds.). (2005). Intricate palette: Working the ideas of Elliot Eisner. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

17 CASE STUDY Trajectories in Developing Novice Teacher Leadership Potential: A Tale of Two Countries Ping Gao University of Northern Iowa

17.1 Introduction Digital technologies are changing the ways of teachers’ lives and becoming a ubiquitous part of students’ lives. With their great and increasing presence in our lives, it only makes sense to use digital technologies effectively in the classroom to bring the tools of empowerment into the hands and minds of teachers and students who innovatively use them. Globally, teacher education faces greater challenges today than ever before. The dynamic changes in the twenty first century require teachers to create a new teaching and learning environment to meet the needs of a new, techsavvy generation of learners (Lei, 2009; Selwyn, 2007). Accordingly, digital technologies set the stage for many dramatic transformations, driving a need for technologycapable teachers and leaders (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The potential for using digital technologies as catalysts for change in the classroom depends on teachers’ pedagogical applications (Cuban, 2009). Research evidence, however, suggests that despite the increasing investment in digital technologies, by and large, teachercentered instructional practices remain the same because most teachers are not able to innovatively and thoughtfully use digital technologies to enhance student learning and creativity (Cuban, 2013; Ertmer & OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010). Internationally, there is a growing interest in preparing preservice teachers who can use digital technologies in the classroom thoughtfully and effectively (Office of Educational Technology, 2004). Preservice teachers are often considered an important bridge between digital natives and digital immigrants (Clarke, 2009) because digital technologies have become part and parcel of their lives due to their early socialization and daily use of technological resources (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). They possess technological competency and are more comfortable using digital technologies in the classroom than many experienced school faculty. This unique phenomenon puts preservice teachers in a potentially better position for both classroom teaching and collaborating with teacher communities (Gao & Mager, 2013; Gao, Wong, Choy, & Wu, 2010). The future of technology in classrooms largely rests on the young and aspiring teachers who embrace technology for creating studentcentered learning environments. However, the literature review on preparing preservice teachers for using digital technologies for classroom teaching and learning indicates more hope and hype than evidence of success. Although most preservice teachers possess high technological competency, espoused beliefs and positive attitudes as well as the knowledge of technology integration, they can seldom

translate their knowledge and skills into classroom practice (Andersson, 2006; Pierson & Cozart, 2005; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). Researchers are beginning to challenge the assumption of a linear translation of preservice teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and skills into classroom practice (Gao & Mager, 2013; O’Brien & Schillaci, 2002) by extending their personal learning to other aspects of learning. Fairbanks et al. (2010) postulated “that selfknowledge and a sense of agency with the intent of purposefully negotiating personal and professional context may be as important, if not more important, than the more traditional conceptual knowledge” (p. 161). Following analysis highlights two cases of preservice teachers in two countries. Harold is a U.S. preservice teacher, and Henry is first a preservice teacher and then a firstyear teacher in Singapore. Harold and Henry were participating in a study to explore how preservice teachers were learning to teach with digital technologies and whether they adopted studentcentered instructional approaches, succeeded in their own learning, and enhanced the learning of their students, their college peers, and their cooperating teachers. The study posed the following two research questions: 1. How do the preservice teachers purposefully negotiate and make meaning between personal and situational contexts? 2. How do they develop their leadership potential for technology integration?

17.2 Conceptual Framework There is a consensus that teachers are change agents and play important leadership roles. Ackerman and Mackenzie (2006) assert that “Whether and how teachers decide to lead is determined by what they believe matters in their teaching and ultimately, by who they are” (p. 69). Educating preservice teachers as change agents to develop teacher leadership potential is an idea that is still being developed and explored, in part, because teacher leadership comes in too many different packages and under too many varied circumstances. Wasley (1992) simply defined teacher leadership as a way of “influencing and engaging colleagues toward improved practice” (p. 21). Preparing preservice teachers to develop leadership potential presents crucial challenges primarily for two reasons. First, the conventional views of preparing preservice teachers focus only on the concerns, a journey moving inwards from (i) concerns about self, to (ii) concerns about tasks, and (iii) concerns about students and the impact of teaching (Fuller, 1969). Conway and Clark (2003) have supported and extended Fuller’s model by articulating the initial survival stage as a journey outward, full of concerns and aspirations, by shifting from the concerns about personal capacity to manage their classrooms to concerns about their personal capacity to grow as a teacher and a person. Second, Goodlad (1990) and Cochran Smith (1991) found that most preservice programs have failed to emphasize educating preservice teachers as change agents who could assume responsibility for school reforms. Due to an overriding need for security and inclusion in the social structure of their school placements, preservice teachers tend to avoid conflicts with their cooperating teachers

(Chambers, Coles, & Roper, 2002). They are largely unaware of becoming a change agent while they have difficulty even considering themselves as teachers, much less as change agents (Price & Valli, 2005). In brief, the conventional views overlook preservice teachers’ accomplishments and the kinds of change they experience (Desforges, 1995). It is encouraging to note that there is emerging empirical evidence about how preservice teachers can develop a change mentality when engaging in action research (Price & Valli, 2005), and develop confidence in their ability to affect positive change in the future (Donnison, 2007). Preservice teachers can demonstrate change capacity by “teaching against the grain” (CochranSmith, 1991) and have a substantial impact on their cooperating teachers (Lane, LacefieldParachini, & Isken, 2003). However, the abovementioned studies only investigated preservice teachers’ change in their own perception of how they influenced and mentored their cooperative teachers. Little is known about their impacts on student learning. Edwards (2007) proposed that teacher preparation programs should encourage and support preservice teachers to share their existing expertise—their strengths—in interpreting problem spaces to construct their individual agency. Therefore, preservice teachers’ capacity to work with others and to negotiate meanings should be considered valuable and not as weaknesses. Edwards (2007) extends the individual agency into relational agency, which is defined as “a capacity to align one’s thought and actions with those of others to interpret aspects of one’s world and to act on and respond to those interpretations” (p. 4). Thus, relational agency recognizes the importance of preexisting personal understanding gained in other situations in interpreting new situations (Edwards, 2007; Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004) and the negotiations that individuals make as they work in and with the social contexts. Relational agency is aligned with positive psychology that “embraces the notion that individuals can be selfinitiating agents for change in their own lives and the lives of others” (Maddux, 2002, p. 285). Seligman (2002) asserts that individuals need to make meaning that consists in knowing what their greatest strengths are, and then use them to serve something they believe is larger than self. Liesveld, Miller, and Robison (2005) defined “a strength as a combination of natural ability, education and training that produced consistent, nearperfect performance in a specific task” (p. 57). The strengthsbased approach of positive psychology has maintained that even individuals with less power can complement their existing strengths and resources by not focusing on their perceived weaknesses. Thus, they can not only demonstrate selfgrowth and personal liberation from dependency but also bring about a change by sharing power and practicing social justice. There is a paucity of research on preservice teachers’ learning as an agency construction and the process of capitalizing on their strengths to develop their leadership potential from the viewpoint of positive psychology. In this chapter, agency is defined as a person’s capacity to gain control over one’s action and the impact on the world (Bandura, 1997; Giddens, 1986). Strengthsbased practice—a philosophy for practice—simply means practice is based on strengths by sharing power (McCashen, 2005). This chapter attempts to fill the research gap.

17.3 Modes of Inquiry, Data Sources, and Analysis

In preparing this chapter, a case study approach was used to reanalyze existing data by specifically exploring the two preservice teachers’ development of leadership potential. These two preservice teachers selfreported their high technological competence while taking an introductory course for integrating technology at each university. They were interviewed three times and observed for their teaching practices three times. A qualitative content analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2001) was used to analyze the collected data because the constant content analysis produced descriptions along with the participants’ expression of their views about their social worlds. A preliminary exploratory content analysis was also used immediately after the data collection (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007) to identify initial codes. The second iteration focused on identifying themes and arranging them into major categories. The third iteration was applied to the data set to answer the research questions. The interview data were triangulated with class observations and samples of the academic performance of the preservice teachers’ students.

17.3.1 Harold: The U.S. Case The first case was based on the Inclusive Elementary and Special Education Teacher Preparation Program at a major private university on the East Coast. The program is guided by the concept of constructivism to facilitate preservice teachers’ thinking about teaching and learning. This fouryear undergraduate program integrates coursework and field experiences from the first year to the end of undergraduate study. Preservice teachers are placed in at least eight supervised school placements during their preparation. For example, as juniors, preservice teachers form a cohort—a group of preservice teachers working toward the same kind of credentials in two professional blocks—Block I and Block II—in which the curriculum and methods courses are coordinated with two placements in local schools in each block. In the semester of student teaching, preservice teachers carry out the typical tasks of student teachers in the two field placements. Harold is an American male preservice teacher in his early twenties. He took two technology courses in high school and expressed a highly comfortable level of integrating digital technologies into field placements during the first interview (the second semester of his junior year—Block I). He believed that Digital technologies should be used to enhance student learning … Personally, I believe that using digital technologies is just a pedagogy … I like to do things by hand and be creative. So I just hope to make it a part of my teaching practices … I am starting to learn that the best teachers are the ones that talk less. I don’t know what it means, and it is hard to explain now. But I know that a good teacher finds interesting ways to engage students … Maybe the use of technology can be one of the answers. (First Interview) In the beginning of his Block I field placement, he was somewhat dissatisfied and disappointed with the way his cooperating teacher used digital technologies in the classroom. Harold recognized that the cognitive dissonance was an agent for positive change.

My cooperating teacher rewarded students who completed their assignments ahead of time by letting them play educational games on a computer … For me, this was not the effective use of information technology … I wanted to figure out why she did not use it [a variety of available technologies] and persuade her to allow me to use it. (First Interview) With the passage of time, Harold developed a change agent’s mentality to change the existing practices in which digital technologies were underused and improperly used in the school. He also developed a sense of selfempowerment and professional pride after discovering his techsavvy strengths by reporting: I have almost a strange feeling regarding the aspect that I feel like I am already more ahead of the game than the teachers who have been teaching out there for years. As student teachers in some aspects we are almost more knowledgeable than the teachers. I think that’s really empowering us. (First Interview) Harold took the initiative to create interactive PowerPoint slides in his first Block II placement in a sixthgrade inclusive classroom in an urban school setting. When he planned a social studies review lesson on the Trojan Horse, he linked the PowerPoint slides to his preselected ageappropriate website. He inserted many digital images and a short movie clip and animated review questions to capture his students’ attention. Reflecting on this teaching practice, he commented: “My kids were engaging … It is very empowering, working with technology. I felt very comfortable with what I know. But I know there is so much more out there. I want to try different things” (Second Interview). However, Harold could not use a Smartboard, an LCD projector, or a set of wireless laptops with an assortment of educational software available in his second field placement in Block II because he faced opposition from his cooperating teacher’s beliefs about using digital technologies in a firstgrade classroom. He commented: “I had never seen technology [used related to curriculum] once in the classroom. She only turned on the laptops to allow kids to play games. That is not really effectively use of technology” (Second Interview). Harold restated his prior idea that if digital technologies are used only for game playing and entertaining students, rather than activities related to the curriculum, it is not beneficial for students. In order to find a comfortable balance between these digital technologies viewpoints, he chose to follow his cooperating teacher’s lead, but seemed discouraged. However, he set up a goal: “My goal is to do my best to expose kids to all forms of technologies when they are young, so that when [they] get to high school they are very comfortable for using technology” (Second Interview). Harold also made an impact on his college peers. To complete a university assignment to view a partner’s classroom teaching video, he not only provided constructive feedback to his partner but also reinforced his own critical perspectives on the effective use of digital technologies by commenting:

I think one of my strengths is that I gave constructive feedback. The particular video that I watched was that my partner used the PowerPoint as a jeopardy game. But she was just playing the game. I didn’t think that it was very effective. Just because of using technology, it does not mean it is a good lesson without engaging students. (Second Interview) Harold did not have the opportunities for full group instruction because of his responsibility as a student teacher for special education in his first student teaching field placement. Because of the nature of this placement, he adapted and modified his cooperating teachers’ lessons to meet the needs of the individual students he was responsible for without using digital technologies as much as he would have liked. His second student teaching placement was in a secondgrade classroom in an urban school. Harold got the support from his cooperating teacher who had known him from his Block I placement. He planned a science unit about owls by adopting a learning center approach at three locales—the Library Center, Technology Center, and Peer Support Center. Harold arranged his second graders to watch the streaming video as an independent learning activity in which his students wrote down any information that interested them on a question sheet and dropped it into the Fun Fact box. At the end of each day, he took the facts from the box and asked each student to share his or her fun facts. “It is not me to teach my students, they teach themselves and teach their classrooms” (Third Interview). As a class, they decided what to be included in a writeup Know, Want to Know, Learned (KWL) sheet posted outside of the classroom on a bulletin board for students in other classrooms. In this way, Harold used digital technologies as a context for social interactions to encourage his students to take more responsibility for their own learning and to be proud of their learning. He could justify his belief that “a teacher should talk less to allow students to learn more” (Third Interview). When assessing his student learning outcomes, instead of using the KWL chart to measure student learning at the end of the unit, Harold interwove assessment into his teaching on a daily basis because “the students actually can see the progress of their learning” (Third Interview). To celebrate the completion of this unit, he organized a “going out to the movies” event for his students from lowincome families. He brought his students to the school library to project the video on a large screen. He provided popcorn and asked his students to “sell” it to calculate the cost and profit. Harold shared his positive practices and the impact these experiences had on his students with his cooperating teacher and other staff members in the school. He invited teachers to observe his teaching and shared his lesson plans and resources with other teachers in the school and his college peers. He began to establish a close working relationship with the teachers in the school: “I also got a lot of feedback and comments from my cooperating teacher, the principal, and other teachers in the school who really wanted to use technology, and thought it was a good idea.” In doing so, he earned trust and acceptance: “I felt like a part of the members of the school” (Third Interview). During the third interview conducted three days before his graduation, Harold shared his self empowerment of giving back to the teaching profession as part of his responsibility and duty:

Many times we go into someone’s classroom and work under a teacher. Always they teach us. So I think it’s nice that we are so knowledgeable on technology that we can teach them how to bring different forms of technology into the classroom…. Our cooperating teachers are aware of the knowledge and training we have, and they look to us to teach them. It is cool, and it is very empowering to know that we have such a good knowledge base about technology integration. I think it is our turn to give back to the teaching profession, because we are all excited about technology. When we teach with digital technologies in different schools that we are assigned to, we just share our expertise with other teachers and spread the seeds for change, and hopefully they will in turn use them. (Third Interview) To summarize Harold’s learning process with digital technologies, following observations can be made: (1) he overcame his concerns after discovering and capitalizing on his technology savvy strengths over time; (2) he showed initiative in adopting studentcentered approaches and demonstrated creativity for using limited technological facilities to enhance his students’ learning; and (3) he showed a willingness to take the initiative to make a positive impact on his students, his cooperating teachers, and his college peers by developing his leadership potential. It is interesting to note that Harold seemed to be overcritical about others’ practices and felt himself to be overly “empowered” by his strengthsbased practices.

17.3.2 Henry: The Singapore Case In the second case, Henry was enrolled in a oneyear Diploma in Education (Elementary Education) program at the teacher preparation institute in Singapore.1 Before enrolling in this program, teacher education students are required to have a bachelor’s degree from a local or internationally accredited university. In addition, most of them have had contract teaching experience ranging from a month to a year at an assigned local school. During their contract teaching, they worked as fulltime teachers with some guidance from experienced teachers at schools. During the oneyear initial teacher preparation (ITP) program, they take educational foundation courses and curriculum studies (methods courses). They take a mandatory core educational studies course entitled “Information Communication Technology for Engaged Learning.” During this course, they learn pedagogy for integrating technology into classrooms, teaching, and learning with an emphasis on studentcentered learning. For the final project, they work in pairs to design a studentcentered learning package that could be used in their future teaching. They have a fiveweek field placement. Then they return to the campus to take additional courses. The last component of the ITP program consists of a 10week teaching practicum, where they teach in schools under the close supervision of their cooperating teachers and a university supervisor. After completing the program, they are appointed as full fledged teachers. Henry is a male Singaporean. He was in his late twenties at the time of his participation in the study. After obtaining his bachelor degree in mathematics, he had worked fulltime in the private sector for almost two years. He changed his career to the education sector and chose to major in Chinese language and literature (primary), “because I wanted to make a difference in someone’s life” (First Interview).

Henry felt that he possessed a high level of technological skills. For example, he could build websites, and he was good at programming. Like Harold, his first technology experience was to use dynamic PowerPoint slides to deliver the content. He continued to use dynamic PowerPoint presentations on a daily basis. Somewhat concerned about his evaluation by his cooperating teacher, he chose to follow his cooperating teachers’ lead. He observed, “During my student teaching [the first field placement], I actually did things to cater to my cooperating teachers” (First Interview). During the second interview, Henry reported that in addition to using dynamic PowerPoint slides on a regular basis, he created some handson learning opportunities in the computer lab for selfregulated learning for his students during his teaching practicum. For example, during the one observed lesson, he allowed his highability primary 3 students to work individually on the website designed and promoted by the Ministry of Education and played games as an introduction to the lesson. He seemed very satisfied with his practice and perceived that it was “a studentcentered learning because my students were involved in handson activities” (Second Interview). Henry became more comfortable and confident in his routine technologybased practices for enhancing his students’ learning during his first year of teaching. By using his techsavvy strengths, he developed an online reading program to meet his students’ needs and made reading more fun for the fourth graders in his school. He articulated his reasoning: Everything has been established … the most important part is that there are abundant resources. Students have the ability to think out of the box … they don’t want books … but when they read in the lab, it is new to them. They are given the freedom to decide whether to continue to read. (Third Interview) He took his fourth graders to the computer laboratory on a weekly basis to allow them to choose stories for selfpaced learning from the online reading program he had developed. He shared the websites with other teachers in his school, and involved another teacher to co develop and refine the website as a team effort. Additionally, Henry used different technology applications for different purposes, such as dynamic PowerPoint presentations to deliver content. He engaged his students to use Inspiration software to create concept maps. He used Hot Potatoes to allow students to conduct selfassessment and used blogging to encourage students to provide feedback. He invited teachers to observe his teaching and shared resources with his college peers and the colleagues in his school. He adopted responsive approaches to cater to the needs of students in his classes. He developed a strong sense of agency by talking about the change of his own individual identity: As a teacher now, I would do things in my own way. I would actually evaluate the students [to see] whether my methods work. Actually, it is more of being myself now rather than catering to other people. (Third Interview) To summarize, Henry shared some similarities with Harold in taking initiatives to adopt studentcentered teaching approaches for making a positive impact on his students. He also

shared resources, successes, and lessons with others. Because the study was extended to his first year of teaching, Henry had more opportunities to develop his leadership potential. Unlike Harold, Henry was less assertive and vocal in bragging about his strengths and expertise.

17.3.3 Conceptual Framework: StrengthsBased Practices There is a significant difference in the contexts of the two program structures discussed above, the frequency and length of field placements, the position (a preservice teacher versus a preservice teacher first and then the firstyear teacher), and the social and cultural contexts within the school placements. There is no doubt that such a difference makes a great impact in developing leadership potential. The two cases do not suggest that only strengths should be considered and concerns completely ignored. Rather, it is argued that the degree of emphasis should be less on concerns and more on strengths. The notion of strengthsbased practices derived from positive psychology is to highlight the similarities—strengths—rather than the differences—weaknesses. It deviated from the mainstream psychology approach of emphasizing weaknesses only. On the basis of above cases and several other cases in larger studies conducted in the United States and Singapore (Gao et al., 2010; Gao & Mager, 2013), it is argued that preservice/novice teachers can simultaneously learn to teach with digital technologies and learn to lead when they capitalize on their techsavvy strengths. Thus, a conceptual framework is proposed that empowers preservice/novice teachers to develop leadership potential for technology integration by discovering and utilizing their strengthsbased practices in the transformative discourse: learning to strive and not overemphasizing their concerns in the survival discourse: learning to survive (see Figure 17.1).

Figure 17.1 Transformative discourse for developing leadership potential. In the context of these two cases, the two novice teachers experienced certain cognitive dissonance between their beliefs about teaching and those of their cooperating teachers. Like most preservice teachers, they experienced inward and outward concerns. However, they were inspired by their students’ excitement in learning when they adopted studentcentered teaching approaches. Their own technologybased teaching practices encouraged them to discover and capitalize on their strengths. Their strengths included their constructivist beliefs in teaching and learning, their ready adaptation of evolving digital technologies into their repertoires of practice (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003), and their eagerness and readiness to make a change for the effective use of digital technologies for classroom teaching and learning. These strengths provided them with a more positive framework for authoring their journal for professional growth. As they progressed in their teacher preparation programs and even in their firstyear teaching, they became increasingly aware of their techsavvy strengths as a natural part of their lesson planning and classroom practices. Their strengthsbased practices made it possible for them to move away from survival discourse toward a transformative discourse in which they learned to strive and lead for the purpose of bringing about personal and social change in the classroom. These two cases confirmed the findings that preservice teachers can

become change agents by teaching against the grain (CochranSmith, 1991) and have a substantial impact on their cooperating teachers (Lane et al., 2003). Undoubtedly, championing novice teachers’ individual agency due to their lack of social power may invite criticisms. It may be challenged that the findings presented here sound idealistic because the preservice teachers who begin with less power became empowered from their technologybased practice, and they authored a different journal for personal and professional growth. They began to author an upward journey for their professional growth by expanding their identities: from a student teacher, to a teacher, and further to a change agent. The two cases are not unique, because the 6 out of 10 participants in the U.S study and 3 out 10 participants in the Singapore study showed a similar pattern. The proposed conceptual framework emphasizes that the strengthsbased practices do not simply ignore power dynamics and contextual constraints; they do not simply focus on positives. It does not ignore concerns and weaknesses nor fabricate strengths that do not exist. Rather, it builds on preservice teachers’ existing competencies and expertise, figuring out ways to recognize and utilize their genuine strengths to overcome concerns effectively. Preparing preservice teachers to develop leadership potential will remain an ideal and not a reality as long as teacher preparation programs ignore preservice teachers’ existing expertise and strengths. Sole preoccupation on concerns is not only dysfunctional for novice teachers’ intellectual and professional growth and development, but its narrow focus jeopardizes the overall debate in the area of learning to teach. A proper balance between the survival discourse and transformative discourse is needed. Indeed, strengths, empowerment, and change are the expressions used by these two novice teachers discussed. Building on their strengths and their successes from their extended experiences, they found a springboard to jumpstart their learning to teach by finding a niche in their placement schools. In turn, the niche gave them a unique position and transformed them from student teachers to teachers, and furthermore into change agents for the thoughtful use of digital technologies. They developed and demonstrated relational agency—“a capacity to align one’s thought and actions with those of others to interpret aspects of one’s world and to act on and respond to those interpretations” (Edwards, 2007, p. 4). Thus, learning to teach with digital technologies holds the potential to transform teaching and learning in schools. It does not have to be “dry” and can also be fun.

17.4 Practical Implications As mentioned above, preparing novice teachers as change agents will remain an ideal and not easy to attain if teacher preparation programs ignore preservice teachers’ existing expertise and strengths. It is suggested that teacher educators need to nurture preservice teachers’ potential for change agency by making deliberate attempts to not only nurture the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to lead at the teacher preparation stage, but also to “examine and reframe assumptions about themselves and change agents as well as to examine and reframe takenforgranted school practices and processes” (Price & Valli, 2005, p. 71). Preservice teachers need to know cognitive dissonance can be an agent for positive or negative

change, and their point of view affects how they deal with digital technologies or change. When a novice teacher can use technology thoughtfully—in ways that can change their initial understanding of their practices, it is more likely that they want to take change for granted. Teacher preparation programs need to prepare preservice teachers to develop selfawareness and selfknowledge of their strengths by asking “Who am I and why am I practicing this way, and what effect does this have on others?” Teacher preparation programs need to provide preservice teachers opportunities to develop personal initiatives and responsibility, as well as adaptable problemposing and problemsolving skills, and the ability to work collaboratively with others (Dewey, 1916). It is also imperative for teacher education programs to strengthen holistically their placement schools by creating a large learning community in which university faculty, preservice teachers, and cooperating teachers can conduct inquiry and critical reflection. Teacher education programs and placement schools can set high expectations that require preservice teachers to extensively and pedagogically use digital technologies to enhance student learning for an extended period of time so that technology integration can become a natural part of lesson planning and delivery, a fabric of classroom interaction. Another possible solution is to encourage preservice teachers to offer training opportunities for inservice teachers regarding technology integration for the mutual benefits. It can nurture preservice teachers’ leadership potential, and provide professional development for inservice teachers to create a winwin situation.

17.5 Limitations and Future Research The limitations of this comparative study of two cases include its contextspecific nature. Additionally, there are potential methodological biases, such as response bias, limited lesson observations, and the accounts that are drawn primarily from the participants’ perspectives. More studies are needed to investigate this process from the perspectives of cooperating teachers, school administrators, and teacher educators. It is also necessary to conduct large scale, longitudinal studies on novice teachers’ professional growth, from the commencement of teacher preparation and extending to the early years of regular teaching, regarding the use of digital technologies and change agency to answer the following questions: How do novice teachers adopt roles for the innovative, thoughtful use of digital technologies in the school? What is the connection between the thoughtful use of digital technologies and student academic performance? Furthermore, future studies can investigate preservice teachers’ agency construction from multiple perspectives, such as university supervisors and cooperating teachers and even school administrators.

17.6 Conclusion Globally, teacher education faces greater challenges today than ever. On one hand, it is a challenging task to recruit millions and millions of new teachers who will be responsible for preparing students with the new literacy required for success in a changing society that is

increasingly influenced by digital technologies and globalization (Rosenthal, 1999). On the other hand, this presents an ample opportunity to infuse new ideas into teaching, including the innovative and thoughtful use of digital technologies by novice teachers. “The debate about how best to prepare future teacher educators for a changing and dynamic society is robust and ongoing” (Donnison, 2007, p. 10). This chapter provides only a piece of the puzzle for preparing preservice teachers to develop leadership potential for the thoughtful use of digital technologies for classroom teaching and learning. The conceptual framework proposed in this chapter has the potential to direct preservice teachers toward a transformative process for fulfilling their potential. It is hoped that this chapter will stimulate teacher educators to engage in searching for an effective pedagogy for directing preservice teachers to move away from the conventional survival discourse into a transformative process by capitalizing on their strengths to fulfill their potential and lead others with the same zeal of change. Undoubtedly, it will take years for these novice teachers to develop expertise and become teacher leaders in innovatively and thoughtfully using digital technologies to enhance students’ learning as advocated by constructivist reform efforts. But they have made notable progress. A good start is half done.

References Ackerman, R. A., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership. Educational Leadership, 6(8), 66–71. Andersson, S. B. (2006). Newly qualified teachers’ learning related to their use of information and communication technology: A Swedish perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 665–682. Bandura, A. (1997). Selfefficacy: The exercise of control . New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Bogdan, R., & Biklin, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chambers, G. N., Coles, J., & Roper, T. (2002). Why students withdraw from PGGE course. Language Learning Journal, 25, 52–58. Clarke, L. (2009). The POD model: Using communities of practice theory to conceptualize student teachers’ professional learning online. Computers & Education, 52(3), 521–529. CochranSmith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 51(3), 279– 310. Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A reexamination of Fuller’s concernbased model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 465–482. Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Desforges, C. (1995). An introduction to teaching: Psychological perspectives. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. Donnison, S. (2007). Digital generation preservice teachers as change agents: A paradox. Australasian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), 1–12. Edwards, A. (2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1–17. Edwards, A., & D’Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), 147–155. Ertmer, P. A., & OttenbreitLeftwich, A. P. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. Fairbanks, C. M., Duffy, G. G., Faircloth, B. S., He, Y., Levin, B., Rohr, J., & Stein, C. (2010). Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 161. Fuller, F. F. (1969, March). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226. Gao, P., & Mager, M. (2013). Constructing embodied understanding of technological pedagogical content knowledge: Preservice teachers’ learning to teach with information technology. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environment, 1(1), 74–92. Gao, P., Wong, A. F. L., Choy, D., & Wu, J. (2010). Developing leadership potential for technology integration: Perspectives of three beginning teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(5), 643–658. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/gao.html Giddens, A. (1986). Action, subjectivity, and the constitution of meaning. Social Research, 529–545. Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. Lane, S., LacefieldParachini, N., & Isken, J. (2003). Developing novice teachers as change agents: Student teacher placements “against the grain.” Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 55–68. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97. Liesveld, R., Miller, J. A., & Robison, J. (2005). Teaching with your strengths: How great teachers inspire their students. New York, NY: Gallup Press. Maddux, J. E. (2002). Selfefficacy: The power of believing you can. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McCashen, W. (2005). The strengths approach. Bendigo, Victoria, Australia: St. Lukes Innovative Resources. O’Brien, L., & Schillaci, M. (2002). Why do I want to teach anyway? Utilizing autobiography in teacher education. Teaching Education, 13(1), 25–40. Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How today’s students, the Internet and the law are revolutionizing expectations. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/index.html Pierson, M. E., & Cozart, A. (2005). Case studies of future teachers: Learning to teach with technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(2), 59–63. Price, J. N., & Valli, L. (2005). Preservice teachers becoming agents of change: Pedagogical implications for action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 57–72. Rosenthal, I. G. (1999). New teachers and technology: Are they prepared? Technology & Learning, 19, 22–27. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–12). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning , 23(2), 83–94. Singapore Ministry of Education. (2002). Overview of the Masterplan II for DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES in Education. Retrieved from

http://digitaltechnologiesconnection.edumall.sg/ U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. 21st century learners: The need for techsavvy teachers . Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/teachtech/index.html Wasley, P. A. (1992). Working together: Teacher leadership and collaboration. In C. Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Evolving roles (NEAS School Restructuring Series). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Note 1 This case was funded by a Learning Sciences Laboratory research grant, number LSL0306, at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Special thanks to the preservice teachers who participated in the research for their contributions and the research team members: Jing Wu and Angelia Wong.

18 CRITIQUE What Effect Size Doesn’t Tell Us Barrie Bennett Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

18.1 Introduction In this critique I take a practitioner’s perspective to share a few insights and misconceptions related to researching the idea of instruction and the impact of instruction on student learning. I start by briefly situating my background/experience in the merging of curriculum, assessment, instruction, and how those three areas intersect to impact student learning. I follow that brief introduction with four insights/misconceptions. As you read through my comments, you would be wise to consider the possibility that I may be wrong.

18.1.1 Background I’m almost 70, and for better or worse, I continue to teach in kindergarten to grade 12 classrooms—in both academic and vocational programs. Over the last 45 years I’ve been an elementary and secondary teacher, a consultant in a teacher effectiveness program, and a university instructor where I taught in undergraduate and graduate programs. In addition, I’ve been involved in over 30 districts during the last 34 years focused on the design and implementation of longterm systemic change focused on instruction and how it connects to curriculum and assessment, guided by what we know about how students learn, change, and systemic change. Reflecting on that experience, and having shifted into the professor emeritus realm (such a nice way of saying moving slowly to the pasture), the one thing I know for sure is that no one best way exists in the design of learning environments or in “going about” change and systemic change. The answer is not as simple as research reports or effect sizes indicate. That said, I certainly encourage the shift to a more problembased/projectbased/inquirybased learning even though the research on those approaches is somewhat discrepant. In addition, I certainly agree with Fullan’s (2011) statements related to the wrong (and right) drivers of change. Key in that article is the need to improve/refine/extend the instructional thinking/practices of all educators in a system. Shifting now to the four insights/misconceptions, keep in mind that each of the four insights/misconceptions leads into and overlaps with the next—metaphorically playing out to a dominolike end point. Note that each insight/misconception I discuss will be subdivided into four parts: (1) conceptual, (2) practical, (3) research/interpretation of data, and (4) assessment.

18.2 Concepts and Facts: Situating Instruction and Effect Size 18.2.1 Conceptual If someone asked you to explain what is meant by (1) a fact, (2) a concept, and (3) the relationship between the two, could you? That said, do you think it would make any difference whether or not you could explain? On this point, I argue, somewhat religiously, that it does matter—that it is essential. You can decide at the end of this section whether or not you agree. Realistically, one cannot have a misconception if one does not understand the concept. Keep in mind that I’ve not met a person who knows the answer to those three questions; of course some people obviously do—I’ve just not met them. As a check for understanding, I’ll just “push this a bit.” Can you name one object, smell, action, word, etc., that is not a concept? Are skills (such as “putting” in golf) concepts? What is the relationship between concepts, classifying, and inductive thinking? Can you create a concept without the process of classification? Is classification a form of inductive thinking? What level of Bloom’s taxonomy is played out through inductive thinking? What instructional methods push inductive thinking? In the critical thinking literature, inductive and deductive thinking are two of the main lenses for thinking critically. Can you invoke critical thinking skills without being skilled in social and communication skills? Can you name three examples of social, communication, and critical thinking skills? Now, which of the ideas, words above are concepts? Answer, all of them. David Perkins (1991), in his text Knowledge as Design, states that when we teach concepts we have to make sure our students “own” the concepts and the concepts don’t own the students. He states we do this by teaching knowledge as design rather than knowledge as information; he adds we can do this by getting our students to answer four questions related to the concept being learned: (1) What is the structure of the concept? (2) What is the purpose of the concept? (3) What are model cases of the concept? (4) What is the value of the concept? So, let’s start. Concepts are, in themselves, concepts and are the building blocks of facts. So below, I respond to concept employing Perkins’s four questions. Structure: a concept must have a label, a definition, and one or more examples with the same attributes (say, like the concept “chair”) Purpose: concepts facilitate communication Model every word (with the exception of most proper nouns) is a concept cases: Value: concepts are the basis of all language Now, how do concepts relate to facts? Here is a fact: Christopher Columbus sailed across the ocean in 1642. That fact is constructed from concepts. Remembering that most proper nouns are not concepts, then Christopher Columbus is not a concept; however, that name does connect to the concept explorer. If students do not understand the concept of “explorer”—by

design, then, that fact starts out being somewhat meaningless. The other concepts students must understand are “sailed” (and represents the past tense of sail), “across,” “the,” “ocean,” “in,” and “1642.” Others that are less directly connected would be the concepts of capital letter, period, subject, predicate, verb, adverb, noun, preposition, proper noun, first name, and last name. So teachers must decide how much their students must understand to make sense of that fact. So shift that idea of “what must be understood” to this fact: The effect size of cooperative learning on student achievement is 0.6 standard deviations. The key concepts would be “effect size,” “cooperative learning,” and “standard deviations.” If you do not understand those concepts by design (you can answer those four questions), then you are at risk of making mistakes in terms of how you go about instructional research and how you interpret and make inferences from the results of your research. So let’s start with the concept of cooperative learning; do you understand it? Have you ever thought about why the research results on problem or projectbased learning have such discrepant results? Problembased/projectbased learning has students working in groups; how many of those studies first determined the effectiveness of the group work? Did anyone look first at the Levels of Use (Hall & Hord, 2015) of the teachers and students in terms of their skill level with group work before making inferences from those data? If not, predictive validity is out the window. Validity is a concept that informs us as to the extent to which something does what it was intended to do. Logically if the innovation was not done right in the first place, test validity is compromised. It’s not the test that is valid (tests are not human)—our inferences are “what are or are not valid”—that is where the trust “lies” (pun intended). This is the problem with researchers researching an innovation they don’t deeply grasp. You see this exemplified by researchers who are great at calculating effect sizes but struggle to understand the design of the innovation in question. Let’s stay with cooperative learning. Can you identify the difference between effective and less effective group work? What would you look for? What is the structure of effective group work? (One of David Perkins’s key questions in his text Knowledge as Design.) Research reports that ineffective group work is one of the least effective of all instructional approaches. Cooperative learning is a concept, and, as stated previously, a concept must have a label, a definition, and one or more examples that have the same attributes. So, would you say cooperative learning is a skill, a tactic, a strategy, or a label for a group of processes that involve students working in groups? Or does it matter whether or not you know? Well, if you are after “truth,” you’d better care.

18.2.2 Practical Let’s go back to the four questions: cooperative learning is the label; the structure (the critical attributes) was researched by David and Roger Johnson (2009) and is labeled the five basic elements. Two of those five key elements (individual accountability and a clear meaningful task worth doing in small groups) are two of the most important.

The model cases of cooperative learning would be represented by the 200 or so specific cooperative learning methods. Listing them from least complex/powerful to most complex/powerful, we might say, Think Pair Share, Place Mat, Take a Position, 2/3 Person Interview, Teams Games Tournament, Jigsaw, Academic Controversy, and Group Investigation. This is where we get into the effect size trap. Key here is that cooperative learning is not an instructional method; it is a belief system about how students learn—it is a label for those 200 methods. Remember, you don’t “do” cooperative learning any more than you do “graphic organizers.” One must wonder the reasoning for calculating an effect size on something one can’t do. The value of cooperative learning is to improve student learning. The more powerful cooperative learning methods have effect sizes of 1.25 for more complex thinking (Rolheiser Bennett’s 1986 metaanalysis) and about 0.6 overall (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2011). That 0.6 is flawed. First, as stated above, cooperative learning is not a strategy, and second, that 0.6 represents an averaging of effects and gets caught in the process of regression toward the mean.

18.2.3 Research To clarify this section and the misconception, step away from instruction. What if I took the word “vehicles”—that would be a label for the ways to transport something (say gravel) from point A to point B. Listing them from least complex/powerful to more complex/powerful, we might say a children’s wagon, a wheelbarrow, a car trailer, a halfton truck, a oneton truck, a 10ton truck, and a train. Would anyone calculate the effect of vehicles in moving gravel from point A to point B? They could, but the number would be meaningless. The wagon will end up looking better than it really is and the train will look worse than it really is. In quantitative research, this is known as regression toward the mean—the real effects get washed out. Think Pair Share (TPS) can take 30 seconds; Group Investigation (a strategy to invoke problembased learning) will take at least several weeks. Should we be calculating the mean effect of those two cooperative structures and saying that result is the effect you will get if you use cooperative learning? Keep in mind that TPS pushes no predetermined level of thinking; the teacher has to decide—and compounding the problem, I would argue well over 90% of teachers have little if any control over a taxonomy of thinking. Group Investigation, by default, pushes analysis, synthesis, and evaluation regardless of whether or not the teacher understands a taxonomy of thinking (that is, if the teacher effectively enacts the six stages of Group Investigation). Of course, it is better to be consciously competent collectively, rather than being accidentally adequate individually. So, to calculate an effect size for cooperative learning (or for graphic organizers)—thinking (from simplest to most complex) word webs to time lines to flow charts to Venn diagrams to Euler diagrams to Fishbone diagrams to Mind Maps to Concept Maps is naïve (you can

calculate an effect size, but the result is of minimal use). The range of complexities/power is too great to trust the regressed result. In medicine, it would be like calculating the effect of a drug on a symptom. So you look at the results of Tylenol (25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg). You could calculate an average effect size —but should you? It could be dangerous. So let’s say that 150 mg effect size is 2.25; 100 mg is 1.5, 50 mg is 0.65, 25 mg is 0.30. And you end up with an average effect size of, say, 1.22 for Tylenol. Great, but what if I now go out and buy 25 mg pills? Should I expect 1.22? No, the effect will be much less.

18.2.4 Assessment If we now infer that cooperative learning is an instructional method, rather than a label for a belief system about how students learn, then that conceptual mistake makes our thinking around assessing student learning when they work in cooperative groups somewhat suspect. Clearly, using those 200 or so cooperative methods that are (for the most part) less to mid complex— most of which have no research—and then inferring that the results inform the impact of cooperative learning is naïve.

18.3 Understanding the Interactive Nature of Instruction and Placing our Trust in EffectSize Research 18.3.1 Conceptual Connecting to and extending the previous section, concepts were classified by Jerome Bruner into three genres: conjunctive, disjunctive, and relational. Although this classification seems boring, it is nonetheless important. Conjunctive refers to concepts over which we seldom argue—think concepts like truck, cloud, Mind Maps, the Johnsons’ Five Basic Elements, wait time in questioning, transparent, and verb. Herbert Blumer, years earlier (in 1954), labeled these as “definitive” concepts—concepts we do not argue about. They are also usually the easiest to teach/learn. Disjunctive refers to those concepts that have no one accepted definition. Motivation, constructivism, love, cooperative learning, justice, and critical thinking would be examples. Key here is that if you are using disjunctive terms like behaviorist in a research paper, you must provide the critical attributes for your definition. Herbert Blumer labeled disjunctive concepts as “sensitizing”—concepts you can study forever and, at best, make progressive approximations toward clarity, but never get there. Relational concepts refer to those that depend on context or comparison. Concepts like sharp, rich, steep, cold, powerful would be examples of relational concepts. Relational concepts also fit into Blumer’s genre of sensitizing. Consider the concept of power re effect size. Lower or higher power is relative. Interestingly, one can “cause” a high effect size and the “method” be misleading or of “no rational effect.” For example, you grow a shade tree in the desert and it grows to a height of 12 inches. You know that this is a terrible shade tree. So, you get some

fertilizer (a method) and you grow another one using that fertilizer and it grows to 36 inches. Wow!!! Incredible effect size—off the scale, but the problem is that it is still a terrible shade tree. Because we know what a shade tree will look like, we are not fooled by the large effect size. Problem is that we have no precise idea what “really effective” group work looks like—so when we see an effect size of 0.6, is it a 10inch shade tree, a 2foot shade tree, or a 10 foot shade tree? The same “shade tree” concern exists with the effect sizes for the process of peer coaching on transfer of learning. (Note that I did my PhD [a metaanalysis] with Showers and Joyce on the effect of peer coaching on transfer of learning.) From that research and my experience over the last 30 years, peer coaching is an effective component in the transfer of learning. The problem is determining the quality of transfer. One can transfer the learning, but what about the level of skill? Level of skill plays out as the Level of Use in the concernsbased adoption model (CBAM) literature (Hall & Hord, 2015)—I’ll talk about CBAM later, but suffice it to say is that one would be wise to merge the process of peer coaching with the process of Levels of Use. When we do not understand the “design” of numbers (even though one can calculate numbers), we are trapped. For example, I’ve employed Bruner’s Concept Attainment strategy and had grade 5 students looking at examples of addition and multiplication word problems. Within the first two sets of examples, they all know that the Aside problems are addition and the B side problems are multiplication. When I show them examples that may or may not be examples (known as “testers”), they easily put them on the A or B side. But when I asked them how they knew the problem could be solved using multiplication, they had no idea. The one gifted student said, “Mr. Bennett, I know it is multiplication but I can’t tell you why.” That student has knowledge as information and not knowledge as design. Let’s shift that design idea re model cases to you. If I asked you for a reallife problem for 3 – 1, you might say, “I had three cookies and ate one.” So, now come up with a reallife example for (2)(2) = 4. I’ve never met a high school math teacher that could (I’m sure some can; I’ve just not met them). I was told, “trust me, it works.” I talked about this with David Perkins, who did his PhD in mathematics at MIT. He told me that few secondary teachers get this, even though it is not that complex. He shared with me that once you see it, you see it everywhere—even in football. This is the example Perkins gave me. If I go gambling every Monday night and always win 2 dollars (possible but not probable), then if I go two Mondays in a row, I am up four dollars (2)(2) = 4. If you go with me and lose 2 dollars each time (again not probable but possible) and you go two Mondays, then you are down four dollars (2)(2)  = 4. Now if we both get sick and don’t go two Mondays, then I am down four dollars (2)( 2) = 4. You are up four dollars (2)(2) = 4. Now find more model cases. If you don’t buy two chocolate bars that each cost 2 dollars, then (2)(2) = 4 … you are up 4 dollars. What about the design of effect size—simply more numbers? So, when someone says an effect size of 0.17, should you throw it out, ignore it, or value it? What if it is 0.17? Hattie ( 2009) suggests avoiding those methods with lower effect sizes—is he right? Would it be possible to design a powerful instructional method, implement it, and get a nonsignificant and a low or

negative effect size? I videotaped a teacher trained by a doctoral student (a grad student job I had) implementing a literacy strategy. Two students answered almost 100% of the questions. The other students were not engaged. In addition, those two students engaged in the strategy were naïve users of the innovation. The teacher was also unskilled in the strategy, as well as in framing questions, using wait time, and so on. The result was “no effect” or not significant. That literacy strategy died and was never revived. I understood the strategy, but was hired to collect data and said nothing. The strategy should have worked; however, metaphorically, the teachers and students had no idea how to play the violin. If you can’t play the violin, don’t blame the violin. As a check for understanding on those three genres of concepts, where would you put the concept significance in qualitative research? Is it clear or precise? Is it conjunctive/definitive? Does it matter? Answer, it is more likely to be aligned to relational concepts. Why? It is controlled (related or relative to) by the size of the number of participants labeled N in quantitative research. So, if you see a study was significant to the 0.001 level of significance, should you get excited? What if it was not significant to the 0.05 level of significance, should you worry? Well, if the number of participants was high, then a shift in mean scores between the experimental and control groups of 51 to 54 could be significant; if the number of participants is low, a shift from 50 to 80 could be insignificant. Numbers. If you have knowledge as information and not knowledge as design, then you are at risk of being fooled by significance.

18.3.2 Practical We have a wide range of instructional methods. Some are simple or less complex and I label these instructional skills such as Framing Questions, Using Wait Time, Sharing the Objective and Purpose of the Lesson, Responding to an Incorrect Response, Suspending Judgment, and so on. We most likely have several hundred instructional skills. They have low power. Other instructional methods such as Think Pair Share, Venn diagrams, Brainstorming, and Fishbone diagrams I label tactics. They are more complex and usually have a higher effective size than skills. We most likely have at least 250 instructional tactics. The third group I label instructional strategies such as Concept Mapping, Academic Controversy, Group Investigation, and Concept Attainment. Joyce and Weil’s text Models of Teaching has about 25 instructional strategies. Strategies are the most complex and provide the most powerful effects. The problem is that qualitative and quantitative research rarely takes into account the impact of “one” instructional innovation or the interactive/integrative impact of multiple innovations. More importantly, that research also does not inquire into the dependent nature of one genre of instructional innovations on another. The last two groups (instructional concepts and instructional organizers), I will discuss later.

18.3.3 Research Those researchers doing research using effect size show how some instructional methods have

low effect sizes, other methods that produce medium effect sizes, and those that have higher effect sizes. Now go back to the conceptual; “low” means not that powerful. As stated previously, Hattie (2009) argues that we should avoid low effect sizes. But low is relative— relative to how you employ it. I explain this below. Step away from instruction and think basketball. From least to most complex, passing a basketball is a skill; a pick and roll is a tactic; and a doublelow post is a strategy. What would happen if, as a coach, you tried to have your team run a doublelow post when they were unskilled at passing a ball and doing a pick and roll? Shift to cooking. What if you tried to make a Pavlova but could not separate egg yolks from the egg whites and could not accurately measure 2½ cups of sugar? Could you make the meringue? If not, could you complete the strategy—the recipe? Less complex processes (lower effect sizes) drive more complex processes. Methods with lower effect sizes support the enactment of those methods with higher effect sizes.

18.3.4 Assessment Let’s say you are going to assess student learning. You selected a complex strategy, say Bruner’s constructivist strategy known as Concept Attainment. You want to know how effective it was at impacting student learning. Look behind the scenes. What happens if you did not frame questions to engage all students, did not select the correct wait time, did not structure your Think Pair Share in phase 2 effectively? What if, when doing the Think Pair Share, the students did not have the skill of attentive listening, suspending judgment, paraphrasing? What if your pairs were friendship pairs and not teacherselected pairs, and you did not build in accountability and safety during the group work? Are you really situated to assess the impact of an innovation such as Concept Attainment, especially if your level of skill and your students’ level of skill were mechanical—highly less effective? I talk about level of skill or level of use a bit later—think of level of use as the final nail in the coffin for interpreting data.

18.4 Expert Behavior and the Misinterpretation of Lenses that Guide Action 18.4.1 Conceptual I mentioned in the above section that I had two additional groupings related to instruction: (1) instructional concepts—those concepts you cannot enact, and (2) instructional organizers— those concepts that represent large bodies of research that provide a sense of wisdom about what skills, tactics, and strategies we select and intersect in the design of learning environments (that you also cannot enact). Before I discuss those two areas above, I will briefly look at the idea of expert behavior. Research on expert behavior (see Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Perkins, 1995) shows virtually no relationship between IQ and intelligent behavior. Research shows it is about 0.07. So you may be in Mensa, but I don’t want you cooking my breakfast or babysitting my kids. As

a matter of fact, if I’m to be placed in the middle of the outback in 50 degrees plus temperatures (Celsius), I’ll take a 14yearold Aboriginal girl whose never been to school asweknowit but who has lived her life in the outback of Australia over an MIT student with an IQ of 180 (that is unless I want to die quickly so my family will get a lot of money from my life insurance plan). Perkins’s research shows that what we want is expert behavior. Reuven Feuerstein’s research illustrated the frustration of trying to improve IQ to improve problem solving. His inquiry was worth the effort but ended in somewhat of a blind alley. So, what is it that creates experts? Perkins found four areas: (1) a lot of experience in multiple domains of knowledge, (2) constant reflection to create and connect patterns, (3) a large repertoire of strategies to respond to those patterns, and (4) enough neurons. So students with fetal alcohol syndrome, Down’s syndrome, those with brain trauma, and so on, will struggle to develop expert behavior. Instructional concepts such as safety, interest, meaningful, and accountability are important. The problem is that the teacher cannot “do” them. An additional problem is that a lot of administrators, when they observe their teachers and provide feedback, talk to teachers about using those concepts that teachers can’t do. So you might hear, “Just make the lesson a bit more meaningful, and that will most likely make it easier to manage the class.” On one hand, the principal is most likely correct. The problem is that a teacher cannot do meaningful.

18.4.2 Practical (Re: Instructional Concepts) The problem is that ‘meaningful’ is not a skill. When was the last time you said, “Oh, look at how effectively that teacher ‘meaningfuls’ or ‘safeties’”? Or, perhaps, “Wow, no one ‘authentics’ like her.” Or, “Look, now he is ‘feedbacking.’” The problem is that something has to happen to make those key concepts play out. I can invoke safety by giving students time to think (a skill) and have them share with a partner before I randomly call on them to share with the class (the tactic of Think Pair Share). Of course once selected to share, I will invoke my skills in terms of how to respond to a correct or incorrect or partially correct response or a no response or a silly response or a guess or a convoluted response. My skill in those situations increases safety.

18.4.3 Conceptual (Re: Instructional Organizers) The other grouping refers to instructional organizers. Examples would be the research on the brain and learning, gender and literacy, learning styles, multiple intelligences, students with autism, students living in atrisk environments, fetal alcohol syndrome, and so on. Scholars often spend their career investigating one area. Teachers are being pressured to attend to them all. Those areas of inquiry represent what is known as “Level I” research (see Ellis’s [2001] work), which is designed to impact teacher conceptual flexibility, which was predicated on Francis Fuller’s (1969) work on conceptual flexibility and which you might know was key to the development of Hall and Hord’s work on the concernsbased adoption model (CBAM).

18.4.4 Practical (Re: Instructional Concepts)

The problem is similar to that of instructional concepts in that teachers do not do them. Teachers do not learning style or multiple intelligences (MI) or fetal alcohol syndrome. Because those areas of inquiry are not a method, calculating an effect size or expecting them to cause an effect size is a misthink. When was the last time you said, “Oh, look at that teacher over there multiple intelligencing?” “Wow, she is really good at autisming.” Ludicrous. MI tells us that there are multiple ways to problem solve and to create products of worth; all students have all intelligences, just at different levels of capacity—and that capacity shifts over time. As an example, take multiple intelligence, learning styles (LS), Bloom’s taxonomy, and brain research. If I have two students working on a Mind Map to summarize a unit of study, then I am attending to five of the eight intelligences. If they listen to classical music or jazz while they do it, then I am attending to learning styles, which focuses on students’ preferences for learning. (Note that no relationship exists between MI and LS—so says Howard Gardner; they are two different areas of inquiry—of grounded research [aka Level I research].) Because students classify and organize the data, they are pushing the analysis level of thinking regarding Bloom’s taxonomy. Because they talk, perhaps interview each other on key learnings from their Mind Maps, we connect to brain research; brain research reports that talk is key for intellectual growth.

18.4.5 Research Again, like instructional concepts, none of those instructional organizers are methods, but they make us wiser about the methods we select. They make us wiser and more precise about what we do as teachers in the design of learning environments. Key here is that one cannot calculate the effect of a tool that is not designed to do the job for which you are applying it. Who in their right mind would calculate the effect of a hammer on cutting wood? Wisdom tells us to assess the innovation in terms of the intention. Researchers often dismiss areas of inquiry such as multiple intelligence and learning styles because they cannot find the effect they have on student achievement. What if those researchers started to research the effect those areas of inquiry had on teachers’ conceptual flexibility—their willingness to extend their instructional repertoire because those teachers have a better sense of how students learn? For example, if you understand finger agnosia (Gerstmann, 1924), you will completely change your approach to assisting students who are struggling to add columns of numbers. If you understand eye convergence, when you read or look at a close object, your eyes need to turn inward together (converge) to focus. This gives you binocular vision, enabling you to see a single image. You will make your physical education classroom a lot safer for students who are teased for being a sissy because they duck when the volleyball or basketball comes directly at them. In summary, those concepts we cannot enact, that have no effect size, play an indirect role in effective teaching. Reducing the research of learning environments to those things we can do directly is not wise and most likely one of the reasons we experienced this massive shift from quantitative to qualitative research in which qualitative researchers want to increase our understanding of the more organic nature of the teaching and learning process.

18.4.6 Assessment Obviously, learning about multiple intelligence or learning styles or brain research or autism or gifted/atrisk students is going to do very little if the teacher does not have an extensive instructional repertoire and a way to select and integrate those methods in the design of learning environments. If I have students work in pairs effectively to create a Mind Map to summarize the key ideas related to the periodic table in order to assist them to memorize the periodic table, then I am attending to logical, mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences. Students who enjoy drawing/art/color/creativity are more likely to be interested and academically engaged. That will certainly impact classroom management—oh, but, excuse me, we are only looking for student achievement in all those metaanalyses. We all know that if students are behaving inappropriately, then everything comes to a halt.

18.5 Level of Use: The Level of Skill when Implementing Innovations 18.5.1 Conceptual Fast forward to the concernsbased adoption model (CBAM) and Levels of Use of an innovation (Hall & Hord, 2015). Virtually no studies, where the researchers inquired to the effect of innovation “A” on students, took into account the skill level of the students or teacher. So, to what extent can we trust the data? On one hand, the good news is that the effect sizes are most likely higher. On the other hand, how many great innovations were discarded because we looked for significance when the process was enacted ineffectively? “Great power” was staring us in the face, but we failed to see it; apparent darkness not made visible. When teachers (or anyone—say a welder or surgeon) first learn a skill, they are not that skilled. With practice, conversations, demonstration, and so on, their skill level improves. Levels of Use of an Innovation (LoU), a subset of CBAM, provides a way of reflection on and assessing one’s level of performance. So we shift from being (1) nonusers to (2) orienting ourselves to the innovation (e.g., taking a course), to (3) preparing to use the innovation, to (4) being mechanical, somewhat clunky users. At this point I’ve shifted Hall and Hord’s conceptualization of Levels of Use. My shift fits more with their ideas related to innovation configurations, but for me, I sense level (5), being a refined user, implies being highly skilled with that innovation and beginning to shift to the highest level, and (6) as integrative user of an innovation—the ability to integrate multiple innovations. As I said at the beginning, you may not agree with my sensibilities.

18.5.2 Practical If you were to select a dentist, an eye surgeon, or a hair stylist, would you want a mechanical, refined, or integrative user of the required skills? Personally, I like a refined/integrative user. What about a teacher? Of course, the challenge is getting to that refined/integrative level.

Clearly, a oneday workshop, or staying focused on one innovation for one year then something new next year and not integrating those efforts, is unwise. The research related to becoming an expert shows that it takes about 10 years of focused effort to become considered an expert (see Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). So chasing grants (that last a year or two) for the financial support of professional development is unreasoned. You will at best perpetuate mediocrity. Fullan (2011) argues that we must extend the instructional expertise of all teachers within a system. The problem is that statements like that are easy to write; much more difficult to enact. We know that extending the instructional practices of teachers is one of the most powerful ways to improve student learning, but who’s doing it? Remember Aesop’s story Who Will Bell the Cat? where the mice find a solution to a cat decimating their ranks by putting a bell on it. The mice are very excited until an older mouse asks, “Who amongst us will bell the cat?” This story gave rise to the idiom “to bell the cat,” meaning to attempt or agree to enact an impossibly difficult task. Table 18.1 is a rubric using the Levels of Use framework. This rubric is for the use of Venn diagrams. I’ve shifted the meaning of two of the Levels of Use. I find that the descriptions of the levels up to and including Routine make sense. The problem is that Level of Use seems to stop when it shifts to Refined and Integrative. Hord and Hall’s explanations for those two levels have less to do with skill level and more to do with the conditions under which teachers learn. I’ve no problem with their ideas, I just don’t see the connection to the shift to higher levels of use.

Table 18.1 Level of Use rubric – Venn diagrams (VDs).

Criteria The extent to which students require assistance on how to do a Venn diagram

The connection to other graphic organizers and/or other instructional innovations

Minimum student benefit—————————————Maximum student benefit Mechanical Routine Refined/integrative Teacher explains or Teacher asks students to Students can complete a VD reviews VDs and complete a VD. Teacher with little or no support. They what it means to quickly reviews the can apply their understanding of compare and contrast process and makes sure all three variations regardless —to push the analysis students understand what of whether it involves two, level of Bloom’s is meant by analysis— three, or four circles. With a taxonomy. May not students can apply all simple reminder they will have introduced the three variations using connect VDs with other three variations. two or three circles. instructional methods when Students only use two appropriate. (e.g., Concept circles. Maps) The teacher may be Teacher may be making Teacher and students will be making connections connections to other making connections to other to other instructional instructional methods or instructional methods or methods or graphic graphic organizers—the graphic organizers—the organizers, but the application of VDs will application will be appropriate application of VDs be smooth. Students and thoughtful. will be naïve in terms understand that VDs They can also integrate VDs of the students’ grasp encourage the analysis with Fishbone and Concept of how to analyze. level of thinking related Maps etc. to Bloom’s taxonomy.

Personally, I see Refined as being able to apply an innovation at more effective levels including the ability to merge other methods related to the innovation; for example, merging the Johnsons’ five Basic Elements with Aronson’s Jigsaw to create a more powerful application of effective group work. Integrative, on the other hand, implies the same idea but extends it to being able to merge or integrate methods outside the innovations area of influence; for example, merging Group Investigation and the Five Basic Elements (social theory) with Concept Maps (information processing theory).

18.5.3 Research Clearly, if we want to move toward a more precise understanding of the power of an innovation or a group of integrated innovations on student learning, then we must do something about supporting teachers and students to evolve over time to more sophisticated levels of use. As stated above, the good news is that for the effect sizes already identified, the effect sizes are most likely higher than reported. The bad news is that we have few if any research studies on the effect of students integrating multiple instructional innovations where the skill level

(Level of Use) has been identified.

18.5.4 Assessment When we look at how the comments in these first four sections play out in terms of student learning, then we begin to sense that “domino effect.” How do we make inferences about the effect of innovation(s) on student learning if we are conceptually unclear about the instructional methods we are applying (e.g., cooperative learning); when we research them inappropriately because of that misunderstanding; then added to that, when we fail to understand and misinterpret the concept of effect size research (thinking that low effect size methods should be avoided in favor of higher effect size methods), which leads into the failure to look at the dependent nature of more complex innovation on less complex instructional innovations; and, when we ignore the idea of level of skill—Level of Use of an innovation? In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, I am a practitioner, working to develop a clearer understanding of the teaching and learning process and how that understanding guides my sensibilities related to interpreting research. I also said that you must keep in mind that I may be wrong. My thinking was shared to illustrate the dominolike effect of first not understanding the concepts being researched, and how that leads to unwittingly connecting effect sizes to concepts that are not methods one can enact (in my example, cooperative learning). Tangentially, the problem compounds itself by researching innovations, and inferring effects when we have no idea of the extent teachers and, perhaps more importantly, students have mastered the innovation being researched. Here the issue of transfer of learning through peer coaching was refined by weaving in the research on Levels of Use to illustrate the importance of attending to levels of use (mastery) when interpreting the results of effect size research.

References Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. Ellis, A. K. (2001). Research on educational innovations (3rd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Centre for Strategic Education: Seminar Series Paper No. 204). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226. Gerstmann, J. (1924). Fingeragnosie. Eine umschriebene Störung der Orientierung am eigenen Körper. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 37, 1010–1012.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 365–379. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Models of teaching (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Marzano, R. (2011). Metaanalysis data base . Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.marzanoresearch.com/research/database/data Perkins, D. (1991). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York, NY: Free Press. RolheiserBennett, C. (1986). Four models of teaching: A metaanalysis of student outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Part 4 Educators as Learners and Leaders What does it mean to lead? What does it take to be a leader in educational policy? In teaching? In one’s own learning? While the answers to these questions might be found in the many texts that discuss the concept of leadership, the underlying complexities of leadership in schools are not so easily uncovered. The four following chapters examine leadership in schools through teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives while providing a historical picture of the changes that have influenced leadership in schools. In “The Importance of Teacher Induction for Improving Teaching and Learning,” Nishimoto focuses on the role of district or statewide induction programs as well as the value of experienced teachers in leading novices through their beginning years. His review of the evolution of induction demonstrates the changing perspectives toward this process and provides insightful comments on helping all teachers become effective professionals. Berry presents compelling examples of the possibilities and challenges for teachers to become “teacherpreneurs” in “Teacher Leadership: Past, Present, and Future.” Through examples, the author demonstrates the demands on classroom teachers that inhibit their opportunities to act “independently” and resist outside control. Teachers, of all the professionals in schooling, know best what their students need to become effective learners, yet the support for teachers to become leaders in their school or district is all too often absent. In this chapter, Berry offers recommendations on ways teacher leadership can be promoted and sustained. In “Principal Instructional Leadership: From Prescription to Theory to Practice,” Hallinger reviews the construct of instructional leadership and then presents dimensions of leadership in schools. Through a discussion of the effect of leadership on learning, the author underscores avenues for future research in this area. While the demands on school leaders are extreme, Hallinger offers a positive outlook as to what these leaders can achieve in student learning with time to implement changes and faith that positive change can occur. In Cavanagh’s case study, “Restorative Justice: An Alternative Approach to School Discipline,” the reader is introduced to justice and restorative practices in schools through three main ideas around the culturally appropriate pedagogy of relations. The author offers a “sociocultural worldview” that values human dignity and a description of a threeyear project toward developing a community of restorative justice in a school that provides classroom practices with the potential to eliminate the schooltoprison pipeline.

19 The Importance of Teacher Induction for Improving Teaching and Learning Matthew C. Nishimoto Coronado High School and University of Nevada, Las Vegas

19.1 Introduction In the literature of professions at large, induction is the term traditionally referring to influences exerted on new entrants by structures of recruitment and admission, professional education and preparation, and initiation procedures and systems. These, as a whole, delineate a path toward full acceptance and membership in a profession (FeimanNemser, 2010; Lawson, 1992). In the profession of education, an early definition of induction was “a program of orientation that offered the teacher an opportunity for personal acceptance, encouragement in initial efforts, and interest in his social adjustment, both in school and in the community” (Burkett, 1953, p. 1). This definition, albeit incomplete, was well ahead of its time and foreshadowed emerging ideas about the processes and purposes of teacher induction. Definitions of beginning teacher induction did not appear broadly in the literature until the 1980s. Almost facetiously, Yarger (1982) jested that “if the term ‘induction’ were placed on one of the emerging teacher competency tests, it is likely that only a visionary would understand its meaning” (p. 93). Griffin (1985) noted the absence of a definition and demoted the term to a “catchword.” But the true catchword in the early and emerging induction literature was actually the term continuum. Throughout the induction literature, the continuum aspect of induction is referred to repeatedly in several different conceptualizations. This continuum begins with preservice experiences and is envisioned as continuing to develop throughout a teacher’s inservice career … When teacher education is viewed as a career long professional continuum the transition between graduation and the onset of inservice teaching is called induction. (Hall, 1982, p. 53)

HulingAustin ( 1990) made similar distinctions, defining induction as part of a continuum of the larger context of teacher education consisting of preservice, induction, and inservice. Her description of induction noted the tradition in the literature of comparing induction to the overarching concept of socialization. FeimanNemser ( 2001, 2010) extended this concept of a continuum to the process of teacher education, specifically highlighting the importance of induction as the connection between preparation and professional development. Illustratively, FeimanNemser ( 2010) described this concept as analogous to Janus—the twofaced Roman god—one face looking back on preparation and one facing forward to future professional development.

As formal, programmatic teacher induction gained footing in educational practice and policy, the definition of induction transformed to include structured assistance programs for beginning teachers (FeimanNemser, Schwille, Carver, & Yusko, 1999; Lawson, 1992). Feiman Nemser (2001, 2010) specifically viewed induction as three overlapping conceptualizations: a phase in teacher development; a process of socialization; and the structured programs of induction. In an effort to reconcile these three conceptualizations within one definition, Wong (2004) defines induction as a systemwide, coherent, comprehensive training and support process that continues for 2 or 3 years and then seamlessly becomes part of the lifelong professional development program of the district to keep new teachers teaching and improving towards increasing their effectiveness. (p. 42)

19.2 The Current State of Teacher Induction 19.2.1 From Definitions to Conceptualizations Certain researchers promote the view that the educational research community still lacks a clear theoretical definition of induction (Serpell, 2000), and the education profession lacks a clear practical definition of induction (Killeavy, 2006; Wayne, Youngs, & Fleischman, 2005). As is the case with Wong’s definition above, [I]n the absence of a concrete definition supported by widespread concerns, researchers and program facilitators depend on a definition of induction embedded in the goals or components of induction programs; the definition therefore serves a more describing than defining purpose. (Serpell, 2000, p. 10)

Although Wong’s definition falls victim to simply describing induction, the three underlying conceptualizations on which it is based—a phase in teacher development, a process of socialization, and the structured programs of induction (FeimanNemser, 2010)—provide the first definition that approaches describing induction through conceptual meanings. 19.2.1.1 Phase in Learning to Teach or Stage in Teacher Development FeimanNemser ( 2001) noted that the induction phase in teacher development does not just occur in the first year, such as it is treated in much of the earlier literature on beginning teachers; this phase encompasses and extends to as many as five years into early career. However, the induction phase is bounded on one side; there is a demarcation between preparation and the point at which the beginning teacher has full responsibility for a classroom (FeimanNemser 2001, 2010; Paine & Schwille, 2010). In this first encounter with the realities and responsibilities of the classroom, beginning teachers face their first true challenges: an intense experience but a formative phase in learning to teach. The purpose of the induction structures during this stage of development is not necessarily to abate these challenges or even to ease the transition. In this conceptualization, these challenges are

learning opportunities for the beginning teacher that are distinct in purpose. [I]nduction brings a shift in role orientation and an epistemological move from knowing about teaching through formal study to knowing how to teach by confronting the dayto day challenges. Becoming a teacher involves forming a professional identity and constructing a professional practice. Both aspects of learning to teach must unfold in ways that strengthen the beginning teacher’s capacity for further growth. (FeimanNemser, 2001, p. 1027)

19.2.1.2 Process of Socialization Induction as socialization is not necessarily a formalized or even intentional process. A school is the social system with a formal organization of individuals in discrete roles that are learned through everyday contact where norms, values, and knowledge are transmitted (Rehage, 1968). These beliefs, attitudes, dispositions, as well as skills and life habits acquired through socialization, are generally those associated with the profession at large (Killeavy, 2006), but can also be contextspecific (Assunção Flores, 2010; FeimanNemser, 2010). Expectations play a large part in the socialization process. Experiences beginning teachers encounter that are expected are easily coped with, while other unexpected experiences or unmet expectations are not as easily overcome due to the surprise and stress they cause. Expected or unexpected, when coping with these experiences, the beginning teacher goes through a socialization process referred to as sensemaking (Louis, 1980) or meaningattribution (Quaglia, 1989). In this process, beginning teachers rely on individual and organizational inputs to make sense of and attribute meaning to unexpected, unmet, or unrealistic expectations. Individual inputs include knowledge of the subject, pedagogy, and classroom management as well as past professional and personal experiences. Organizational components include cultural norms and assumptions, policy and administration, and colleagues, among many others depending on the context. Griffin (1985) suggested that one way to look at the entry of new teachers is to espouse the perspective of socialization as a process of acculturating entrants into the norms and standards of an existing organization. The criticisms of this perspective are twofold. First, conforming to an existing organization inherently breeds conformity, lowers expectations, and leads to the abandonment of initial ideals in beginning teachers (FeimanNemser, 2010). Second, this perspective ignores the reactive nature of social systems, and therefore ignores the fact that socialization does not occur in only one direction. In recent years, this oneway view of adaptive socialization has been replaced with the conceptualization of transformative socialization (FeimanNemser, Schwille et al., 1999)—an interplay between the individual and the context of the school (Brock & Grady, 2001). 19.2.1.3 The Intersection of Teacher Development and Socialization: Concerns and Needs Fuller (1969), and later Fuller and Bown (1975), proposed a conceptual model of teacher concerns that is developmental in nature and structured in three phases: survival, mastery, and impact. Similarly, and grounded in this previous work of Fuller (1969), Hall and Jones (1976)

described the conceptual phases as: concerns about self, concerns about teaching tasks, and concerns about impacts of practices. Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981) combined these conceptualizations of teacher concerns development with the socialization aspect of induction. They connected concerns of new teachers to the formal structures of teacher education as well as the informal structures of socialization, which mirror the earlier discussion of the context and culture of the school. Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981) found that individualistic norms in preservice training, the relative organizational isolation in secondary schools, and challenging teacher placements are barriers to the effective induction of beginning teachers. Instead of socialization into a peer culture, beginning teachers seek peer contact to remediate survival concerns. Due to these factors, Pataniczek and Isaacson state that informal socialization and situations where beginning teachers socialize themselves is a major operator in induction. In essence, support received may be in response to beginning teacher concerns but without organizational and formal socialization. Mirroring the work of Hall and Jones as well as addressing issues specified by Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981), Stansbury and Zimmerman (2002) advocated for formal beginning teacher support that addresses this continuum of concerns, beginning with personal and emotional support, expanding to specific task and instructional support, and finally expanding further to assist with development of critical selfreflection practices focused on practice. In effect, this model both socializes and develops the beginning teacher taking into account concerns and needs. 19.2.1.4 Formal Induction Programs Induction as a formal program suggests a conceptualization of a discrete, bounded system of structures (FeimanNemser, 2010). Embedded within these formal programs, systems, and structures are the processes of socialization and teacher development that span the professional continuum and both incorporate and separate formal induction from general formal professional development. Formal induction programs comprise the last conceptual definition of the term induction. HulingAustin ( 1990) broadly defined induction programs as an organized, structured, and systematic means of providing sustained assistance to beginning teachers, stressing that this assistance must be beyond the regular orientation meetings and evaluation systems. Yusko and FeimanNemser ( 2008) broadened this definition to include evaluative elements, mostly focused on formative assessment of beginning teacher practice. They found that assistance for the beginning teacher and assessment of the beginning teacher could coexist in the same program. But FeimanNemser ( 2010) warned that “thinking about induction as a formal program fixes attention on the needs of beginning teachers that may reinforce an individualistic orientation to teaching and weaken collaboration and a sense of collective responsibility among teachers” (p. 22). Perhaps to properly view induction as a formal program, the components and practices as delineated by the literature warrant discussion. In the next section, programmatic elements are reviewed as described in practice and as theorized to be effective.

19.2.2 Induction Practices and Enacting Components

Several researchers provide a mass inventory of the components of induction (see Brewster & Railsback, 2001; Brock & Grady, 2001; HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991; Wilkinson, 2009; Wong, 2004; Wood & Stanulis, 2010). Synthesized, this inventory contains 21 components described in the literature. Categorized, these 21 components fall under seven categories (see Table 19.1): activities to acculturate the beginning teacher to the school site actions taken by administrators and activities to ease the transition into the profession activities and processes to develop the practical aspects of beginning teaching activities and processes to further develop beginning teachers’ theoretical knowledge activities and processes of mentoring program processes not involving the beginning teacher structures of school culture and organization that interact with the other components

Table 19.1 List of induction components (categorically organized). Acculturative  Materials: staff handbook, district policy guidelines, teaching contract, staff newsletters  Orientation: meeting(s) geared toward new teachers to acculturate them to the setting  Social functions: staff luncheons, faculty parties, school sports events or performances Transitional  Load reduction: assigned team teacher, less challenging students, and/or less class preps  Beginning teacher cohorts: regular meeting of beginning teachers to share experiences Developmental: practical  Observation of beginning teachers by experienced colleagues  Observation of experienced teachers by beginning teachers  Formative assessment  Conferencing: meeting for feedback and reflection on observed practice  Individual goal or growth plans  Portfolios: for professional development and professional assessment Developmental: theoretical  Seminars/workshops—focused on pedagogy and subject matter  College courses  Professional reading  Participation in action research Mentoring  Guidance from peers, sometimes using other activities (observation, conferencing, etc.) Program processes (not involving beginning teacher)  Program evaluation  Mentor selection and training Elements of school culture and organization  Professional learning communities  Instructional collaboration: coplanning, teacher teams, interdisciplinary teams  Shared vision  Active administrative support Viewed in this manner, it is clear that each of these categories and their subsidiary components can be further classified by their manifestation: actions, activities, processes, or organizational structures.

19.2.2.1 Acculturative Components Acculturative components—those intended to acculturate the new teacher to the site—include materials provided to new teachers, orientation meetings and activities, and social functions with faculty or amongst the school community. Materials can be a staff handbook, district policy guidelines, teaching contract, or staff newsletters. They are generally any materials that help acculturate the teacher to the school site and the community served (HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991). An orientation meeting before the first day of school can provide a baseline of information and a period of socialization into the school culture (Brock & Grady, 2001). Zeichner (1979) noted that an orientation meeting is viewed as an essential element of an induction program and that it should be specifically for teachers new to the school. Although since then the value of orientation meetings as perceived by induction leaders and mentors has waned (HulingAustin, 1990; Quinn & Andrews, 2004). 19.2.2.2 Transitional Components Transitional components—those intended to ease the transition from preservice to service in the profession—include load reduction and beginning teacher cohorts or groupings. Load reduction refers to the decisions and actions (usually enacted by the school principal/administrator) to reduce profession entry stress (Brewster & Railsback, 2001; HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991). Load reduction is achieved by assigning the beginning teacher fewer challenging students, including those students without learning barriers or special needs. Secondary administrators can assign fewer subject areas to teach and therefore fewer instructional preparations. Because elementary teachers cannot be assigned less subject matter, elementary administrators can reduce load by assigning a team teacher or hiring an aide or assistant. Another component that addresses entry stress and anxiety is beginning teacher cohorts or groupings of beginning teachers that meet regularly to discuss their shared experience (Brewster & Railsback, 2001; Brock & Grady, 2001; HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Wong, 2004). 19.2.2.3 Developmental Components: Practical Developmental components—especially those intended to develop the practical aspects of beginning teaching and instruction—include opportunities for observation, formative assessment, conferencing (with feedback and reflection), individual goal or growth plans, and developmental or professional portfolios. Opportunities for observation—provided by the administration through released time (Brewster & Railsback, 2001; HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991)—refer to those opportunities for beginning teachers to be observed and to observe, specifically, to observe those colleagues who model best and promising practices and effective management (Brewster & Railsback, 2001; Brock & Grady, 2001; Huling Austin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991; Wong, 2004). Wood and Stanulis (2010) advocated that these observations should not be haphazard, but systematic and structured. Formative assessment as a component of induction is relatively recent (Wood & Stanulis, 2010) and is strongly debated (Yusko & FeimanNemser, 2008). Nonetheless, formative assessment forms the basis of reflective conferencing and individual growth plans. In certain induction programs

beginning teacher portfolios serve as both professional development and professional assessment (Brock & Grady, 2001; Runyan, 1991). 19.2.2.4 Developmental Components: Theoretical Developmental components—especially those intended to develop and enhance the theoretical knowledge of beginning teachers—include seminars and workshops, college courses, professional reading, and participation in action research. Although the workshop approach is considered by some researchers to be an ineffectual practice (Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008), other researchers have found that if the content of the workshop is theoretical and pedagogical in nature and specific to subject matter, then it could be an effective component (Runyan, 1991; Wilkinson, 2009). Similarly, college courses that link the beginning teachers’ current practice to theory are beneficial (Brock & Grady, 2001; HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991). Scholarly study by beginning teachers is suggested by Brock and Grady (2001) through professional reading. Further, theoretical inquiry is suggested by Brewster and Railsback (2001) through participation in action research, as exemplified by induction practices in other countries (Howe, 2006). 19.2.2.5 Mentoring Mentoring is possibly the most recognizable and most implemented component of induction. Gold (1996) stated that a clear and universal definition of mentoring is unavailable and somewhat unwanted due to conflicting perspectives on the usefulness of defining the role of the mentor. One perspective forwards the belief that a concrete and pervasive definition is unnecessary and would be limiting; further, that mentor roles are inherently incompatible with prevailing values, norms, and structures of teaching. The second perspective forwards the belief that a clearly delineated role and specific guidelines for their selection and training are necessary. “Although contemporary definitions are somewhat less ambiguous than earlier ones associated with more informal programs, definitions of the mentor teachers’ role continue to be vague” (Serpell, 2000, p. 14). This ambiguity in mentor role is attributed to inadequate preparation or training for the role. Further, mentors may not define their roles and responsibilities in educational terms but rather support roles (FeimanNemser, 2001). Rather than defining the role of the mentor, Brewster and Railsback (2001) broadly define the process of mentoring: occurring as part of or separately from induction programs; as formal or informal; and between new teachers and more experienced colleagues. Similarly, Wong (2004) noted that mentoring that appears without a formal program is either selfinitiated or simply an assigned mentor by the principal. Wong further stated that the simple assignment of a mentor alone is an ineffective induction practice especially in regard to retention and student achievement. Grossman and Davis (2012) agree that the mere presence of a mentor alone is ineffective and define effective mentoring as containing three features: highly trained mentors, a focus on content, and allocated time for mentoring. These three features interact with the specific teacher’s background as well as the school context. Rather than define mentoring by its features, Mullen (2013) defined it by its functions: a personal relationship, an educational process, and a systemic reform strategy.

With these competing and relatively inconsistent definitions of induction, confusion in the field is inevitable. Further confounding is the errant use of the term mentoring as synonymous with the overall process of induction. There is much confusion and misuse of the words mentoring and induction. The two terms are not synonymous, yet they are often used incorrectly. Induction is a process … Mentoring is an action … Mentoring is not induction. A mentor is a component of the induction process. The issue is not mentoring; the issue is mentoring alone. Mentors are an important component, perhaps the most important component of an induction program, but they must be part of an induction process aligned to the district vision, mission, and structure. For a mentor to be effective, the mentor must be used in combination with the other components of the induction process. (Wong, 2004, p. 42)

In the recent history of induction, mentoring has become the dominant instrument of induction (FeimanNemser, 2001; Grossman & Davis, 2012; Wong, 2004). But Ingersoll (2012) noted its recent decline as compared to support provided by administrators; a larger percentage of beginning teachers report support from administrators than from mentors. Early traditional conceptualizations of mentoring were from a more acculturative and transitional perspective. Mentors were those responsible for the socialization, acculturation, and professional transition of beginning teachers with a focus on the daily problems and challenges that arise in beginning teaching (HulingAustin, 1988). Traditional mentoring theories were characterized by functionalist approaches to mentoring, pervasively conceptualized like systemic apprenticeships wherein one generation passes the learning to the next (Mullen, 2013). Researchers propose that this generational practice may perpetuate traditional norms rather than develop effective practices. In addition, it may reinforce an individualistic orientation to induction (FeimanNemser, 2010; FeimanNemser, Carver, Schwille, & Yusko, 1999). More contemporary models of induction focus both on the instructional development of the teacher and on the potentially transformative nature of mentoring in a conducive school climate. FeimanNemser, Schwille et al. (1999) noted the distinctiveness of a particular approach to mentoring where the new teacher’s learning is guided through modeling, joint planning, coteaching, and coaching. Coined “educative mentoring” by the original researchers (Schwille & Wolf, 1996), this practice is distinguished from those conventional mentoring approaches that only attend to emotional support, socialization, and shortterm assistance. Mentors who engaged in educative mentoring displayed a special kind of bifocal vision. Attending to the immediate needs of their novice, they also kept their eye on longterm goals. Responding to hereandnow concerns, they also created learning opportunities that would move the novice’s practice forward. (p. 19) Similarly, Strong’s (2006) conceptualization of comprehensive mentoring places emphasis on the second year in the career of the beginning teacher. Whereas the first year of mentoring

activities are focused on the daily—classroom management, organization, acculturation to the site—the secondyear focus is directed to more instructional issues. In this contemporary conceptualization, mentoring meets the definition as earlier ascribed to Mullen (2013) wherein mentoring is a personal relationship, an educational process, and a strategy for systemic reform. These conceptualizations also marry the process of mentoring to the theories of concernsbased teacher development (Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Bown, 1975; Hall & Jones, 1976). 19.2.2.6 Program Processes Not Involving the Beginning Teacher Certain processes or components of induction do not explicitly involve the beginning teacher. These processes include induction program evaluation by administrators, district personnel, school boards, state departments of education, or induction policymakers. While the evaluation process may collect data from the beginning teacher, the process is not part of the induction experience for the beginning teacher. Likewise, mentor training is usually undertaken without inclusion of the beginning teacher. And although researchers have advocated for the involvement of the beginner teacher in mentor selection, there is limited research on this practice. 19.2.2.7 Elements of School Culture and Organization An emerging and everincreasing theme in the teacher induction literature is the impact that school culture and organization have on operation and effectiveness of other induction components (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010a, 2010b; Cherian & Daniel, 2008; Nielsen, Barry, & Addison, 2007; Wilkinson, 2009; Wood & Stanulis, 2010). Instructional collaboration such as interdisciplinary teaching teams and professional learning communities (Wenger, 1999) are school organizational structures conducive to induction activities and processes (Bickmore, Bickmore, & Hart, 2005; Cherian & Daniel, 2008). These structures and other components of induction can be guided by a shared vision of instruction as articulated by school leadership in their active involvement and support of induction as a whole (Wood & Stanulis, 2010). 19.2.2.8 More than Components Despite the previous indepth discussion of the various components, structures, activities, and processes in induction, many researchers advocate for the perspective of an overall picture of induction as comprehensive and multifaceted rather than a piecemeal approach (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010a; Wilkins & Clift, 2007; Wood & Stanulis, 2010). And still other researchers advocate for autonomous participation in induction components (Wayne et al., 2005). Wang et al. (2008) state, Components of teacher induction do not independently influence beginning teachers’ learning and teaching practice. The quality of influence is dependent on social, cultural, and organizational context of schools where such components are situated. In consideration of the diversity of contexts for teacher induction, it is inappropriate to generalize across settings when recommending induction strategies and practices. (p. 148)

19.2.3 From Conceptualizations to Paradigms In the field of teacher education, basic paradigms have been identified … It is conceivable that teacher induction programs could be more effective if they, too, were structured around conceptual paradigms … it is premature to identify clear conceptual paradigms on basis of current practice. Readers can anticipate the development of such paradigms as the field of teacher induction matures. (HulingAustin, 1990, p. 540)

19.2.3.1 Traditional Paradigms Traditional paradigms of induction include among them the functional paradigm and the supportive paradigm. The functional paradigm is the provision of induction support as seen to address beginning teacher needs. Research utilizing the functional paradigm compares support needed to support provided (Odell, 1986; Odell, Loughlin, & Ferraro, 1986). As a paradigm of induction practice, the exclusive use of this paradigm has been mostly abandoned; the functional paradigm has been incorporated into larger, more recent paradigms. But, as a paradigm of research, it is still in prevalent use; several recent studies compare those supports desired against those that are provided. The supportive paradigm is the characterization of beginning teachers as adapters to the existing institutional and systemic norms (Feiman Nemser, 2010) and their efforts to integrate through adoption of attitudes (Fox & Singletary, 1986). Supportive induction seeks to ease this process through personal and psychological support of the beginning teacher—and only minimal support of instructional practice. The supportive paradigm incorporates the early conceptualization of socialization as a oneway process. These traditional paradigms emphasize a onesizefitsall approach (FeimanNemser, 2010). Nowhere is this clearer than the explicit and ardent avoidance of individual formative assessment and assessmentoriented induction programs (Fox & Singletary, 1986). Although proponents of these paradigms advocate their use due to the lack of a universal teacher development theory (Odell, 1986), others critique this perspective as lacking direction for instruction and teaching. Providing induction support to beginning teachers is a humane response to the trials and tribulations associated with the first year of teaching. Unless we also take into account the fact that beginning teachers are learners, we may design programs that reduce stress and address problems and concerns without necessarily promoting teacher development. (FeimanNemser, Schwille et al., 1999, p. 9)

19.2.3.2 The Developmental Paradigms Developmental paradigms regard beginning teachers as novices with basic competencies rather than experienced professionals. These perspectives assume a longterm, incremental, individualized approach to the developmental needs of the novice in becoming an accomplished teaching professional (Berliner, 1986; Brock & Grady, 2001; FeimanNemser,

Schwille et al., 1999; Shulman, 1986). A second common requirement is a supportive context, thereby incorporating earlier traditional paradigms. The context is not only a focus for founding support, it also determines the situational goals and activities—those beyond the individual, developmental goals—of a beginning teacher’s induction (Brock & Grady, 2001). The developmental paradigm also contains an aspect of beginning teacher autonomy in the process. This autonomy can occur inherently and implicitly (the beginning teacher moves through the process in response to his or her individual development) or intentionally and explicitly (the program design allows for choice). 19.2.3.3 The Comprehensive or Multifaceted Paradigm Although the terms comprehensive and multifaceted generally refer to strategic approaches to induction, when viewing these as perspectives with distinct beliefs and epistemologies, their importance as paradigms emerges. The comprehensive paradigm regards the induction as a holistic and allencompassing process toward the acculturation and development of the beginning teacher while addressing issues of the profession at large, such as teacher attrition, quality of instruction, and student learning (Birkeland & FeimanNemser, 2012; Feiman Nemser, 2010; Wong, 2004; Wong, Britton, & Ganser, 2005). The comprehensive paradigm emphasizes the formal and structured nature, guided by a shared set of values and a vision (Wong, 2004; Wong et al., 2005). Similarly but slightly differing, the multifaceted paradigm regards the induction process as multiple interacting components and elements, each addressing various personal and professional needs of the beginning teacher (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010a; Wood & Stanulis, 2009). In a sense, the multifaceted paradigm is the marriage of the comprehensive paradigm and the traditional functional paradigm. 19.2.3.4 The Emerging Paradigms Two emergent but distinctly contradictory paradigms are the standardsbased paradigm and reformoriented paradigm. The standardsbased paradigm encompasses developmental paradigms, but the concept of development held in the paradigm is specifically toward professional teaching standards. This paradigm emerged first from foci on district standards (Wong, 2004) to state standards (Wilkinson, 2009), and finally to the overarching standards of the profession as articulated by professional organizations such as the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) (FeimanNemser, 2001, 2012; Wang et al., 2008; Weiss & Weiss, 1999). Critics of the standardsbased practice note issues with establishing standards of teaching given the multiple and differing contexts and contextual influences in schools and in the experience of individual teachers (Serpell, 2000). On the opposite end of the spectrum is the reformoriented paradigm which encompasses those beliefs that induction can be a vehicle for, and a major part of, schoolwide reform through the articulation of vision and the responsive nature of the school itself to the fresh perspectives of the beginning teachers. In essence, the school induction leaders and beginning teachers can enact a reform agenda through the processes already in place for induction. In specifically researched forms such as the personal services paradigm (Cherubini, 2007), the developmental paradigm is combined with the reformoriented paradigm resulting in a

perspective that views affirmation of individual professional growth through the use of the beginning teachers’ developing strengths to impact the culture of the school as well as their own classrooms. It is no coincidence that the first three paradigms discussed mirror the three conceptualizations of induction identified by FeimanNemser ( 2001). It is also no coincidence that there is a blurring of paradigms as well as incorporation of certain paradigms into other more encompassing paradigms. Paradigms exist within a specified time. As paradigms progress through time, they change, evolve, die off, or are incorporated as part of later paradigms (Kuhn, 2012). The three conceptualizations of induction exist as conceptual exemplars but paradigms exist as the predominant way of thinking for a period of time. “Close historical investigation of a given specialty at a given time discloses a set of recurrent and quasistandard illustrations of various theories in their conceptual, observational, and instrumental applications. These are the community’s paradigms” (Kuhn, 2012, p. 43). As a historical lens is integral for the consideration of paradigms, the next section outlines the history of induction research and practice.

19.3 The History of Induction The literature on induction into the teaching profession has its roots in the 1950s and 1960s in the United States, where mandatory schooling and the professional standards of teachers were being questioned in the postwar period (Kearney, 2014, p. 4).

19.3.1 The 1950s Conceptions of induction began to vaguely form in the 1950s. Prior to this era, the term induction was used synonymously and blurred with internship programs and other preservice field training. In the 1950s, it was conceptualized as inservice training or professional development that was targeted for beginning teachers and that focused primarily on their adjustment and needs. Abraham (1954) outlined the precarious state of induction in the early 1950s, stating, “although some schools in systems have wellplanned inservice training programs for their newcomers, perhaps they are not evaluated and revised frequently enough to see whether they meet the everchanging needs of the beginning teacher” (p. 311). The general focus of induction for this time was instilling a sense of security and confidence through activities that addressed beginning teacher challenges, needs, and concerns. This individualistic approach was assumed to result in retention and improved practice. The naïveté of the early thoughts regarding beginning teacher attrition and retention are apparent during this era. The general consensus was that attrition was due to teacher frustration with students, parents, and colleagues (Abraham, 1954; Burkett, 1953). During this era, researchers often pointed to a single cause of attrition, namely, the challenges faced by beginning teachers. “Problems have always confronted the new teacher and due to them many promising young people have left the teaching field for other types of work” (Burkett, 1953, p.

2). This focus was reflected in the research literature as well. In contrast to the 1930 through 1950 focus on the improvement of preservice programs and inservice supervision practices, during the next two decades several studies explored relations between personality traits or characteristics of beginning teachers and problems experienced in beginning to teach. (Johnston & Ryan, 1980, p. 13)

Equally thoughtprovoking, not all of the researchers believed that the teachers lost to attrition were “promising.” It was an assumption among some researchers that teachers chose to leave the profession for simpler, more menial jobs. Illustratively, Abraham (1954) warned that if beginning teacher needs were not met, those unsupported teachers would, in the next year, be “selling stockings, running a motel, or pounding a typewriter in some office and glad to be away from the children, their parents and other teachers” (p. 311). Unfortunately, it would be at least another 30 years before work opposing this point of view would appear, showing that a proportion of beginning teacher attrition is actually the “best and brightest,” who leave the education profession in favor of careers with more opportunity (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Schlechty & Vance, 1981).

19.3.2 The 1960s Zeichner (1979) places a pivotal year in induction implementation history as 1963, the year of the publication of the Conant Report—a report that contained specific recommendations for the support of beginning teachers (Conant, 1963)—that impacted the national interest in the practice and research of teacher induction. The division of literature in Zeichner’s eyes, at least for the time, was pre1963 and 1963 to 1978. The induction literature and practice in the 1960s was cognitive in nature and focused on induction as a socialization process, drawing on multiple perspectives grounded in the fields of psychology and sociology (Johnston & Ryan, 1980). Formal aspects of induction were, as yet, insubstantial, with the prevailing thought that a simple orientation meeting was a major formal structure of induction. The formal structures familiar today began to incubate and emerge in schoolbased formal induction of the 1960s. “The evolution of induction programs started twenty years ago [i.e., the 1960s] as schools began to explore schemes to assist the beginning teacher into the teaching profession” (Ashburn, 1986, p. 41).

19.3.3 The 1970s By the 1970s one of the most recognizable and policyfavored structures of induction began to receive widespread acceptance as ideal practice. Formal, organized structures that connected beginning teachers to experienced veteran teachers/mentors came to the forefront during that decade (Ganser, 2002). But it was a doubleedged sword. The emergence of mentoring programs as the sole intervention for beginning teachers became a norm in practice and research as well as policy in a few states that would begin statemandated programs at the end of the decade. This era marked the beginning of the erroneous blurring between the terms mentoring and induction. Likewise, other forms of assistance and support were relatively

ignored in the literature. Despite this flawed thinking, the publication of two books—Don’t Smile Until Christmas (Ryan, 1970) and Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Lortie, 1976) —would provide the spark for research and resultant emergence of formal induction programs with structures and approaches beyond mentoring alone (Wilkinson, 2009).

19.3.4 The Year 1978 Zeichner’s division of eras marked a 1978 enddate—a date chosen for the purposes of framing the literature, not as an eraending limit. But interestingly, 1978 marked two major events in the history of induction program implementation and research on induction. Beginning a new era of stateinitiated induction programs (either by state legislatures or state education bodies), Florida was the first state of many to establish and implement a statelevel induction program. Also in 1978, the National Institute of Education awarded a grant to the Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, which provided, among other things, “the rare opportunity to participate in a very special enterprise … working with an international group of scholars, policymakers, and practitioners in the planning and implementing of an effort to identify crucial issues for research in teacher education” (Hord & Hall, 1980, p. vii). This group met at an international invitational conference and was charged with the responsibility of identifying areas of focus for future research. “The conference was organized around two dimensions: (1) the teacher education continuum (preservice/induction/inservice); and (2) seven topic areas” (Hall, Hord, & Brown, 1980, p. 1). This effort brought the international knowledge of induction into the research agendas of the United States. Up until this point, induction had been viewed as orientation meetings, inservice training, and mentoring for adjustment. In many cases, the term induction was not even applied; rather, these component terms were used. In the wake of 1978—the combined emergence of state implemented formal induction programs and a rigorous research agenda focused on induction —the first major paradigm shift in induction thinking occurred. Induction became conceptualized as an overall process, a developmental phase, and part of the teacher education continuum.

19.3.5 The “Waves” of Formal Induction Creation and implementation of formal, large or statescale induction programs occurred in what Fideler and Haselkorn (1999) refer to as “waves.” The wave simile conceptualized the crests and troughs of policy and implementation that had varying foci for induction. Three waves explicitly outlined were: prior to 1986; 1986 to 1989; and 1990–1996; with a fourth wave predicted to peak in 2000. Because of the 1978 initiation of statelevel induction programs, it could be argued that Fideler and Haselkorn’s first wave is actually bounded within 1978 to 1986. Although these waves outline and describe statelevel induction programs, local and schoolbased induction programs were generally implemented on similar tenets. Bearing in mind that the bounds of each wave are flexible and overlapping, this series of waves provides a general picture of induction thinking across the nation, over time.

In the first wave, from 1978 to 1986, statelevel induction programs were initiated by eight states. However, these programs were not mandated, did not serve every new teacher, and were underfunded or completely unfunded (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999; Wood & Stanulis, 2009). As a result, the programs were loosely administered, mostly informal, and continued the practice of using mentoring almost exclusively. The goal of these first induction programs was to stem attrition, increase competence, and acculturate new teachers to the profession. The second wave, 1986 to 1989, was characterized by a variation in program structure and a dramatic increase in statelevel induction programs, local district, and school induction programs as well as induction programs sponsored by colleges of education and other institutions of higher education (Arends & RigazioDiGilio, 2000; FeimanNemser, 2012; FeimanNemser, Carver et al., 1999; FeimanNemser, Schwille et al., 1999; Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). Although the term induction was still synonymous with mentoring in this era (HulingAustin, 1986, 1988; Wong, 2004), induction program structures included professional development activities. This represented a major paradigm shift in the goals of induction. In addition to the focus on socialization for retention (a tradition of practice and literature by this time), professional development addressed competence and quality (Arends & Rigazio DiGilio, 2000). The third wave, 1990 to 1997, grew from the school reform agenda and focused on the recruitment, retention, and support of quality new teachers. The 1990s were characterized by an abundance of existing programs that led to vast leaps in the research on induction as it actually functioned within contexts. Some of the first empirical literature that explored the impact and effects of new teacher induction programs (beyond studies of new teacher experiences, stakeholder perceptions, or program descriptions) appeared at this time. This era continued to focus on formally structured professional development as a means to address beginning teacher performance as well as socialization structures to acculturate new teachers into the profession (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999; Wood & Stanulis, 2009). This era also expanded the practice of interinstitutional responsibilities for professional development (FeimanNemser, 2001). It could be argued that this third wave and the previous second wave are identical in paradigm, goals, and foci, if not for the added component of formative assessment. “Influenced by the 1991 implementation of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium’s standards for teacher induction and state teaching and/or curricular content standards, observations of new teachers’ performance became more organized and standardsbased” (Wood & Stanulis, 2009, pp. 2–3). It was reported that 75% of existing stateinitiated induction programs had some type of formative assessment component (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). Noting another parallel to the secondwave era, despite the emerging empirical evidence of the positive impact of induction programs, their demise was mainly due to the elimination of program funding (Wood, 2005; Wood & Stanulis, 2009). Wood and Stanulis (2009) took the wave concept one step further and explored the fourth wave originally predicted by Fideler and Haselkorn, from 1997 to 2006. Fourthwave programs were described or proposed as integrated or comprehensive and multifaceted. Traditions of induction such as mentoring, professional development, and formative assessment were

continued. An increase in research on the mentor–mentee dynamic led to a form of mentoring intended to focus on longterm teaching performance as well as shortterm concerns, namely, educative mentoring (Schwille & Wolf, 1996). At the peak of the fourth wave, federal mandates for assessment, accountability, and the requirement of a highly qualified teacher in every classroom (the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), as well as the establishment of national curriculum standards, heavily impacted all aspects of education policy, including induction (Andrews & Martin, 2003; Wilkinson, 2009). In response, the focus of teacher induction shifted from transition support through socialization to promoting teaching practice toward standardsbased teaching and learning (Wang et al., 2008).

19.3.6 Fifth Wave: Beyond 2007 For many reasons it could be argued that the fourth wave of induction thinking continues to today, but there are two major reasons for demarcating a fifth wave. First, there is a policy and paradigm shift in the focus and practice of fifthwave induction programs. Second, to continue the wave metaphor, there appears to be a “trough” or a discontinuation of outdated practices or the adoption of new ideas around 2007. Wood and Stanulis (2009) stated that fifthwave programs could no longer downplay the importance of the effects on teacher effectiveness or on student learning. The interest in the effects on student achievement, especially for diverse populations, became a driving impetus for induction research and practice. In the preceding eras, the school leader was conceptualized as the key contributor to the socialization of new teachers. The concept of socializing new teachers into existing school cultures has largely been outmoded by the new conception of incorporating new teachers into professional learning communities or sharedinterest collaborative school cultures focused on professional learning (FeimanNemser, 2012). In this sense, the collaborative element of the school culture acts as a means to actualize the flexible effect that socialization has on both the new teacher and the school culture; a collaborative culture creates a shared socialization of the new teacher to the school and the school to the new teacher. Although the administrator’s role as the primary means of socialization for the beginning teacher has been mostly outmoded, research on roles of administrators in the induction process are explored further in this era than in previous eras. Beginning in the fourth wave, empirical work defining the school leader’s responsibilities and roles increased (Brock & Grady, 1998, 2001). In the fifth wave, specific behaviors, actions, and decisions of administrators were investigated resulting in an ever clearer picture of their roles and relationships (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010b; Scherff, 2008; Wood, 2005). Interestingly, a comparison can be drawn between the history of induction and concernsbased teacher development models (Fuller, 1969; Fuller & Bown, 1975; Hall & Jones, 1976; Pataniczek & Isaacson, 1981). Early induction thinking was focused on teacher concerns and problems—concerns with self and task. Early formal induction policy of the 1980s and 1990s focused on instruction and competency—concerns with teaching tasks. And recent waves of induction programs have focused on quality instruction, the learners, and the impacts on student achievement—concerns about the impact of practices. Of particular concern in this comparison is that as induction programs have emerged and evolved, there appears to be a steady

abandonment of foci on foundational, developmental, and individual needs of beginning teachers. But, viewed more closely, it can be seen that elements of induction have actually transplanted from focal areas and paradigms to integrated practices (see Table 19.2). For example, the immediate needs and concerns as well as longterm instructional development toward competence—a former focus and goal—are now integrated and addressed by the educative mentoring practice and formal professional development. Likewise, acculturation into the profession is no longer a focus; the recent focus is on collaborative school cultures and the integrated practice of professional learning communities. Table 19.2 Overview of the eras of induction history. Eras

Practices and programs

Goals

Pre 1963

Orientation

Retention

Inservice training

Improved practice

1963 to 1978

Orientation Mentoring

Paradigm

Focus

Functional

New teacher needs

Retention

Functional

Develop practice

Supportive

Socialization and acculturation Instruction

1978 to 1986

1986 to 1989

Orientation

Retention

Functional

Mentoring

Competence

Supportive

Underfunded state initiated programs

Professionalism

Developmental

Mentoring

Retention

Functional

Professional development

Competence

Supportive

Quality practice

Developmental

Mentoring

Retention

Supportive

Formal, structured professional development

Competence

Developmental

Quality practice

Comprehensive

Sitebased programs

Socialization and acculturation Instruction Socialization and acculturation Instruction

Statemandated programs 1990 to 1996

Formative assessment

Socialization and acculturation Standards based instruction

Formal sitebased or statelevel programs 1997 to 2006

Impacts/effects

Educative mentoring

Retention

Supportive

Formal, structured professional development

Quality practice

Developmental

Standards based instruction

Gains in student achievement

Comprehensive and multifaceted

Standards based learning

Formative assessment

Standards based

Comprehensive or multifaceted programs

Impacts/effects School culture

Administrative responsibilities Post 2006

Educative mentoring

Retention

Developmental

Formal, structured professional development

Quality practice

Comprehensive and multifaceted

Gains in student achievement

Differentiated instruction Standards based learning

Formative assessment

Standards based

Urban school issues

Comprehensive or multifaceted programs

Reform oriented

Diverse learners

Administrative elements/roles

Impacts/effects Collaborative culture

Professional learning communities FeimanNemser ( 2012) aptly summarized the philosophical arc that induction thinking has carved through its decadeslong history.

The literature on induction and mentoring over the past 50 years reveals distinct shifts in thinking about what induction is and what it should do. Early advocates endorsed a view of induction as a temporary bridge designed to ease the new teacher’s entry into teaching. A second view—prompted by standardsbased reforms, calls for greater professionalism, and a growing understanding of teacher learning—saw induction as individualized professional development. And in recent years, education leaders have advocated a view of induction as a process of incorporating new teachers into collaborative professional learning communities. (p. 12)

19.4 The Future of Teacher Induction 19.4.1 Where is Induction Going? At present, school leaders find their school staff includes an increasing population of novice teachers. Beginning teachers are the largest subpopulation in one of the largest occupations in the country due to the disproportionate numbers entering the profession as veteran teachers are retiring or leaving the profession (Ingersoll, 2012). With alternate licensure programs allowing more novice teachers into the classroom at a faster pace than their traditional teacher education counterparts, it seems that the pressure from a disproportionate number of novices will continue. With an everincreasing number of beginning teachers, the funding to provide a comprehensive, multifaceted induction experience may become a major challenge. Future solutions to the large number of new teachers in classrooms do not necessarily need to be overly innovative. Existing components of induction and existing systems within the school could alleviate financial barriers to effective induction implementation. A financially favored solution has been the use of general workshops, although this practice is seen as sacrificing effectiveness for fiscal savings (Wang et al., 2008). A more effective component solution would be the creation of beginning teacher cohorts. This practice would both create a unique professional learning community within the school and provide support and development opportunities. These cohorts make even more sense when considering the issue at hand, the overpopulation of novice teachers; there would most likely be plenty of beginning teachers within the school or district community to create and maintain the cohorts. Other components of induction could be combined into existing systems within the school. Supervisory review and required assessment of teachers could incorporate induction components such as conferencing, growth and goal planning, portfolios, and other formative endeavors. It would not necessarily be financially costly to include these induction components, but it would require more effort and time on behalf of the administrator. Beyond the realworld issues that are mounting, the thinking about teacher induction breeds tensions that could arise in the future. The fluidity of the definition of induction will inevitably continue. Similar to the dispute about defining the process of mentoring, defining induction described only by its components may be limiting. Conceptual treatment of the term will likely be the future trend in both practice and research. The conceptualization of induction as formal structures is already adopting ideas regarding a comprehensive approach and the embedding

nature of school culture. Paradigmatic treatment of induction is inherent to practice and research, but in constant flux with regard to the pressures of the time. A paradigm shift is on the horizon with regard to two opposing paradigms that have recently emerged, the standardsbased paradigm and the reformoriented paradigm. Topdown pressure from state and national mandates has placed the standardsbased paradigm of induction as the policyfavored paradigm. But local, schoolbased initiatives and especially those leaders espousing a model of teacher empowerment will align with the reformoriented paradigm. At odds are the overall professional pressures and the contextual school pressures. A school leader must choose to either socialize and develop beginning teachers to the overarching standards of the profession or socialize and/or develop teachers to use strengths to positively impact students and the school. Most educators would predict that a virtuous school leader would place schoolbased reform over professional standards or find a happy medium therein. But at present, the U.S. education system still finds itself in an age of accountability to which school leaders must abide. If the standardsbased paradigm were to be the future paradigm of induction, what would be the repercussions? The program components and focus of induction would most likely remain similar with the caveat that formative assessment of beginning teachers would be centered on professional standards rather than teacher concerns and needs. In effect, the functional paradigm, rooted in teacher needs and concerns, would be completely abandoned. Rather than emerging naturally, teacher needs and concerns would be identified through standards, leaving contextual or specific concerns unheeded. As the standardsbased paradigm is almost completely developmental and without concepts of personal support—a trend already apparent in induction thinking—the goal of retention may also be abandoned. The standardsbased paradigm also carries the assumption of passivity in teacher development. It is a barrier to individual teacher identity development and the development of a teacher’s preferred style. In practice, this paradigm would rely heavily on the formative assessment of the beginning teacher by an administrator. On the opposite end, if the reformoriented paradigm were to be the future paradigm of induction, it would present issues of its own. In this paradigm, beginning teachers would be developed to be effective in a specified context. And while effective teaching practices can be universal, those developed in response to internal contextual influences would need to be redeveloped or readjusted if the teacher were to change schools. In effect, they would need to be inducted again upon entry to a new school. Beyond this, the reformoriented paradigm adds another layer of responsibility to the full slate facing the beginning teacher, who is already tasked with full charge of a classroom and a teaching assignment that is equal to or, in some cases, even more challenging than that of their more veteran colleagues. This paradigm carries with it the additional expectation that new teachers will contribute to the school community based on their strengths. This expectation has two major assumptions of the beginning teacher. First, that they possess a quality or impactful strength to be shared. Second, they are capable of enacting impact on a schoolwide level. The reform nature of the paradigm suggests that structures and systems would be in place to be the vehicle for this impact. Further, the assumption is that the school culture would be pliant and amenable to these impacts. In

practice, this paradigm would use the collective and collaborative nature of the school culture to actualize or reinforce other components. The major downfall is that the effectiveness and success of this type of induction practice are almost entirely dependent on a conducive school culture; without it, this paradigm cannot function. Both paradigms have their strengths and their faults. Both paradigms are currently emerging and may be the underlying paradigm of how we think of induction in the future. The tension is apparent as these paradigms represent the clash of sweeping professional perspectives with the local interests of a school community. Most likely to adopt the standardsbased paradigm are those largescale educational institutions and administrators who are predisposed to a standardized orientation, such as professional education organizations, education policymakers, and teacher education programs. Most likely to adopt the reformoriented paradigm of induction are smallerscale institutions such as school districts and schools and their administrators, teachers, and other individuals on staff. As discussed in a previous section, there are three generally accepted conceptualizations of induction: a process of socialization, a phase in teacher development, and the formal structures that enact these. But viewed through the lenses of the standardsbased paradigm and the reformoriented paradigm, a mirror effect occurs (see Table 19.3). The process of socialization in the standardsbased paradigm emphasizes socialization to the standards, roles, and norms of the education profession at large. The process of socialization in the reformoriented paradigm emphasizes acclimatization and adjustment to the context of the school and specific responsibilities related to roles and the community in which they are situated. Equally, the stage in teacher development is viewed as the development of professional competence in the standardsbased paradigm and the development of contextually impactful strengths in the reformoriented paradigm. The conceptualization of formal structures is identical, but the difference is in the emphasis of enactment; the profession versus the context. Table 19.3 The opposing paradigms and their view of the three conceptualizations of induction. Standardsbased paradigm Reformoriented paradigm Process of Socialization to standards, roles, and Acclimatization and adjustment to socialization norms of the education profession at large the context and specific responsibilities of a school or community Stage in Development of competence aligned with Development of strengths intended teacher professional standards to impact the school and students in development the context Formal, Formal, systematic structures and Formal, systematic structures used systematic induction components centered on the as both induction components and structures profession and to improve the profession vehicles for schoolbased reform as a whole

These views of induction thinking can be the driving impetus behind effective induction implementation and practice or they could drive a wedge between policymakers, school leaders, and the teachers experiencing induction.

19.4.2 Where Should the Future of Teacher Induction Go? Stretching Our Thinking Of paramount importance as these two opposing paradigms gain momentum is the thinking that will bridge them. A consensus paradigm of teacher induction may be one that combines these two ideas; a blending of the macro and the micro. Similar to the concept of educative mentoring—longterm goals with an eye on immediate concerns—this new paradigm could be grounded and framed in professional standards with an actionable eye on the beginning teacher’s concerns, strengths, and the school context and culture in which they are embedded. The last element mentioned, the school culture element, hints at yet another paradigm that could be incorporated—the comprehensive paradigm. Beyond the meshing of the two competing paradigms into a consensus paradigm is the idea that both are inherently systemic, organizational perspectives. To truly address the concerns of beginning teachers, this new paradigm must incorporate earlier conceptions of the functional paradigm; a paradigm that emphasizes the response to the concerns and needs of specific beginning teachers in specific situations. An induction component, which may be currently underutilized and could provide a means of actualizing this proposed paradigm, is the concept of load reduction (Brewster & Railsback, 2001; HulingAustin, 1986, 1990; Runyan, 1991). Expanding our thinking of load reduction to a concept of assignment consideration can both alleviate a historical beginning teacher concern and remediate the added responsibility of school contribution imposed by the reformoriented paradigm. Assignment pressures and full responsibility pressures have been an issue with beginning teachers since the onset of teacher induction research. Teachers are assigned a group of students, given the key to a classroom, introduced to their colleagues in a faculty meeting, and expected to teach. This is an interesting indicator of the sophistication of our profession. Teaching is one of the very few professions in which the novice is expected to assume full responsibility from the first day on the job. (Hall, 1982, p. 53)

Beyond simple reduction of responsibilities, assignment consideration can take into account questions that a school leader may consider: What assignment best matches the strengths and eases the concerns of this beginning teacher? What assignment would offer the most opportunities for collaboration and impact within the school? What assignment will assist the beginning teacher in developing their professional practice? Aligned with the proposed paradigm, load reduction decisions should be a combination of addressing concerns, mobilizing strengths, and considering the profession. As the paradigm advocates a macro and micro perspective, from the larger policy perspective, state policymakers can effect load reduction in early career through a progressive and tiered licensure. This already exists in some states and is connected to stateinitiated induction programs, but literature on its effect

is scant. As we move toward the future of teacher induction, those involved need to combine and bridge the emerging and existing paradigms. As this way of induction thinking is allencompassing, the paradigm will need to be adapted by each stakeholder group from schools to leaders to policymakers, as well as institutions and universities. Teacher education programs will have the added responsibility of preparing teacher candidates to understand and expect these paradigms. Allowing our thinking of induction to stretch beyond our own micro perspective will lead the profession toward improving teaching and learning through the effective induction and development of beginning teachers.

References Abraham, W. (1954). How are your new teachers doing now? Educational Leadership, 11, 311–315. Andrews, S. P., & Martin, E. (2003, Spring). No teacher left behind: Mentoring and supporting novice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Georgia Association of Colleges for Teacher Education/Georgia Association of Teacher Educators, St. Simons Island, GA. Arends, R. I., & RigazioDiGilio, A. J. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: Research and examples of contemporary practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan– United States Teacher Education Consortium (JUSTEC). Ashburn, E. A. (1986). Current developments in teacher induction programs. Action in Teacher Education, 8(4), 41–44. Assunção Flores, M. (2010). School cultures and organizations and teacher induction. In J. Wang, S. Odell, & R. Clift (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 45–56). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5– 13. Bickmore, D. L., & Bickmore, S. T. (2010a). A multifaceted approach to teacher induction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1006–1014. Bickmore, S. T., & Bickmore, D. L. (2010b). Revealing the principal’s role in the induction process: Novice teachers telling their stories. Journal of School Leadership, 20(4), 445–469. Bickmore, D. L., Bickmore, S. T., & Hart, L. E. (2005). Interdisciplinary teaming as an induction practice. NASSP Bulletin, 89(644), 30–53. Birkeland, S., & FeimanNemser, S. (2012). Helping school leaders help new teachers: A

tool for transforming schoolbased induction. The New Educator, 8(2), 109–138. Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2001). Supporting beginning teachers: How administrators, teachers and policymakers can help new teachers succeed. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s Information Services. Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (1998). Beginning teacher induction programs: The role of the principal. Clearing House, 71(3), 179–183. Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2001). From first year to firstrate: Principals guiding beginning teachers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Burkett, A. A. (1953). An induction program for beginning teachers (Unpublished master’s thesis). Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA. Cherian, F., & Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal leadership in new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 3(2), 1–11. Cherubini, L. (2007). A personal services paradigm of teacher induction. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11, 6. Conant, J. B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York, NY: McGrawHill. FeimanNemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. FeimanNemser, S. (2010). Multiple meanings of new teacher induction. In J. Wang, S. Odell, & R. Clift (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 15–30). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. FeimanNemser, S. (2012). Beyond solo teaching. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 10–16. FeimanNemser, S., Carver, C., Schwille, S., & Yusko, B. (1999). Beyond support: Taking new teachers seriously as learners. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 3–12). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. FeimanNemser, S., Schwille, S., Carver, C., & Yusko, B. (1999). A conceptual review of literature on new teacher induction. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching. Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers. Fox, S. M., & Singletary, T. J. (1986). Deductions about supportive induction. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 12–15. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American

Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226. Fuller, F. F., & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education, Part II, The 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Ganser, T. (2002, April). Supporting new teacher mentor programs: Strategies for principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Mentoring Association, Fort Worth, TX. Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548– 594). New York, NY: Macmillan. Griffin, G. A. (1985). Teacher induction: Research issues. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 42–46. Grossman, P., & Davis, E. (2012). Mentoring that fits. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 54–57. Hall, G. E. (1982). Induction: The missing link. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 53–55. Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M., & Brown, G. (1980). Introduction. In G. Hall, S. Hord, & G. Brown (Eds.), Exploring issues in teacher education: Questions for future research (pp. 1–2). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Hall, G. E., & Jones, H. L. (1976). Competencybased education: A process for the improvement of education. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hord, S. M., & Hall, G. E. (1980). Preface. In G. Hall, S. Hord, & G. Brown (Eds.), Exploring issues in teacher education: Questions for future research (pp. vii–viii). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287–297. HulingAustin, L. (1986). What can and cannot reasonably be expected from teacher induction programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 2–5. HulingAustin, L. (1988). A synthesis of research on teacher induction programs and practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. HulingAustin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. P. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York, NY: Macmillan. Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us. Phi Delta Kappan,

93(8), 47–51. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28–40. Johnston, J. M., & Ryan, K. (1980). Research on the beginning teacher: Implications for teacher education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED209188 Kearney, S. (2014). Understanding beginning teacher induction: A contextualized examination of best practice. Cogent Education, 1(1), Article 967477. Killeavy, M. (2006). Induction: A collective endeavor of learning, teaching, and leading. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 168–176. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lawson, H. A. (1992). Beyond the new conception of teacher induction. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 163–172. Lortie, D. C. (1976). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 226–251. Mullen, C. A. (2013). Mentoring theories for educational practitioners. In B. Irby, G. Brown, R. LaraAlecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 959–968). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Addison, A. B. (2007). A model of a newteacher induction program and teacher perceptions of beneficial components. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 14–24. Odell, S. J. (1986). Induction support of new teachers: A functional approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 26–29. Odell, S. J., Loughlin, C. E., & Ferraro, D. P. (1986). Functional approach to identification of new teacher needs in an induction context. Action in Teacher Education, 8(4), 51–58. Paine, L. W., & Schwille, J. R. (2010). Teacher induction in international contexts. In J. Wang, S. Odell, & R. Clift (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 31–44). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Pataniczek, D., & Isaacson, N. S. (1981). The relationship of socialization and the concerns of beginning secondary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 14–17.

Quaglia, R. (1989). Socialization of the beginning teacher: A theoretical model from the empirical literature. Research in Rural Education, 5(3), 1–7. Quinn, R. J., & Andrews, B. D. A. (2004). The struggles of firstyear teachers: Investigating support mechanisms. The Clearing House, 77(4), 164–168. Rehage, K. J. (1968). Induction: When student becomes teacher. NASSP Bulletin, 52(330), 144–155. Runyan, C. K. (1991, November). Empowering beginning teachers through developmental induction. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the National Council of States on Inservice Education, Houston, TX. Ryan, K. (1970). Don’t smile until Christmas: Accounts of the first year of teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Scherff, L. (2008). Disavowed: The stories of two novice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1317–1332. Schlechty, P. C., & Vance, V. S. (1981). Do academically able teachers leave education? The North Carolina case. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(2), 106–112. Schwille, S., & Wolf, N. (1996). Mentoring as professional practice. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Serpell, Z. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2002). Smart induction programs become lifelines for the beginning teacher. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 10–17. Strong, M. (2006). Does new teacher support affect student achievement? New Teacher Center Research Brief, 6(1). Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132–152. Wayne, A. J., Youngs, P., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Improving teacher induction. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 76–78. Weiss, E. M. W., & Weiss, S. G. (1999). Beginning teacher induction. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/20003/induction.htm Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identities. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press. Wilkins, E. A., & Clift, R. T. (2007). Building a network of support for new teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 25–35. Wilkinson, G. A. (2009). Supportive induction slows the revolving door. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(1), 97–110. Wong, H. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 41–58. Wong, H. K., Britton, T., & Ganser, T. (2005). What the world can teach us about new teacher induction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 379–384. Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in novice teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39–63. Wood, A. L., & Stanulis, R. N. (2009). Quality teacher induction: “Fourthwave” (1997– 2006) induction programs. The New Educator, 5(1), 1–23. Wood, A. L., & Stanulis, R. (2010). Components of 1997–2008 teacher induction programs. In J. Wang, S. Odell, & R. Clift (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 91–108). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Yarger, S. J. (1982). Summary of analyses for lack of recognition of the importance of induction in U.S. teacher education. In G. Hall (Ed.), Beginning teacher induction: Five dilemmas (pp. 67–77). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Yusko, B., & FeimanNemser, S. (2008). Embracing contraries: Combining assistance and assessment in new teacher induction. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 923–953. Zeichner, K. M. (1979). Teacher induction practices in the United States and Great Britain. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

20 Teacher Leadership: Past, Present, and Future Barnett Berry Center for Teaching Quality Rachel Evans, a language arts teacher for Seattle Public Schools, is a sevenyear veteran who entered the profession after a career in filmmaking. Over the last several years, while teaching a full schedule of five classes a day in her middle school, she has worked with colleagues to lead the development of their district’s innovative international curriculum. With Rachel’s leadership, this team has created a process that positions teachers themselves to develop their collective capacity to teach and assess twentyfirstcentury skills and global competencies. She also has been deeply engaged with the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) Collaboratory as a virtual community organizer, helping to connect, ready, and mobilize teachers around the globe to lead policy and pedagogical reforms.

20.1 Introduction Rachel’s story, shared with me in the summer of 2015, tells us much about why teachers must lead the next generation of school reform. Her narrative, which is woven throughout this chapter, paints a poignant picture of the potential of teachers who seek to improve schools and the profession as well as the continuing struggles they face in doing so. According to Rachel, she has developed as a teacher leader because she has been “deeply motivated and persistent” and has “built and maintained connections” with teaching colleagues who have led without leaving the classroom. She told me, “I have learned from them that good leaders bring others into leadership in the spirit of true collaboration and moving great ideas forward.” But while her middle school principal has been supportive of her leadership outside the classroom, Rachel has moved to teach in a nearby high school because she wanted to be “more creative” in her teaching. Rachel told me her middle school students “did really well on the Smarter Balanced Assessment,” but she “wanted to start to design experiences for the students,” and her new school was far more focused on studentcentered projectbased learning. Rachel has been fortunate to work with administrators who have embraced her leadership, but like most teachers, she leads boldly in spite of the school system in which she works. In order to teach and lead, she works at least 65–70 hours a week. And much of what she has accomplished has been done on the basis of her own commitments and ingenuity as well as those of her colleagues. Her teacher leadership has far too little to do with the teaching development system in which she works in Seattle, and across the nation. Rachel is an exceptional teacher leader (and colleague), but she is not the exception. Many of our nation’s teachers are leading in bold ways, yet they are not well known. There are signs

that many more will soon join the ranks of Rachel and her peers, changing schools from the inside out as pressures on administrators intensify and teachers’ connectivity expands. The growing influence of teachers like Rachel—and research findings on the impact that teacher collaboration has on students—will press policymakers and practitioners to advance the brand of teacher leadership that America’s public school students deserve. In 2010, I paid my own way to Teachers College in New York City for two weeklong learning institutes that were designed to help reading and writing workshop teachers unpack the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Later I became National Board Certified. Perhaps this was the beginning of my teacher leadership.—Rachel Evans

20.2 The Slow Evolution of Teacher Leadership Granted, calls for teacher leadership are not new. In the mid1980s and 1990s, a number of researchers and reformers made the case that teacher leadership was essential to instructional improvement, individual teachers’ career advancement, and the development of teaching as a profession. For decades, teachers have served in formal roles as gradelevel chairs, department heads, or union representatives—taking on managerial roles designed to make schools run more efficiently. In the mid1990s, teachers began to take on instructional roles: assisting with implementing mandated curriculum, leading staff development workshops, and mentoring new recruits or showing them the ropes as “buddies.” More recently, teachers began to lead what are now called professional learning communities (PLCs), groups of colleagues in a school who have engaged in planning and discussion, usually at the subject or grade level. However, many PLCs have been narrowly defined, on using student test score data to improve instruction as charged by administrators, as opposed to providing opportunities for teacherled inquiry (Talbert, 2010). Studies of professional development (PD) continue to reveal that teachers’ formal learning opportunities have not been embedded within their daily work with students (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). A recent study indicates that U.S. schools spend about $18 billion annually on teacher learning—with most of it delivered as workshops. Administrators report they want to focus more on “personalized formats” like PLCs, but teachers are least satisfied with how this type of PD is implemented (Boston Consulting Group, 2014). Mark Smylie, who for decades has studied how schools organize for improvement, suggests that authentic distributed leadership has been elusive. He noted in 1990 that teachers have been looked to with increasing regularity as agents of school and classroom change, but the stark reality has been that their leadership potential has been tamped down by administrators who “appoint or anoint” them to serve in narrow roles (Smylie & Denny, 1990). Unfortunately, Smylie’s observation continues to hold true. Anthony Colucci, a Brevard County, Florida teacher and active member of the CTQ Collaboratory, recently noted that teacher leadership is “gaining widespread interest … but even the most wellintended efforts to harness its power sometimes go awry” (Colucci, 2015, para. 1). For him the cornerstones of teacher leadership are the four “i’s” of imagination, independence, inspiration, and integrity.

With “real” leadership opportunities, teachers “get charged up because they imagine possibilities that can improve education for students” (para. 3). But if the project has “so many parameters,” then teachers cannot act independently, it will “often fail.” In many of these cases, Colucci reports, teachers get bogged down in the “nittygritty of the curriculum” and then they lose their capacity to inspire one another. And all too often teacher leaders can readily lose their integrity because their formal leadership roles have “depended on [their] subservience” (Colucci, 2015, para. 13). It is one thing, Colucci suggests, for administrators to “hand” solutions for teachers to “carry out” (Colucci, 2015). It is another thing for the American public education system of more than 6 million credentialed educators to establish roles for hundreds of thousands of teacherpreneurs—practicing classroom experts who have time and space to teach students and incubate and execute their own pedagogical and policy ideas (Berry, Byrd, & Wieder, 2013). Researchers have documented that most administrators do not know how to cultivate and utilize teacher leaders (Mangin, 2007). And just when teacher leadership was emerging as a suggested school reform strategy, highstakes accountability began to narrow the possibilities. In 2003, Judith Warren Little concluded that over time formal leadership roles “have become heavily weighted toward institutional agendas over which teachers have little direct control and over which [they] are divided.” In a recent interview she noted that the “residue of accountability”—with its rigid use of standardized test scores to judge schools and teachers —“generates an image of teachers as untrustworthy.”1 Yet there are signals that teachers may be able to capitalize on their potential as leaders from the classroom.

20.3 Signs of Change However, over the last several years, there seems to be a lot more teacher leadership talk— and action. Today, highprofile think tanks like the Center for American Progress and the Aspen Institute, which have focused mostly on traditional topdown policies to improve student learning and close the achievement gap, have issued reports on the importance of teacher leadership (Curtis, 2013; Pennington, 2013). And nonprofits like New Leaders, which has focused on the principal as the source of school leadership, are now making a case for teachers as leaders (Untapped, 2015). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) introduced its Teaching Ambassador Fellowship program in 2008. Six years later, the USDOE launched a national campaign (“Teach To Lead”) to bring greater recognition to the importance of leadership from those who teach, although the reach of this program has been limited as of this writing (with about 500 teachers attending four facetoface summits and another 2,500 joining the campaign’s virtual community on its website). (However, the current USDOE, under Secretary DeVos, appears to have little interest in teacher leadership). Also, content curation platforms, developed by education startups like Learn Zillion, Bloomboard, the Teaching Channel, and BetterLesson, connect teachers via the Internet with a focus on highquality lessons, videos of best practices, and other classroom resources tied to

new college and careerready standards. In states like Delaware, Learn Zillion provides a 24/7 environment that gives teachers opportunities “to participate in a professional development program that allow[s] them to build lessons iteratively as a cohort” (May, n.d., para. 3). By mid2015, the company had produced, with its “Dream Team” of 200 teacher leaders, more than 10,000 highquality resources covering grades 2–12 in math and English Language Arts (ELA), and had registered about 850,000 teachers (Learn Zillion, n.d.). TeachingPartners, launched in 2017, seeks to network teachers across different organizations and districts. Meanwhile, new “teacher voice” nonprofits have cropped up of late to give “classroom teachers opportunities to make a mark on their profession and on public education” (Colvin, 2013, para. 4). But, perhaps most notably, since 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) has invested in more than 100 teacher leadership conferences (marketed as “Elevating and Celebrating Effective Teaching and Teachers” or “ECET2”) that have networked more than 20,000 teachers. Reputedly the world’s most influential philanthropy, the B&MGF, in 2015, launched a set of initiatives called Teacher2Teacher to “amplify teachers’ voices”2 across networks and build stronger connections between teaching policy and practice.

20.4 Reactions to a Hostile Climate Do these developments suggest a new era of teacher leadership that will create opportunities for teachers to spearhead policy and pedagogical reforms? I believe so—in spite of the current, and sometimes hostile, climate of school reform. Even as teacher leadership initiatives proliferate, the profession is still experiencing the effects of the vilification of teachers by many politicians (Goldstein, 2014). This trend is exemplified by the infamous 2008 Time Magazine cover positioning Michelle Rhee as a reformer fixing public education by firing teachers. At its worst, this standardized test obsessed climate has even led some highprofile school districts (e.g., the District of Columbia) to fire effective teachers because of poor “valueadded” test scores (Tucker, 2015). Today school reform can be like politics itself, as described by Matthew Dowd (a former top strategist for President George W. Bush): “Much more meanspirited, angry, not optimistic, and much more viscerally divisive” (Peters, 2015, para. 10). The media often portray teachers as “lazy, entrenched, and unioncoddled” (Kolker, 2010, para. 1)—although, in reality, they work on average 54 hours a week, with two in five moonlighting after a full teaching day in order to make ends meet.”3 Not surprisingly, recent polling data show that almost 70% of our nation’s teachers are disengaged from their work—with “standardized testing and valueadded formulas that evaluate their performance based on outside factors (appearing) to tug against their happiness” (Kamenetz, 2014, para. 8). But teachers have more opportunities to lead than ever before, and research continues to surface how and why leadership from them is so important for the future of teaching and learning (Berry, 2016). Back in 2003, Little noted that in both progressive and conservative eras of reform, teacher

leaders have found “genuine” ways to lead in spite of the systems in which they worked. So even as the hostile climate of recent years has caused some teachers to retreat to the safety of their classrooms (or leave the profession altogether), others—like Rachel—have reacted by seizing opportunities to extend their professional reach. In this chapter, I argue that teacher leadership can play a powerful role in defining and advancing public education in the years ahead—but only if certain steps are taken by policymakers, universities, nonprofits, and teachers as well as their unions. I make my claims by answering five overarching questions: What might compel policymakers and administrators to rethink teacher leadership? How can current research inform the cultivation and utilization of teacher leaders? What is the current state of teacher leadership and where will new developments most likely leverage real change? What are the major obstacles that teachers continue to face in leading both inside and outside of their schools? How will teachers take the reins of their profession in the future, leading in bold ways? I look to a range of evidence to answer these questions, including demographic data and peer reviewed research studies as well as advocacy reports, news stories, blogs, social media, and interviews with selected teachers, policy analysts, and scholars. In my analysis I also draw on our experiences at the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ), particularly our efforts to work with growing numbers of classroom experts in our virtual community (the CTQ Collaboratory), including our support of teacherpreneurs who have time to both teach students and lead policy and pedagogical reforms.

20.5 Why Teacher Leadership? There has been no shortage of reform reports on the importance of teacher leaders and differentiated roles for those who teach—including the notable 1986 report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986). Over the last three decades, researchers and reformers as well as practitioners have called for teacher leadership, including opportunities for classroom practitioners to assist administrators in school improvement efforts as well as ways to stave off high rates of turnover among those who teach. In their roles as mentors, instructional coaches, site council chairs, and data analysts, teachers often report that their teaching skills have increased significantly as a result of their involvement in leadership positions (Troen & Boles, 1992). These studies of selfreported change have been helpful in describing the contours of teacher leadership over time. However, there has been a more significant body of evidence pointing to the importance of teachers’ collegial relationship in improving schools, with traceable links to stronger student achievement (Little, 1982; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001).

Researchers have documented how teacher leaders build relationships among their peers, break down barriers to collaboration, and share resources to improve instruction (Lieberman & Miller, 2005). However, the evidence from these studies has not led directly to any substantive changes in how teachers have been cultivated and sustained in their formal leadership roles. Researchers have pointed to how teacher leadership has been “contested,” noting that there has been “no uniform tradition” in the United States by which classroom practitioners have been “granted formal authority” over matters of teaching and learning and how their profession is managed and led (Little, 2003). For example, despite the growth of National Board Certified Teachers, researchers have found them to be “largely underutilized” (Koppich, Humphrey, & Hough, 2007). And today’s leadership opportunities, while growing for more teachers, remain a hodgepodge of activity. However, I believe a handful of trends as well as public opinion data are beginning to press policymakers and administrators to think very differently about school organizations and the roles teachers play as leaders. First, students are now expected to meet more rigorous academic standards to succeed in the global economy and engage effectively in our nation’s civic life. Irrespective of the political debates over the Common Core State Standards, students will to have to draw on interdisciplinary knowledge to show how they can think critically, solve problems, collaborate with peers, and communicate using a variety of print, visual, and social media. Of course, as Jal Mehta and Sarah Fine observe, deeper learning is not a new concept. While “educators and philosophers long have insisted that powerful learning hinges on the facilitation of ongoing inquiry rather than the delivery of static knowledge,” there has been “limited public demand” for it (Mehta & Fine, 2015, p. 6). Yet, as Mehta and Fine also point out, deeper learning has now taken on an undeniable urgency. At the end of World War II, knowledge was doubling every 25 years—now it is doing so every 12 months (Schilling, 2013). Meanwhile, today’s students must prepare for a future in which they are likely to hold a dozen or more jobs. And more and more of those jobs will require working through complex problems rather than applying simple formulas to routine tasks. A recent study found that students whose high schools were part of the Deeper Learning network4 performed better than their peers on a range of measures, including test scores, interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, ontime graduation rates, and college enrollment (Zeiser, Taylor, Rickles, Garet, & Segeritz, 2014). But ensuring that all students have access to deeper learning opportunities makes new demands on schools and those who teach in them. In particular, Mehta and Fine note, the most important systemic priority in this transition is “to develop teachers and leaders who themselves have experienced some version of deep learning, and to give them opportunities to continue to grow and extend their practice” (Mehta & Fine, 2015, p. 16).

I first took on a leadership role with the district to advance the new Common Core Standards; administrators and central office supervisors could not do all that was needed to unpack the prerequisite skills students needed to master, incorporate units into our curriculum, and help teachers develop best practices by watching their peers demonstrate new strategies and lessons in action.—Rachel Evans Second, schools must serve increasingly diverse students, including many “atrisk” due to socioeconomic factors. Today, students living in poverty are increasingly clustered in the same schools; and these communities have less to spend than their wealthier counterparts (Brown, 2015). Already more than 50% of America’s public school students belong to racial minorities, a demographic shift driven largely by dramatic growth in the Latino population (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). More students will require English language instruction, and more teachers will be teaching young people whose life experiences are significantly different than their own. Today, 1 in 10 of our nation’s children lives in what sociologists call deep poverty and thus has been exposed to early life stresses that can inhibit cognitive development critical to academic learning (Tough, 2012). In addition to calling for effective teaching in highneed schools, many policy leaders are now speaking to the need for “wraparound” services— ranging from primary health and dental care to family engagement strategies—as measures to close student achievement gaps (Chang, 2011). The KnowledgeWorks Foundation predicts there must be new roles for teacher leaders as “the lines between formal and informal or communitybased education will continue to blur,” and educators will need to foster interconnections across learning ecosystems in and out of traditional schools (Prince, Saveri, & Swanson, 2015, p. 14). Third, the Internet and growing use of digital tools and resources are allowing more students to learn anything at any time, accessing experts and mentors beyond the teachers who work in their local brickandmortar schools. Multiuser virtual environments (MUVEs), typically used for gaming, are being developed at a rapid rate to engage students and track learning progressions. New organizations like GlassLab are designing and implementing gamebased formative assessments (Independent research and evaluation, n.d.). Meanwhile, the Institute of Play advocates for schools to use new technologies to fuel student passions and a revolution in teaching and learning (“The Real Work of a 21st Century Education,” n.d.). And entrepreneurial organizations like Getting Smart and the Learning Accelerator are promoting scalable technological solutions to the barriers to blended learning and are supporting charters and school districts to transform how and when students learn. Teacher leaders can and must play important new roles in the future, such as the “innovation portfolio director” who helps students connect learning experiences with academic goals as well as the “popup reality producer” who uses multimedia resource platforms to create immersive and personalized experiences for learners (“The Real Work,” n.d.). Fourth, over the last several years, a number of national polls suggest that the American people have very favorable opinions of teachers. For example, the annual survey conducted by Phi Delta Kappa and Gallup consistently demonstrates that a majority of the American public have “trust and confidence” in teachers (PDK/Gallup Poll, 2014). Additionally, a 2014 poll commissioned by Education Evolving (2014) found that more than threequarters of the

American people believe that teachers should have the authority to not only tailor instruction and select their own teaching resources but also shape curriculum and make staffing decisions. And 85% of Americans believe teacherpowered schools—where classroom practitioners have secured authority to lead, with or without a principal—are a good idea. In Seattle Public Schools there are examples of teachers who lead in effective and authentic ways—look to the International Schools Leadership Team, the cadre of teachers who developed the Humanities Scope and Sequence for K12 curriculum, and STAR mentors, among others. I know there are more teachers on hybrid contracts around the district, though I do not know the scope of their work.—Rachel Evans Finally, there is growing consensus among practitioners themselves that teachers need more room to lead. In the past, many practitioners fulfilled the “need to lead” by leaving the classroom for the principalship. But a recent poll found principals’ job approval ratings have dropped precipitously over the last eight years—from 76% satisfied in 2005 to 59% in 2012. The biggest challenges facing principals include managing resources, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and engaging parents and community (MetLife Corporation, 2013). Proposals for “reinventing” the principalship have been vetted for some time, but little action has been taken; instead, the job has “simply become not doable” (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2000). And a vast majority of teachers—84%—are “not very” or “not at all” interested in becoming a principal. At the same time, one in four of our nation’s teachers is “extremely” or “very interested” in serving in a hybrid role as a teacher and leader (MetLife Corporation, 2013). I am a teacher leader because I am committed to improving my practice every day and this propels me to read, research, and participate in solutionbased conversations about education on a regular basis. I continue to try to lead even when the conditions are challenging or the work/pay balance is uneven. I remain willing to do the work of leadership outside my classroom because I am personally interested and because I am learning and making connections.—Rachel Evans These emerging economic and societal trends will not, by themselves, compel policymakers and administrators to rethink teacher leadership. New demands regarding what students need to know and do will not mean that teachers are ready to jettison the narrow roles they have been asked to play in the past, and will not give them the time to do so. Nor will change be brought about by teachers’ desire to lead or principals’ need for their collaboration. But the convergence of these trends, demands, and opportunities can catalyze change, particularly if coupled with the research that informs the cultivation and utilization of teacher leaders.

20.6 How Research Informs the Cultivation and Utilization of Teacher Leaders In 2004, Jennifer YorkBarr and Karen Duke concluded that we know a great deal about the dimensions and characteristics of teacher leadership, but possess little evidence of its effects.

In many ways their assessment is still true today. However, their assessment offers much insight into the forms that teacher leadership takes, setting the stage for understanding how research is informing the cultivation and utilization of teacher leaders. But their review does a lot more. It sheds light on how the system of public education should be cultivating and utilizing those who lead without leaving the classroom. For example, research surfaces how teachers facilitate communities of learning through organizationwide processes, as well as how formal teacher leader roles defined by various programs can differ from actual leadership practices. Principals’ support for teacher leader roles is “more readily espoused than enacted.” Sociologists have long pointed out that the egalitarian culture of teaching and isolating school structures undermine teacher leadership (Lortie, 1975). YorkBarr and Duke ( 2004) summarize the array of knowledge and skills needed by teacher leaders, who must understand research about teaching and learning, be familiar with theories of adult development, and be adept at guiding colleagues through reflection and an inquiry orientation. How do teacher leaders gain these skills? YorkBarr and Duke ( 2004) note that while preservice and inservice programs promoting teacher leadership abound, little is known about which ones work. (Moreover, teachers who are prepared to lead do not always have opportunities to do so.) They report on a range of universitybased advanced degree programs that claim to support teacher leadership. Most of these programs of the past have focused on three themes: (1) developing curricular, instructional, and assessment practices; (2) understanding school culture in support of change; and (3) improving colleagues’ skills (YorkBarr & Duke, 2004). While these programs may offer teachers muchneeded technical skills necessary for leading, their traditional formats often undermine the very goals they are trying to achieve. Teachers receive training in how to coach their teaching colleagues, with the expectation of delivering new skills as opposed to spreading them. The 2004 research review by YorkBarr and Duke also offers insights about how teacher leaders can develop over time. As we might expect, the practice of leading helps teachers refine their skills as leaders. And they are more likely to be effective when their “roles and expectations are mutually shaped and negotiated by (them), their colleagues, and principals on the basis of contextspecific (and changing) instructional and improvement needs” (p. 288). However, as Rachel Evans suggests, teachers do not always have the opportunity to “co author” their job descriptions as leaders. And as a result their effectiveness at influencing their colleagues, or solving the most important problems, may be limited.

I think many of the “leadership” things going on would easily fall into the category of administrative tasks (e.g., gradelevel team leader, department head, and beginning teacher mentor, and the like). I think principals understand these to be genuine leadership roles critical to the functioning of the school. The difference between these roles and what (teacher leader advocates) would call more authentic leadership opportunities is that with the authentic leadership, there isn’t really a job description. The teacher is writing or perhaps coauthoring the description. Teachers are able to offer insight that is otherwise absent and from there they can help to build a plan for how to move forward and how they can be instrumental in … whatever it is.—Rachel Evans Since the review by YorkBarr and Duke more than a decade ago, scholars have surfaced at least some indirect evidence on how teachers can influence one another to improve their teaching (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2015). For example, economists using sophisticated statistical methods have found that students score higher on achievement tests when their teachers have opportunities to work with colleagues over a longer period of time and share their expertise with one another (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). Other investigators have revealed that teachers improve their practice at greater rates when they work in schools with better quality collaboration—and joint work on assessments is the most significant predictor of achievement gains across math and reading. Researchers have found that when teachers taught in schools with better collaboration, they were more effective than their peers who worked in other sites with worse collaboration,5 irrespective of their own collaborative efforts and expertise (Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015). But what are the implications of the research on collaboration and the improvement of teaching for teacher leadership? Collaboration amongst peers has been a longstanding correlate of effective professional development, but the research has offered “little insight into how collegial interactions might matter for teacher learning” (Penuel, Sun, Frank, & Gallagher, 2012, p. 105). Social networking analyses have begun to identify which teachers are more influential than others. Bruce Fuller and colleagues, using social network analyses, found that teachers seek different teaching colleagues for different issues. And the ability of a principal to lead effectively “may depend upon involvement of these teachers who act as ‘social hubs,’ in the middle of many interactions” (Fuller, Waite, & Chao, 2015, p. 11). The most influential teacher leaders may not be interested in greater levels of authority. This makes some sense. In teaching, leadership is not always vested in one person who is high up in the hierarchy, but it is more about “social influence” (Fuller et al., 2015). Teacher leaders may be most effective when they are less interested in becoming authority figures. In other words, teachers lead most effectively when they develop trusting and collaborative relationships with their colleagues, and as they lead, they also seek to be led (Berry et al., 2013). Other researchers have begun to help us to understand the kinds of collaboration and influence that are most beneficial. For example, Dylan Wiliam (2014) found that teachers improve most, and use what they learn, when they have colleagues who help them take risks (not just “play it safe”) and embrace their weaknesses rather than hiding from them. Teachers are influenced most by those who have pedagogical “credibility as a coach.” Wiliam also found that

observations of teaching by a coach (or assessor) will be most beneficial when teachers are able to select the lesson to be critiqued. His investigations revealed that teachers improve their teaching when feedback prompts thinking, not emotions, and careful attention is paid to followup action taken by those observed and supported. What else should be considered in the cultivation of teacher leadership and effective collaboration? Stacy Szczesiul and Jessica Huizenga found that providing teachers with a “broad script for collaboration” is insufficient (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2015). Teachers who successfully lead do so as “socially distributed phenomena” where they have the efficacy to make their structured work productive with “repeated opportunities” to reflect on what they master, and help their colleagues get more comfortable with “feelings of failure” and “cop(ing) with difficult situations” (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2015). Teacher leaders need to have difficult conversations by asking probing, but gentle questions about their own practice as well as those who they are seeking to influence (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2015). Over four decades ago, Dan Lortie noted that teachers’ individualism has been “hesitant and uneasy,” and resistance to feedback from colleagues or supervisors has more to do with selfpreservation in the face of negative and erratic judgments (Lortie, 1975). In large measure classroom conservatism, at least in the past, has been a result of teachers’ lack of access to new ideas (Lortie, 1975). In the 1980s, Susan Rosenholtz (1989) found that schools “stuck” on measures of student achievement—not making significant progress—were characterized by high uncertainty and isolation. She noted: Most teachers and principals become so professionally estranged in their workplace isolation that they neglect each other. They do not often compliment, and support each other’s positive efforts. Indeed, strong norms of selfreliance even invoke adverse reaction to teacher’s successful performance. (p. 107) Little (2003) revealed that leadership by teachers is enabled by at least four factors. First, teams of teachers make conscious decisions to devote their (often limited) time together on matters of teaching and learning, and find other means to handle the many managerial chores associated with their jobs. Second, teacher leaders of these teams remain “explicit and consistent in expressing the importance of working together” (p. 415). Third, the teams use “specific practices and routines that organized discussion of reform goals and problems of teaching and learning” (p. 415). And fourth, teacher leaders often develop and sustain “ties with external organizations and groups that supplied intellectual, social, and material resources for their work” (p. 416). However, she makes it very clear that effective teacher communities have been “elusive”—given the tensions classroom practitioners face finding “time and energy” to lead while teaching and navigating the competing “internal priorities and external demands” related to district, school, and team goals (Little, 2003). It is for these reasons Szczesiul and Huizenga (2015) point out that informal leadership plays a key role in defining teachers’ sense of efficacy. These research findings also suggest how important local context is in the cultivation of teacher leadership. More than 25 years ago, Smylie and colleagues concluded that “little attention has been paid to preparing the school as a setting for new forms of leadership”—

including the design and enactment of new roles for teachers (Smylie & Denny, 1990, p. 237). Our own inquiry at CTQ has surfaced seven organizational conditions to develop, support, and sustain teacher leadership.6 There must be: 1. Vision and strategy for teacher leadership, with stated goals and clear images of tasks to be done (which must be perceived as valid). 2. Supportive administrative leadership, with a willingness to share power and develop it in teachers and mentor and coach them as leaders. 3. Appropriate and adequate human, fiscal, and physical resources, which includes teachers capable of and willing to lead and colleagues with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for productive “followership,” as well as the time, space, and funding needed for the enacting change. 4. Enabling work structures, which includes clarity and flexibility in work roles and relationships as well as expansive communication channels, broad access to information, supportive labor agreements, and incentive and accountability systems that promote teacher leadership. 5. Supportive social norms and working relationships, characterized by relational trust, an orientation toward cooperation and collaboration, an acknowledgment of and respect for differential expertise, and a collective commitment to responsibility for larger groups of students. 6. Constructive organizational politics, including perceptions of power as a resource (not a zerosum game), flat and participative school structures (not hierarchical/linestep), and processes to manage inherent conflicts, including those between labor and management. 7. Schoolwide orientation toward improvement , including a bias toward inquiry, an orientation toward risktaking, and tactics for developing individual and collective teacher agency and intellectual playfulness. Our analysis, led by Mark Smylie and Jon Eckert, suggests that without the first three conditions in place, the other four are virtually impossible to establish. Cultivating teacher leadership requires a systems approach, with careful attention to elements of work design, individual capacity, organizational context, and existing leadership roles. Next I will summarize the state of teacher leadership today, assessing a few examples in terms of how well they address these conditions. Current efforts to cultivate and utilize teacher leadership may very well represent positive steps toward advancing teaching as a profession. But the architects of these systems have not paid sufficient attention to what is known about how teachers learn to lead.

20.7 The State of Teacher Leadership Today Over the last several years, efforts to promote teacher leadership have become increasingly visible. Federal, state, and local governments have advanced a spate of activity, including

teaching fellowships, new career ladders, and the introduction of hybrid roles. Nonprofits focused on “teacher voice” have emerged, seeking to “give” practicing teachers greater visibility in current teaching policy debates as well as “train” them to implement districtled school reforms (Pennington, 2013). Meanwhile, as we will see in this overview, many agencies, organizations, and analysts continue to define teacher leadership broadly, applying the term to quasiadministrative roles, union officials, and those who advocate for the profession but no longer teach. I’d argue that the field, and the political context, are evolving rapidly—in part due to use of social media by teachers to connect with one another—to clear the way for a bolder brand of teacher leadership to emerge in the near future.

20.7.1 Federal Initiatives Since 2008, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) has spent $1.8 billion through 131 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants to implement performancebased compensation systems in highneed schools, with an estimated twothirds of the grantees creating new teacher leader roles (Eckert, 2013). A 2014 report from the National Network of State Teachers of the Year (NNSTOY) suggested that TIF was one of several national initiatives advancing teacher leadership (Natale, Bassett, Gaddis, & McKnight, 2013). Yet a recent study of TIF evaluations conducted since 2010 found that the initiative’s “merit pay” provisions were not having any positive impact on student learning or teacher retention— and few if any evaluations found that TIF had led to significant additional leadership opportunities for teachers (Eckert, 2013; Marsh et al., 2011; Max et al., 2014; Springer et al., 2010). CTQ conducted a survey of 50 administrators from 30 school districts and nonprofits that had won TIF grants, and uncovered two related issues, neither promising, for the further development of teacher leadership. First, while the focus of these TIF grants was on performance pay and “cuttingedge” career pathways, the vast majority of interviewees could not envision teachers leading in roles other than instructional coaches, peer evaluators, department chairs, and other paraadministrator positions. And the administrators managing the grants had not even considered identifying the flexible staffing and funding strategies necessary to sustain the leadership roles after federal dollars dissipated. The spate of TIF plans focused on what the title of the grant program implied: providing incentives to teachers for improved student achievement scores. In addition, as noted previously, the USDOE has supported the Teaching Ambassador Fellowship program, which to date has included 87 highprofile teacher leaders who “contribute their classroom expertise to the national education dialogue and in turn facilitate discussions with educators across the country” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., para. 2). These include 25 teacher leaders who have served as fulltime Washington Fellows as well as 62 who have done so as parttime Classroom Fellows. No doubt the USDOE has helped these teachers develop their leadership skills and offer them a platform for greater impact. However, a recent study suggests that the USDOE approach may very well be yet another halfmeasure of teacher leadership.

Jon Eckert, who served in the first cohort of Washington Fellows, surveyed nearly 90% of his Ambassador colleagues from 2008–2012 to better understand how the Washington and Classroom fellowships shaped their leadership as well as their career paths. His findings are telling, surfacing the possibilities as well as problems associated with teacher leadership (Eckert, Ulmer, Khachatryan, & Ledesma, 2016). A vast majority of USDOE Ambassadors reported the fellowships improved their knowledge, skills, and dispositions for leading as well as opportunities to do so. However, only two in five claimed their districts as well as the USDOE “engaged them with their expertise”; and even fewer (one in five) reported their states did the same. More than 50% of those surveyed have now since left the classroom, citing the need to “professionally grow” and earn increased pay as well as “represent and expand teacher voice.” Even highprofile teacher leaders who could claim the experience and prestige of working with the USDOE were challenged by a lack of time and support in their efforts to lead after their fellowship. In an interview, one Fellow noted, “if there had been opportunities to level up the collaboration and the teaming and leadership work, I think [that] would have kept me in the classroom.”

20.7.2 State Initiatives By 2011, representatives of state education agencies from Alabama, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Delaware, and Ohio defined and developed courses to prepare teacher leaders (Hohenbrink, Stauffer, Zigler, & Uhlenhake, 2011). And eight states (Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Virginia, and Wyoming) had developed teacher leadership certification endorsements. In addition, two states (Indiana and Tennessee) were designing statemandated compensation for teacher effectiveness and leadership while four (Louisiana, Maryland, Tennessee, and West Virginia) have created temporary new teacher leader roles to assist with implementing the Common Core. By 2013, states have multitiered certification that includes recognition for master teachers, like those who have earned National Board Certification. Yet, none of those states require these designations for teachers in leadership roles (Natale et al., 2013). Let’s look more closely at some examples. In 2014–2015, North Carolina recruited 450 teachers and paid each a stipend of $10,000 to be part of the Governor’s Teacher Network, charged with developing action research projects and creating instructional resources. The state’s Department of Public Instruction, drawing on Race to the Top (RTTT) funds, also funded a few conferences for these teachers to share what they were learning with one another, and they posted their products on its website. But nothing else was planned, “frustrating” the teachers who were very much engaged in their work and had “high hopes” to spread their products to other practitioners.7 Since 2010, when Tennessee became one of the first states to garner $500 million of the federal RTTT funds, its Department of Education has been dedicated to overhauling teacher evaluation and pay. The state has also begun to take serious steps to begin implementing a teacher leadership structure. By 2015, the state’s Department of Education released profiles of

how six school districts have developed precise roadmaps for a group of teacher leaders to support the professional learning of their colleagues related to the Common Core, teaching evaluations, and Response to Intervention instructional models (Tennessee Department of Education, n.d.). Education Week reported that the state spent more than $44 million in training 70,000 teachers in how to teach to the Common Core, an effort supported by the leadership of 700 classroom experts, but also revealed the use of outside consultants who “steamrolled” its new teaching evaluation system over the objections of teachers and their associations (Camera, 2014). Teachers in Tennessee do report new leadership opportunities that allow them to “participate in excellent professional learning, to collaborate with other teachers, to strengthen teaching skills, and to see the ‘big picture’” (Douglas, 2015, para. 4). However, during indepth interviews with teacher leaders from one of Tennessee’s highprofile school districts, I learned there are “major challenges with time” and “few supports in making instructional shifts.” Teacher leaders lamented the fact that few principals are “empowered to create an environment” within schools so that smaller groups of teachers could develop effective solutions to the district’s initiative implementation problems. Currently, only one state, Iowa, has developed a comprehensive approach to teacher leadership. The state projected one in four teachers to serve in a formal leadership role. The state has set up three models for districts to follow, and is investing over $300 per student (setting aside approximately $150 million) in order to financially support teacher leadership. Districts are expected to use a more traditional career ladder approach (called pathways), an “instructional coach” model, or a combination of the two. Interviews with superintendents suggested that tight turnaround times for firstyear applicants created practical constraints on the ability of local planning teams to innovate, gather consensus, and assemble full proposals before the deadline. Now, in the second year of piloting, it is not clear how many of these teacher leader roles are in fact new to the districts rather than being repackaged versions of existing coach, mentor, or specialist positions. For two years, CTQ has conducted an annual survey of teachers and administrators in one of Iowa’s pilot school districts. We found that teachers are slightly more positive about their readiness to colead improvement processes in schools and their ability to develop others’ leadership. Also teachers reported significantly more time and opportunity to collaborate, and say they are doing so with a larger number of colleagues who can help them improve. Over threequarters of those responding noted they were supported “somewhat” or “to a great extent” by teacher leaders this year. However, administrators are far more positive in their perceptions of support provided than either teacher leaders or teachers are about what they receive. For example, 80% of the administrators reported they provide “sufficient time” for teachers to lead, but less than 50% of the classroom practitioners believed so. Teachers reported that those who were teaching and leading were “spread too thinly” and were not yet well utilized. Administrators reported that the pilots have been “very well received,” but after a year of experimentation, state leaders recognized that they had “overlooked” the need for principals to

be trained and supported in cultivating and utilizing teachers’ leadership.8 This explains, in part, why some teachers pointed to a number of leadership issues that need to be addressed. For example, Iowa teacher leader Marcia Powell (also a virtual community organizer with the CTQ Collaboratory), who has been very involved with her district’s teacher leadership reforms, offered five powerful observations about the process: First, I am certain there are many wellintentioned plans, and many new instructional coaches, but we have reinforced the silo mentality of local schools over crossdistrict boundaries. Second, the majority of pilots have introduced instructional coaches, but they are trained using one method and outside agency rather than being offered the resources and time to be peer learners. Third, more teachers are exposed to innovative approaches such as projectbased learning, but they are expected to go “observe” others in a type of dog andpony approach, often during the time when they ordinarily prepare for their own classroom teaching. Fourth, many teachers are now on building and district leadership teams, giving them a chance to lead in paid roles. However, most of what I have seen has been teachers as sounding boards, not real decisionmakers. Finally, teachers are more likely to be working together in professional learning teams, but their agendas are passed down from administrators.9 The state policy shifts I have highlighted represent the growing recognition among policymakers of the importance of teacher leadership. Unfortunately, these efforts often yield relatively few opportunities for practicing teachers to have a major impact on the systems in which they work as well as cultivating leadership among the colleagues they are supporting.

20.7.3 Local Initiatives A 2015 survey of the Council of Great City Schools found that while 86% of the districts have established teacher leader roles, many of these districts’ teacher leadership initiatives were launched with federally funded TIF grants (Council of Great City Schools, 2015). One of these districts is Denver, which has suffered from high rates of teacher turnover of late due to poor “quality of [school] leadership, an unsustainable workload, and too much assessment” (Zubrzycki, 2015, para. 5). The new teacher leadership structure in Denver offers new possibilities, but its storyline appears to mirror, to some extent, the “anoint and appoint” variety of years past. Denver’s efforts, however, are still in their nascent stages and may very well evolve to support a bolder brand of teacher leadership. Today, the Denver Public Schools counts about 1,200 of its 5,245member teaching staff as teacher leaders who serve as mentors, coaches, and data leads, among other roles. Most have served in fulltime release model. In a recent report, Leading Educators, a nonprofit that trains teachers in Denver for the district’s new “Differentiated Roles” (DR) pilot, describes how Team Leads teach for 0.5 to 0.75 of the school day, and “devote the rest of their time exclusively to management responsibilities” (Aspen Institute, 2014, p. 2). The teacher leaders are expected to:

observe six to ten colleagues as regularly as once per week and provide feedback in one onone meetings; lead regular team meetings to discuss problems of practice and common areas for development; conduct formal evaluations; and receive training on topics such as approaches to coaching, debriefing, and difficult conversations. (p. 2) Over the last several years, about 50 schools have engaged in the pilot, each with one to three teacher leaders supported to focus on specific school needs such as school culture or blended learning. Purportedly, the district paid close attention to schools with principals who were “prepared for distributed leadership” (Aspen Institute, 2014). Leading Educators reported that the pilot incurs “considerable costs,” given that the schools hire additional teachers to cover the nonteaching time of the teacher leaders as well as pay each of them a $5,000 annual stipend. To cover these expenses, the district has drawn mostly on its $28 million federal TIF grant, which will soon draw to a close (Aspen Institute, 2014). It is unclear whether the district has identified funding to sustain the program. However, history suggests that this pilot—like so many other districts’ and states’ efforts to differentiate roles and career ladders for teachers— will likely fall by the wayside when the initial funding is depleted. The Leading Educators report on the initial impact of the district’s efforts suggests principals are receiving muchneeded help from Team Leads on a number of administrative matters, but they are “frighten(ed)” by the prospects of pulling effective teachers out of their own classrooms to help their teaching colleagues (Aspen Institute, 2014). Principals may not actually be ready for distributed leadership—and my May 2015 focus group interview with a handful of Denverbased teacher leaders points to a similar conclusion. The Denver teachers uniformly believed that the district is “starting to go in the right direction” to support teachers in leading without leaving the classroom. They are trained to coach their colleagues and have “difficult conversations” with them. Principals report that their staff are “engaging in feedback loops for the first time” and now have “a template to identify strengths and develop thoughtful and intentional questions” (Aspen Institute, 2014, p. 8). But teachers want more opportunities to authentically lead. In short, the district’s teacher leadership model has rested too heavily on a narrow, framework for effective teaching. More often than not, administrators expected Team Leads to oversee the teaching of their colleagues without also supporting them to be leaders. Granted, the teachers saw some benefits to the district’s observational protocols, and the larger evaluation framework (Leading Effective Academic Practice or LEAP). In some schools the program has created opportunities for teachers to receive feedback on their practice that they would not have experienced otherwise. But since the district’s teacher leadership approach rests primarily on LEAP, it may very well tamp down the ways in which some teachers seek to lead. The teachers interviewed lamented, among other things, LEAP’s restricted view of classroom climate, which is more about “rituals and routines” and not culturally responsive teaching—developing and using knowledge of students’ cultures to adapt lessons that reflect their ways of learning and communicating. One teacher in a recent Denver focus group reported:

When we go into classes we are expected to focus on classroom management and procedures and routines, and when it comes to cultural diversity what administrators want us to look for is just no outright racism shown in how teachers are teaching. I can do more. If I could create an ongoing trajectory of professional development for my colleagues, I would, but when I advocated for this role it was met with a flatout “no” by administrators. As another teacher noted, “The district at all levels has been very, very, very clear and adamant that these roles are strictly intended to improve practice based on student test scores and our evaluation protocols … and I mean, period, end of story.” This does not mean that some administrators are not capitalizing on potential of teachers to lead in authentic ways. Several teachers noted how much they appreciate the flexibility afforded to them by some of the district’s principals. And in some schools teachers have pushed for the administration to be clear about what qualified someone to be a teacher leader (Zubrzycki, 2015). But even then some principals have altered the pure hybrid model by naming coaches who serve in specialist or administrative roles—and do not have their own classrooms. As a result, one teacher noted, there is “less structural support for growing a communal, more reciprocal, more egalitarian sense of teacher leadership.” Teacher leaders are spearheading more professional development, but their leadership is not always as well grounded as it should be in a learning community. Denver’s efforts to advance teacher leadership are noteworthy. Researchers have shown that even when teachers have opportunities to both teach and lead, their leadership may be constrained by mandates from afar (Margolis, 2012). However, the potential power of today’s hybrid leadership roles may be compromised by too few opportunities for teachers to incubate and execute their own ideas.

20.7.4 Teacher Voice In the past several years or so, a handful of nonprofits have been established and funded by philanthropies as alternatives to the “monolithic” voice of the teacher unions and as new avenues for classroom practitioners, not just their official representatives, to advance school reform (Pennington, 2013). As a 2013 report from the Center for American Progress (Pennington, 2013) aptly noted, “The emergence of these groups at this pivotal moment in educationpolicy history is no doubt related to the rumblings of change happening at the state and federal level, in districts across the country, and the desire of teachers for more involvement in the design and implementation of policies that impact their daily work” (p. 11). Granted, union leaders have touted for some time that their associations should focus on helping members get better at teaching. However, most of the associations’ efforts have been focused on breadandbutter issues (such as salaries and workday rules) and not about “defining and measuring quality—for students, for teachers, for schools” (Kerchner, Koppich, & Weeres, 1997, p. 24). Teachers and their unions have often been seen as the enemies of school reform (Sweat to

Inspire, 2015). After all, in 2004 Secretary of Education Rod Paige labeled the teacher unions as “terrorists” (Pear, 2004). More recently, in 2015, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey called the nation’s teacher unions the “single most destructive force in public education” and said they deserve a “punch in the face” (Layton, 2015, para. 1). Meanwhile, educators have looked on as Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin “savages” the public education budget to promote tax dollars for private school vouchers (Strauss, 2015) and has successfully “crippled” the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions (Samuels, 2015). No wonder the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are often reacting to power politics rather than matters of teaching and learning. Rick Colvin points out that nonprofits like Teach Plus and Educators for Excellence as well as VIVA were founded at the same time that a number of school reformers, from both sides of the political aisle, began to seriously challenge the union’s political clout and their “fetishlike attachment” to seniority transfer rules, class size, and lockstep salary schedules as well as resistance to merit pay, testbased evaluations, and charter schools (Colvin, 2013). For example, he points out that “teachers who join Educators for Excellence (E4E) are expected to support valueadded testscore data in evaluations, higher hurdles to achieving tenure, the elimination of senioritydriven layoffs, school choice, and merit pay” (Colvin, 2013, photo 2). A teacher leader who has worked with a number of these teacher voice organizations told me about a recent experience with one of them: To be brutally honest, I was substantially disappointed in (their) model. Over the course of the year, our cohort of 50 or so teachers met inperson 3 times (which was important and valuable) and online multiple times in order to develop an action paper that proposed recommendations (on how) to get earlycareer teachers engaged in leadership. The fellowship promoted the opportunity as a researchoriented experience, but it was not. Over the course of the three meetings, each experience felt as if (the nonprofit) already had a working agenda they were using to guide the process. The development of the action paper was not organic, nor did it seem teacherdriven. Instead, the ideas put in place and the direction of the paper seemed predetermined.10 Of course, these teacher voice groups are not identical; each has different structures and ways to work on the teaching profession or for teachers. These nonprofits have been focused mostly on developing teachers’ ideas around specific and critical policy issues: Common Core implementation; more learning time for students; school safety; teacher evaluation; and supporting, growing, and retaining effective, experienced teachers for highneed students. Others hone in on “rigorously selecting, training, and empowering” teachers to mobilize their peers and work alongside policymakers informing critical education policies. These teacher voice organizations have increasingly used social media to elevate the ideas of classroom practitioners, irrespective of whether a predetermined policy agenda has been established for them. Rob Weil, a vice president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), noted, “Being heard does require ideas, but change also requires power and growing numbers; I can tweet something, but until a lot of people are saying the same thing, they are not

going to listen to us” (Pennington, 2013, p. 10). The annual budgets of the “teacher voice” groups are relatively small, a few million a year, compared to the $354,000,000 raised and spent by the National Education Association (NEA) on a yearly basis. (This may shift downward per the 2018, Janus v AFSCME Supreme Court decision). Julie Koppich, an expert on teacher unionism and the teaching profession, noted that assembling the voices of teachers, no matter how expert they are, will not always get the attention of policymakers: “They (Teach Plus) were disappointed because they went to the school board and got lip service and nothing happened. I told them you have to organize. It’s really hard work and maybe these groups will grow into it” (Colvin, 2013, photo 3). Colvin questions whether these nonprofits are really grassroots ways for teachers to find a collective voice or are actually a means for advocacy organizations to use teachers to advance a specific policy agenda. But these organizations have raised the visibility of issues that matter to teachers. For example, Teach Plus, with funding from philanthropies in Indiana that are known as antiunion, has called for the Indianapolis Public Schools to look at the poor working conditions that classroom practitioners experience—an issue that unions most often raise (Teach Plus, 2010). And while these organizations may have been created and funded as alternatives to the unions, groups like Teach Plus and VIVA have begun to work with the NEA and its members.11 As Bill Raabe, a former senior official of the NEA, noted: I think these organizations will help raise teacher voice, and we’re going to clearly partner with a number of them to bring their voice into the union and also to think about how to use those voices more strategically in the policy debates…And I’m talking about voices of practicing teachers that maybe wouldn’t have been involved in the union. (Pennington, 2013, p. 2)

These organizations may frame the agenda that participating teachers study and address. But they certainly have opened up opportunities for them as well. Teachers like Page Dulaney, a participant in the VIVA Idea Exchange on the Common Core, express gratitude for being empowered to “speak up” (Dulaney, 2015). Ann Byrd, my CTQ colleague, makes the case that teachers have experienced a “famine of real leadership” and now are more than willing to take on any occasion to lead, even if it is “not totally on their own terms.” And these organizations are creating a means for teachers to develop the confidence they may not have had, as well as the efficacy needed to eventually take the reins. As I will describe next, many of the same barriers to teacher leadership are still in play, and will need to be addressed headon if the future of teacher leadership will be markedly different from its past and present.

20.8 Barriers to Teacher Leadership As suggested initially teachers continue to face substantial barriers in exerting influence in their schools and districts, and across the nation. I highlight at least five of them. Too many principals continue to be ill at ease with teacher leadership. All too often, principals are wary of teacher leaders, primarily because of uncertainty about how to identify

and utilize them. As Charlotte Danielson described, “Some administrators jealously guard their turf, apparently fearing that ambitious teacher leaders will somehow undermine their own authority” (Danielson, 2007, para. 33). Unlike the approach now emerging in Iowa, most state and district leaders have yet to develop programs and expectations that ready principals to become instructional leaders whose primary focus is not to just directly oversee teaching and learning, but to cultivate teacher leaders who can colead the school with them. University based preparation programs have a role to play here, too, but unfortunately continue to starkly divide the ways they train administrators and teachers. Ten years ago, researchers found that National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) have not been well utilized primarily because of principals’ (in)ability “to use national board certification processes and standards as the center of a school improvement strategy” (Koppich et al., 2007, p. 24). More recently, Robyn Conrad, a principal from Gilbert, Arizona, told me in a recent interview, “Many administrators do not support teachers as leaders because they do not really know how to use them.”12 After my principal saw me lead a full day of PD that I had designed for my colleagues, he began to include me more in the administrationlevel conversations. Seeing me “perform” outside of the classroom helped him gain even more confidence in my ability to lead. He, too, had a lot of confidence in his ability to do his job and I think that is critical. If someone is unsure of their own leadership role, embracing the leadership of others could be unnerving.—Rachel Evans School districts have yet to create time for teachers to both teach and lead. In the United States, the average teacher works 10 hours and 40 minutes a day, with only 15 of those minutes spent collaborating with colleagues at their schools (Scholastic, 2012). On the other hand, topperforming nations like Finland and Singapore have built their success on teacher development and leadership—specifically by intentionally creating policies and programs so that classroom practitioners can learn from each other and spread their expertise in teaching. In these nations, teachers only teach students approximately 17 hours a week. During the rest of the workweek, they collaborate on lesson preparation, visit one another’s classrooms to study teaching, and engage in professional discussions with colleagues in (or beyond) their schools (DarlingHammond, 2014). In Singapore teachers are “entitled” to 100 paid hours of professional development annually to help them shape the nature of their teaching and leadership. The Ministry of Education offers sabbaticals to about 2,000 teachers annually (out of a workforce of 33,000), and also provides 10% of “white space” (where organizational authority can be blurry) to anyone who can come up with his or her “own innovations outside of the official curriculum” (Rubin, 2013). If more teachers were given time to take on additional leadership roles (e.g., .2 or .4 release time) I think many more would seek these opportunities out. Unfortunately, I think there are many educators who dismiss leadership opportunities because they assume that they just do not have enough hours in the day.—Rachel Evans Professional development is still owned by those who do not teach. For the most part,

teachers’ professional development experiences continue to be a hodgepodge of training defined more by vendors than by practitioners themselves. A recent Boston Consulting Group study, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, revealed that one in five teachers “never have a say” in their trainings—and only 30% are able to choose most of the sessions they attend (Boston Consulting Group, 2014). These critiques are not new; as scholars have long pointed out, effective professional development “begins with teachers’ assessments of what their students need and, subsequently, what teachers identify as areas for their own learning” (Wei, DarlingHammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009, p. 1). New evidence from Ontario’s Teacher Learning and Leadership Program reveals that as classroom practitioners “initiate, innovate, implement and share a wide range of projects with their school and peers outside their school,” they develop a variety of leadership skills and abilities (Lieberman & Campbell, 2015). The rigid and fragmented nature of professional development in the United States offers few opportunities for teachers to develop as leaders. Teacher evaluation systems continue to tamp down leadership from the classroom. Recent reports consistently conclude that the prevailing American approach to teacher evaluation, with its lockstep classroom observations and rigid focus on student test scores, is inadequate (Özek & Xu, 2015; Raudenbush, 2015; Rockoff & Speroni, 2011; Wiliam, 2014). Very few approaches to teacher evaluation, outside a few peer review programs, place a premium on teachers’ ability to spread effective practices among colleagues within and beyond their schools. In fact, a recent survey of 100,000 teachers from 34 nations found that U.S. teachers are far less likely to see one another teach, and far more likely to have an administrator, not a peer, offer them feedback on their teaching (OECD, 2014). As long as teachers have difficulty getting opportunities to learn from what is happening in one another’s classrooms, then teacher leadership will be stifled. School reformers and teacher unions have not embraced bold teacher leadership. CTQ’s work with teacher leaders, conducted over almost two decades, has suggested that they often can serve as boundary spanners. Rather than merely condemning administrators or reformers, teacher leaders can draw on their expertise (including their deep knowledge of students and communities) to transcend the current debates over teaching and learning policies (e.g., merit pay based on test scores versus the single salary schedule and salaries based on longevity not performance). However, when practitioners initiate transformative changes in pedagogy and policy, they challenge traditional boundaries between those who teach and those who lead our nation’s $600 billion public school enterprise. Teacher leaders who initiate and execute their own ideas could very well threaten the conventional wisdom of reformers who are wedded to their own solutions (like testbased teacher evaluations, for example) and the unions, whose model of solidarity and leadership as solely an elected role. I am cautious about the prospects for the future of teacher leadership in the United States. Powerful forces will continue to push back against teachers who are transforming their profession. However, these obstacles can be overcome, with teachers taking the lead.

20.9 The Future of Teacher Leadership

Teacher leadership’s past and present can be viewed as a series of fits and starts. And while there are a number of compelling reasons for policymakers and administrators to rethink teacher leadership, school reforms rarely rest on rationality. Years ago, Seymour Sarason informed us that parents are “vital partners” and teachers are “qualified leaders,” but they are often ignored because their involvement would shift the power relationships in school reform (Sarason, 1996). In many cases, teaching and learning policies of late are more likely to be based on politics and ideology than on impartial investigation in which researchers do not have a vested interest in the outcomes. Pedro Noguera has suggested many legitimate education industries have “sprung up in response to pressing social problems” but also charges that many reformers of late actually “have been complicit in school failure because success would effectively end their raisons d’être and drive them out of business” (Noguera & Wells, 2011, p. 9). Despite these troubling factors, I see five new developments that portend a hopeful future for teacher leadership. First, increasing numbers of teachers are joining networks that allow them to see and experience some form of leadership. According to a 2014 survey, teachers report using technology to collaborate with teachers they wouldn’t otherwise know (57%), to find or share lesson plans (91%), and to seek professional advice (65%) (“Teachers Seek to Collaborate,” 2014). And teachers are not just flocking to curriculum platforms, which are orchestrated by non teachers. “Mob rule learning” has taken off with the emergence of edcamps, free, participatory “unconferences” organized by teachers for teachers, on topics that range from how to teach quantum physics with dance to how to engage in public/private school partnerships (Swanson, 2014). And from 2013 to 2015, the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) Collaboratory, a virtual community led by teachers themselves, grew from 200 to 11,000 members. Thousands of teachers have seized the unique opportunities this network offers to learn about policy and practice from one another and to publish their ideas in a number of emerging formats and venues. Large numbers of these teachers, because of their growing visibility through social media, will become more well known to the public, and begin to lead reform organizations and efforts rather than just being the subjects of them. (And I predict TeachingPartners can capitalize on the potential of teachers leading in a 24/7 community of practice). My district is big. And I think administrators now see me more as leader after I returned from my work in Shanghai with the Asia Society and CTQ. Since then I have been routinely included in the professional development design plan for our school and often led many of the sessions. I’ve been visible because of grantfunded partnerships and outside organizations like CTQ.—Rachel Evans Second, the public is now seriously questioning testbased accountability systems, which have been shown to squash teacher risktaking. For example, responding to a 2015 PDK/Gallup Poll about how best to gauge student progress, about twothirds of Americans say there is “too much emphasis on standardized testing” in public schools, and a strong majority—about 8 in 10—believes the effectiveness of their local public schools should be

measured by “how engaged the students are with their classwork.” Of the measures available, parents, and growing numbers of them are opting out their children from standardized tests, said they had the most trust in teachers’ assessment of student work (47th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll, 2015). Parents will put political pressure on school reformers to shift their approaches to teachers as well as their leadership. Third, the teacher development systems found in topperforming nations and jurisdictions across the globe—including, for example, Shanghai, Singapore, and Ontario—are becoming well known to policymakers, administrators, and teachers (Tucker, 2013). In addition, new tools are being created for practitioners to learn how to restructure time and space for teachers to lead their own learning (Jensen, 2014). In the United States, policymakers will soon have new tools and processes to jettison the archaic system of professional development. And Digital Promise and its partners, including CTQ are creating microcredentials that will allow teachers to drive their own highquality professional learning. And with micro credentials teachers will soon have new ways to be recognized and rewarded for leading reforms—legitimizing their leadership as they do so. Fourth, organizations like New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF), a powerful force in the world of education entrepreneurship, are beginning to shift their focus. NSVF, for example, originally concentrated on how charter school reforms could disrupt and take over public school districts, but is now devoting more of its resources and efforts to building bridges between the sectors; rethinking configurations of time, space, and technology in schools; and reimagining the roles of teachers and administrators (Childress, Samouha, Tavenner, & Wetzler, 2015). Current highprofile reforms, like the ones funded by Mark Zuckerberg in Newark (NJ), are now seen as out of touch with the “needs of the communities” and neglectful of the “many teachers and principals who were really knowledgeable and excellent and skilled” (O’Neil, 2015, para. 28). The media will begin to publicize all of the excellent teachers and principals who deserve more support and time to lead from the classroom and the community, not from corporate offices and think tanks. Finally, formidable forms of distributed leadership (like holacracy, for example) are underway in other sectors where what needs to get done takes precedence over a standard reporting structure. And more and more business leaders—like Tony Hsieh at Zappos—recognize the importance of “A Workplace Where No One and Everyone Is The Boss.” Hsieh explains that his company will be more “agile” in the global marketplace when his employees are divorced from all the expectations bound up in a title. It is estimated that more than 300 companies are using principles of holacracy; employees aren’t told how to do their work, but are expected to engage in “circles” to “help vet” new ideas or problems as well as evaluate and reward each other (Noguchi, 2015). As teachers, and many principals, learn more about how holacracies can replace bureaucracies, new models for teacher leadership, driven by what needs to get done, will take hold. There are plenty of opportunities for local, state, and federal government—as well as universities, nonprofits, and unions—to advance this vision for teacher leadership, taking advantage of these five barrierbusting developments. My recommendations include:

1. The USDOE should promote new teacher evaluation systems that place value on teachers spreading their expertise (as is the case in Singapore); state education agencies should establish teacher leadership incubation funds like the one in the Netherlands; and local school boards should rethink how they define who is an administrator, specialist, and teacher, and reallocate resources so more teachers can teach and lead in hybrid roles. 2. Universities should partner with school districts to design professional learning systems in which classroom experts serve in joint appointments, guiding the leadership development of teaching colleagues and influencing the preparation of future administrators. 3. Nonprofits should seek to deisolate themselves, partnering with other organizations to support teachers’ collaboration and help the public understand the impact of teacher leadership. 4. Unions should invest far more of their resources in developing teachers as leaders and helping them assist one another to improve teaching, thus reshaping associations’ roles in reform and the public narrative of the teaching profession. Imagine, if you will, an American teaching profession in which those developments have taken place. By 2030, Rachel Evans will be one of hundreds of thousands of classroom experts who is a teacherpreneur, with the time, space, and reward to lead without leaving the classroom. She is deeply involved with CTQ as well as five other teacher networks, using technological tools to spread ideas and best practices in powerful virtual communities that daily touch more than 500,000 educators and parents. Rachel’s leadership from within the ranks of her teaching colleagues resonates with a profession that rests not just on a codified body of knowledge but on trusting relationships. Beginning in 2025, Rachel orchestrated a partnership with the Seattle Public Schools, the Washington Education Association, and the University of Washington to create 200 hybrid roles for practicing teachers to lead in the district and state, supported in part by USDOE leadership incubation funds. Rachel’s role initially blended teaching high school English with organizing a virtual community of teacher leaders working to advance student assessment reforms. The cohort identified ways to support increasing numbers of teachers to earn microcredentials in acknowledgment of their professional learning about and collaboration on new forms of student assessment. Next, working closely with 50 colleagues in her union, Rachel helped launch a new 360 degree evaluation system for her state, drawing on tools built from lessons learned from the Ministry of Education in Singapore and companies like Zappos. Then Rachel’s role shifted again as she joined with a group of teachers to secure the autonomy to design and run a school—one of more than 5,000 teacherpowered schools now thriving in the United States. Increasing numbers of teachers are bringing this model to life, taking responsibility for studentcentered learning and success.

Rachel has been able to lead effectively not just because of her reduced teaching load. She has worked with system managers to cocreate her teaching and leadership role and schedule, just the way universities’ endowed professors structure their work in collaboration with their deans and provosts. In fact, Rachel’s salary ($165,000 a year) is now sustained by revenues generated by not just her school district and union (which is now organized more like a professional guild), but also the university. Currently, her teacherpreneurial role divides her workweek between teaching high school students and helping to prepare new recruits in a reinvented teacher education program. Over the past decade, Rachel’s efforts helped the union and the university establish the substance of and credibility for leading nextgeneration school reforms, so that these two institutions are no longer seen as obstacles to progress. As a result of Rachel’s leadership— and that of many of her colleagues locally and nationally—polls show that the public has even more confidence in teachers as individuals and a collective. By 2030, teachers in Washington were the first in the nation to develop and lead a practitionercreated accountability system for twentyfirstcentury teaching and learning. One cannot create what one cannot imagine. In Rachel’s America, teachers are beginning to own their profession. Teachers like Rachel will lead in ways very unlike their predecessors. Student learning is going to be competencybased, personalized, and openwalled—so, too, must be the learning and leading of teachers. Soon the public will know more from teachers about how they are leading—and how they could do even more with the support of policymakers and administrators. Once activated, parents and engaged citizens will also partner with teachers in creating, at long last, the profession that American students deserve.

References Aspen Institute. (2014). Sharing the load: Denver Public Schools’ differentiated roles pilot. Leading Educators. Retrieved from http://www.aspendrl.org/portal/browse/DocumentDetail? documentId=2399&download Berry, B. (2016). Transforming professional learning: Why teachers’ learning must be individualized and how. Paper commissioned by the Pearson Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.teachingquality.org/transformingprofessionallearning Berry, B., Byrd, A., & Wieder, A. (2013). Teacherpreneurs: Innovative teachers who lead but don’t leave. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Boston Consulting Group. (2014). Teachers know best: Teachers’ views on professional development. Retrieved from http://collegeready.gatesfoundation.org/wp content/uploads/2015/04/GatesPDMarketResearchDec5.pdf Brown, E. (2015, August 24). Map: How student poverty has increased since the Great

Recession. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2015/08/24/maphowstudent povertyhasincreasedsincethegreatrecession/ Camera, L. (2014, July 8). Tennessee on dogged path to race to top finish. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/07/09/36tennessee_ep.h33.html Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986, May). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York, NY: Author. Chang, T. (2011, April 25). Maximizing the promise of community schools: Streamlining wraparound services for ESEA. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/04/25/9388/maximizing thepromiseofcommunityschools/ Childress, S., Samouha, A., Tavenner, D., & Wetzler, J. (2015, August 31). Dissatisfied yet optimistic: Moving faster toward new school models. New Schools Venture Fund. Retrieved from http://www.newschools.org/wp/wp content/uploads/DissatisfiedYetOptimisticMovingFasterTowardNewSchoolModels.pdf Colucci, A. (2015, July 15). The four i’s of teacher leadership [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.teachingquality.org/content/fouristeacherleadership Colvin, R. L. (2013). Taking back teaching. Education Next, 13(2). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/takingbackteaching/ Council of Great City Schools. (2015). Assistant principals and teacher leaders in America’s great city schools. Unpublished data. Curtis, R. (2013, March 4). Finding a new way: Leveraging teacher leadership to meet unprecedented demands. The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/findingnewwayleveragingteacher leadershipmeetunprecedenteddemands/ Danielson, C. (2007). The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational leadership/sept07/vol65/num01/TheManyFacesofLeadership.aspx DarlingHammond, L. (2014, June 30). To close the achievement gap, we need to close the teaching gap. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda darlinghammond/toclosetheachievement_b_5542614.html

Douglas, E. (2015, January 15). 6 lessons on the power of teacher leadership [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/topschooljobs/k12_talent_manager/2015/01/power_of_teacher_leadership.ht Dulaney, P. (2015, May 28). Teachers, it’s time to make our voices heard. EducationPost.

Retrieved from http://educationpost.org/teachersitstimetomakeourvoices heard/#.VexUnlXOUA Eckert, J. (2013). Increasing educator effectiveness: Lessons learned from Teacher Incentive Fund sites. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.mff.org/assets/Uploads/NIETincreasingeducatoreffectivenesslessons learnedfromteacherincentivefundsites.pdf Eckert, J. E., & Smylie, M. A. (2014). A framework for teacher leadership development and a close look at school organizational conditions that may support or impede it. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administrators. Eckert, J., Ulmer, J., Khachatryan, E., & Ledesma, P. (2016). Career pathways of teacher leaders in the United States: Adding and pathfinding new professional roles. Professional Development in Education, 42(5), 687–709. Education Evolving. (2014, May). Teacherpowered schools: Generating lasting impact through common sense innovation. Saint Paul, MN: Author. 47th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll. (2015). Testing doesn’t measure up for Americans. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1). Fuller, B., Waite, A., & Chao, C. L. (2015). Rich communities in small high schools? Teacher collaboration and cohesion inside 25 Los Angeles campuses. L.A. Teacher Ties Project. Retrieved from http://gse.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/users/bruce fuller/FINAL_LATTReport_140529_pages_trim.pdf Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. Goldstein, D. (2014). The teacher wars: A history of America’s most embattled profession. New York, NY: Random House. Hohenbrink, J., Stauffer, M., Zigler, T., & Uhlenhake, A. (2011). A ladder to leadership: Ohio steps up to strengthen teachers’ collaboration and coaching skills. Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 42–44. Independent research and evaluation on GlassLab games and assessments. (n.d.). SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.sri.com/work/projects/glasslabresearch Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000, October). School leadership for the 21st century initiative. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://achievehartford.org/upload/files/IEL%20– %20Leadership%20for%20Student%20Learning.pdf Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The

importance of peer learning for teachers. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15202 Jensen, B. (2014, April 12). Integrating quality professional learning into the daily life of teachers: Insights from high performing systems. Learning First. Retrieved from http://noii.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/MainreportIntegratingquality professionallearningintothedailylifeofteachers12.04.151.pdf Kamenetz, A. (2014, April 9). Almost 70% of teachers are not engaged. Here’s why that matters so much [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://digital.hechingerreport.org/content/almost70teachersengagedheresmatters much_1429/?utm_source=Carnegie+Foundation+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=8a99ec00f7– RSS_EMAIL&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfe449958a99ec00f723553429 Kerchner, C. T., Koppich, J. E., & Weeres, J. G. (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Kolker, R. (2010, July 3). Get Kotter: How teachers became the new lawyers. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/67031/ Koppich, J. E., Humphrey, D. C., & Hough, H. J. (2007). Making use of what teachers know and can do: Policy, practice, and national board certification. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(7). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/55/181 Layton, L. (2015, August 3). Chris Christie to teachers union: You deserve a punch in the face. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/chris christietoteachersunionyoudeserveapunchinthe face/2015/08/03/86358c2c39de11e58e98115a3cf7d7ae_story.html Learn Zillion. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://learnzillion.com/about Lieberman, A., & Campbell, C. (2015). The Teacher Learning and Leadership Program: Powerful and promising. Paper presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2005). Teachers as leaders. Educational Forum, 69, 151–162. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–340. Little, J. W. (2003, November). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform activism. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 401–419. doi:10.1080/1363243032000150944 Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in

restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798. Mangin, M. M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3). Retrieved from http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/43/3/319 Margolis, J. (2012). Hybrid teacher leaders and the new professional development ecology. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 291–315. Marsh, J., Springer, M., McCaffrey, D., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., … Peng, A. (2011). The Big Apple for educators: New York City’s experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Max, J., Constantine, J., Wellington, A., Hallgren, K., Glazerman, S., Chiang, H., & Speroni, C. (2014). Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Implementation and early impacts of payforperformance after one year . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.mathematicampr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/education/tif evaluationimpactspayforperformance.pdf May, A. (n.d.). Delaware teachers training peers, sharing lessons and materials. Delaware Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/site/default.aspx? PageType=3&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=20&ViewID=047E6BE36D874130 8424D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=13892&PageID=1 McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2015). The why, what, where, and how of deeper learning in American secondary schools. Students at the center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.studentsatthecenter.org/sites/scl.dl dev.com/files/TheWhyWhatWhereHow121415.pdf MetLife Corporation. (2013). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Challenges for school leadership. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED530021.pdf Natale, C. F., Bassett, K., Gaddis, L., & McKnight, K. (2013). Creating sustainable teacher career pathways: A 21st century imperative. National Network of State Teachers of the Year. Retrieved from http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp content/uploads/cstcp_21ci_pk_final_web.pdf Noguchi, Y. (2015, July 21). Zappos: A workplace where no one and everyone is the boss. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2015/07/21/421148128/zappos aworkplacewherenooneandeveryoneistheboss Noguera, P., & Wells, L. (2011). The politics of school reform: A broader and bolder approach for Newark. Berkeley Review of Education, 2(1), 5–25. Retrieved from

http://escholarship.org/uc/ucbgse_bre OECD. (2014). Results from TALIS 2013: Country note, United States of America. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/TALIS2013countrynoteUS.pdf O’Neil, M. (2015, September 8). Zuckerberg “was so naïve,” says author of book on big Newark gift. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://philanthropy.com/article/ZuckerbergWasSoNaive/232931 Özek, U., & Xu, Z. (2015). Misattribution of teacher valueadded. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/publications/misattributionteachervalueadded PDK/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. (2014). Phi Delta Kappan International. Retrieved from http://pdkpoll.pdkintl.org/october/ Pear, R. (2004, February 24). Education chief calls union “terrorist,” then recants. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/us/educationchiefcalls unionterroristthenrecants.html?_r=0 Pennington, K. (2013, June 18). New organizations, new voices: The landscape of today’s teachers shaping policy. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/educationk12/reports/2013/06/18/66800/new organizationsnewvoices/ Penuel, W. R., Sun, M., Frank, K. A., & Gallagher, A. (2012, November). Using social network analysis to study how collegial interactions can augment teacher learning from external professional development. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 103–136. Peters, J. W. (2015, September 12). Gloomy Republican campaigns leave behind Reagan cheer. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/politics/gloomyrepublicancampaignsleave behindreagancheer.html?emc=edit_th_20150913&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=15586968

Prince, K., Saveri, A., & Swanson, J. (2015). Exploring the future education workforce: New roles for expanding learning ecosystems. KnowledgeWorks. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgeworks.org/sites/default/files/futureedworkforceroleslearning ecosystem.pdf? mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuanKZKXonjHpfsX56%2B4rW6ewlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ARM Raudenbush, S. (2015). Value added: A case study in the mismatch between education research and policy. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 138–141. The real work of a 21st century education. (n.d.). Institute of Play. Retrieved from http://www.instituteofplay.org/about/ Rockoff, J. E., & Speroni, C. (2011). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher

effectiveness: Evidence from New York City. Labour Economics, 18(5), 687–696. Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Longman. Rubin, C. (2013, January 28). The global search for education: What is the fourth way? Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cmrubin/theglobal searchforedu_59_b_2564140.html Samuels, R. (2015, February 22). Walker’s antiunion law has labor reeling in Wisconsin. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inwisconsin walkersantiunionlawhascrippledlabormovement/2015/02/22/1eb3ef82b6f1 11e4aa051ce812b3fdd2_story.html Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “the culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schilling, D. R. (2013, April 19). Knowledge doubling every 12 months, soon to be every 12 hours. Industry Tap. Retrieved from http://www.industrytap.com/knowledgedoubling every12monthssoontobeevery12hours Scholastic. (2012). Primary sources: America’s teachers on the teaching profession. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full.pdf Smylie, M. A., & Denny, J. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspectives. Education Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235–259. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of education statistics 2013 (NCES 2015 011). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Springer, M. G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V., Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D., … Stecher, B. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching. National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/performanceincentives/files/2012/09/FullReport TeacherPayforPerformanceExperimentalEvidencefromtheProjecton IncentivesinTeaching20104.pdf Strauss, V. (2015, July 31). Gov. Scott Walker savages Wisconsin public education in new budget. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer sheet/wp/2015/07/13/govscottwalkersavageswisconsinpubliceducationin newbudget/

Swanson, K. (2014). Edcamp: Teachers take back professional development. Education Leadership, 71(8). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational leadership/may14/vol71/num08/Edcamp@TeachersTakeBackProfessional Development.aspx Sweat to Inspire. (2015, August 30). Teachers are not the enemy. Retrieved from http://sweattoinspire.com/2015/08/30/teachersarenttheenemy/ Szczesiul, S. A., & Huizenga, J. L. (2015). Bridging structure and agency: Exploring the riddle of teacher leadership in teacher collaboration. Journal of School Leadership, 25(2), 368–410. Talbert J. E. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol. 23, pp. 555–571). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Teach Plus. (2010). The cost of loyalty: Teachers’ stayorleave decision in the Indianapolis public schools. Retrieved from http://www.teachplus.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdf/the_cost_of_loyalty _teachers_stayorleave_decision_in_the_indianapolis_public_schools.pdf Teachers seek to collaborate in and outside of school to best serve students. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/teachersoncollaboration.htm Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Worth beyond measure: Tennessee teacher leader handbook. Retrieved from http://teamtn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/tennessee teacherleaderguidebook.pdf Tough, P. (2012, August 15). What does Obama really believe in? New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/obamapoverty.html? pagewanted=all Troen, V., & Boles, K. (1992, April). Leadership from the classroom: Women teachers as a key to school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Tucker, M. (2013, December 19). Why has U.S. education performance flatlined? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2013/12/why_has_us_education_performance_flatlin

Tucker, M. (2015, August 27). Teacher shortages: Catastrophe or opportunity? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/08/teachers_shortages_catastrophe_or_opportu Untapped: Transforming teacher leadership to help students succeed. (2015). New Leaders. Retrieved from http://www.newleaders.org/newsreports/publications/untapped/

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Teaching ambassador fellowship: Project overview. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/programoverview.html Wei, R. C., DarlingHammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Wiliam, D. (2014). The formative evaluation of teaching performance. Centre for Strategic Education. Retrieved from http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Publications_files/The%20formative%20evalu YorkBarr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. Zeiser, K., Taylor, J., Rickles, J., Garet, M. S., & Segeritz, M. (2014, September). Evidence of deeper learning outcomes. American Institute for Research. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/resource/evidencedeeperlearningoutcomes33 Zubrzycki, J. (2015, February 3). DPS moves to address “crisis level” teacher turnover. Chalkbeat Colorado. Retrieved from http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/02/03/dpsmovesto addresscrisislevelteacherturnover/#.VfRPEOlXOUA

Notes 1 Interview with Judith Warren Little conducted on August 17, 2015. 2 Comments made by Vicki Phillips of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation at the July 14, 2015 convening of ECET2 in Seattle, Washington. 3 National data, assembled in 2007–2008, suggest 20% of all teachers moonlight; a more recent survey in Texas revealed up to 40% do so. 4 See http://www.hewlett.org/strategy/deeperlearning/ for fuller description of Deeper Learning. 5 In a departure from traditional working conditions surveys, this research team defined the quality of collaboration based on teachers’ reports of helpfulness and extensiveness of collaboration in different instructional domains. 6 The analysis summarized herein was led by Mark Smylie and Jon Eckert as consultants to the Center for Teaching Quality. For a more detailed description of the conditions, see Eckert and Smylie (2014). 7 My organization worked with about 200 of the teachers of the Governor’s Network at one of

the few conferences sponsored by the state. 8 These issues were surfaced in a set of five district and state interviews in early fall 2015. 9 Email exchange with Marcia Powell, September 7, 2015. 10 The teacher, a 10year veteran with extensive experience in another profession, has been involved with two teacher voice organizations as well as his union and the CTQ Collaboratory. I have deleted references to the specific nonprofit to which he refers. 11 See VIVA “Time in School” report (http://neatoday.org/wp content/uploads/2014/02/VIVANEA.pdf) as well as Teach Plus, Rock the Union (http://www.eiaonline.com/NEATeachPlusRockTheUnionActionGuide.pdf

).

12 Robyn Conrad, at the time of this interview (August 11, 2015), was serving as the 2015 president of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). However, her responses were those of her own as a principal, not as a representative of NAESP.

21 Principal Instructional Leadership: From Prescription to Theory to Practice Philip Hallinger Chulalongkorn University (Thailand) and the University of Johannesburg (South Africa)

21.1 Introduction The challenge of understanding how school principals contribute to the quality of teaching and learning has consumed scholars for half a century (e.g., Bridges, 1967; Erickson, 1979; Gross & Herriott, 1965; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Lipham, 1981; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). This line of inquiry has evolved such that in 2018 there are few countries in the world where principals are not encouraged to engage actively in the role of instructional leader. Although this handbook focuses primarily on teaching, one can argue that creating conditions in the school that support quality teaching and learning is highly relevant. This chapter examines developments in theory and research on principal instructional leadership and then seeks to elaborate on their implications for practice. It is the author’s contention that the research on instructional leadership can be interpreted usefully to inform more effective strategies for improving schools (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Leithwood et al., 2008). The chapter addresses the following questions: 1. What is the relationship between school leadership and learning? 2. What is instructional leadership? 3. How can instructional leadership theory be applied in practice? 4. What are the most productive lines of inquiry in future research on instructional leadership?

21.2 Leadership and Learning One of the most visible changes in the global landscape of education over the past half century has been the role of school leaders. During the midtwentieth century few education systems around the world focused on the role that school leaders played in contributing to the quality of schools. Indeed, prior to 2000, the United States was arguably one of very few countries in the world where principal instructional leadership was viewed as important. Belief in the importance of principal instructional leadership first gained currency in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Bridges, 1967; Erickson, 1979; Gross & Herriott, 1965). Taking cues from the folk wisdom of practitioners, early American scholarship on instructional leadership was more prescriptive than theoretical or empirical

(see Grobman & Hynes, 1956; Miller, 1960; Uhls, 1962). This literature emphasized the importance of principals engaging this role but without offering either detailed descriptions on how to do so, or convincing evidence on the impact (Bridges, 1967; Erickson, 1979; Lipham, 1981). Bridges (1967) published one of the earliest scholarly attempts to clarify our understanding of this role. Of the seven major task areas for which principals have responsibility, curriculum and instruction has generated the most sound and fury. On the one hand, the principal has been exhorted to exert instructional leadership, while on the other hand, he has been told flatly that such a role is beyond his or any other human being’s capacity. The problem with these disputations is that the exponents of a given position have neither defined sharply what is signified by the concept of instructional leadership nor made their assumptions explicit. (Bridges, 1967, p. 136)

Scholarship on instructional leadership received a major boost with the emergence of the effective schools movement during the late 1970s (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Edmonds, 1979; Erickson, 1979). Based on studies of instructionally effective, urban elementary schools, Ron Edmonds made the following claim: In the improving schools, the principal is more likely to be an instructional leader, more assertive in his/her institutional leadership role, more of a disciplinarian, and perhaps most of all, assumes responsibility for the evaluation of the achievement of basic objectives. (Edmonds, 1979, p. 18)

Edmonds’s assertion of the importance of a specific type of principal leadership—instructional leadership—gave further impetus to scholars interested in examining if and how principals “make a difference” in schooling. During the next decade scholars joined theory building, instrument development, and the application of more powerful quantitative methods in examining the extent and nature of principal leadership effects on teaching and learning (e.g., Bamburg & Andrews, 1990; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, 1986; Heck, 1993; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990; Leitner, 1994; Pitner, 1988; Pounder, Ogawa, & Adams, 1995; Van de Grift, 1990). This represented the era when instructional leadership “came of age.” During the mid1990s, Hallinger and Heck ( 1996a, 1996b, 1998) laid down new markers in the evolution of instructional leadership. Based on a synthesis of 40+ empirical studies, we concluded that principal instructional leadership makes a small and indirect, but significant contribution to student learning outcomes. These reviews gave further impetus to studies of principal instructional leadership, offering not only empirically grounded optimism (Hallinger & Heck, 1998), but also guidance on productive conceptual (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a) and methodological directions (Hallinger & Heck, 1996b). As a result, empirical research in this domain gathered additional momentum following the turn of the millennium. Scholars continued to generate a rapidly accumulating body of programmatic research (e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 2010, 2011a, 2011b; Heck & Hallinger, 2009, 2014; Kruger, Witziers, & Sleegers, 2007; Lee, Walker, & Chui, 2012; Leithwood & Jantzi,

2008; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Louis, Dretzkea, & Wahlstrom, 2010; Marks & Printy, 2003; May, Huff, & Goldring, 2012; May & Supovitz, 2011; Neumerski, 2013; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2007; Rigby, 2013; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oorta, & Peetsmaa, 2012; Urick & Bowers, 2011). In recent years, this accumulation of knowledge about the nature and effects of principal instructional leadership has been the subject of additional systematic reviews of research (e.g., Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo, 2003; Day, Sammons et al., 2011; Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2008; Mulford & Silins, 2003; Southworth, 2002) and metaanalyses (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Scheerens, 2012; Sun & Leithwood, 2015; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). Taken together, these syntheses of research have offered additional support for earlier propositions that principal leadership “makes a difference” in the quality of teaching and learning in schools (e.g., Bossert et al., 1982; Edmonds, 1979; Erickson, 1979; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1998; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; Lipham, 1981). Indeed, in one of the largest studies of school leadership conducted in North America, Leithwood and colleagues claimed not to find a single case of school improvement in the absence of quality leadership (Leithwood, Louis, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). In sum, by 2018 the knowledge base on principal instructional leadership has evolved from a prescriptive artifact of American educational discourse into a maturing and increasingly convincing global body of empirically supported evidence.

21.2.1 How Does Leadership Impact Learning? With that in mind, we can turn to the next question of practical and theoretical importance: “How does principal leadership impact student learning?” Researchers have tested a wide range of conceptual models in an effort to understand the “paths” through which leadership impacts teaching and learning (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 2010, 2011b; Heck & Hallinger, 2009, 2014; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Mulford & Silins, 2009; Robinson et al., 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Witziers et al., 2003). Recent results affirm earlier contentions that the effects of principal instructional leadership on student learning are indirect (e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 2011a, 2011b; Heck & Hallinger, 2009, 2014; Leithwood, Anderson, Mascall, & Strauss, 2010; Marks & Printy, 2003; Mulford & Silins, 2009; Robinson et al., 2008; Witziers et al., 2003). That is, principal instructional leadership achieves its effects through setting a direction for the school, organizing the learning environment, and developing teaching and learning (Hallinger & Heck 1996a; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Moreover, among the different leadership models that have been studied, Robinson and colleagues (2008) claimed that instructional leadership has demonstrated the most consistent positive effects on learning. These studies also affirm the influence of the school environment on the exercise of leadership. Different styles of leadership appear to be more and less appropriate depending upon the state of organizational conditions (e.g., see Belchetz & Leithwood, 2007; Bossert et al., 1982; Day et al., 2011; Duke, 2004; Goldring, Huff, May, & Camburn, 2008; Hallinger & Heck, 2011a, 2011b; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). Thus, for example, different leadership strategies may be warranted for schools that are in decline, improving, or stable (Day & Leithwood, 2007;

Hallinger & Heck, 2011b). Although effective school leadership may be “contingent,” Belchetz and Leithwood (2007) also asserted that the global knowledge base is now capable of identifying common dimensions of effective school leadership. They suggested that leadership “practices” such as setting direction for the organization and building staff capacity for achieving the mission apply across most school contexts, but that the specific behaviors which comprise them may differ (see also Bajunid, 1996; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Lee & Hallinger, 2012; Walker & Dimmock, 2002).

21.2.2 A Conceptual Model of Leadership and Learning A broad framework that seeks to depict the means by which leadership impacts learning is presented in Figure 21.1. This depiction of the “paths” through which leadership impacts learning shares important characteristics with other extant models (e.g., Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 2010; Pitner, 1988). These shared characteristics include: The exercise of leadership is shaped by personal characteristics of the leader; thus, no two leaders will enact the same approaches within the same setting (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a). Leadership strategies and effects are moderated by various features of the context in which it is exercised (Belchetz & Leithwood, 2007; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996). Leadership effects are indirect as leaders act to achieve desired student learning outcomes by shaping the school culture, organizing work processes, and leading people (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2008). Some leadership paths are reciprocal in nature where the principal’s actions are subject to the mutual influence of other stakeholders (Hallinger & Heck, 2011a, 2011b).

Figure 21.1 Model of leadership effects on learning. Again we wish to note that although this model of leadership effects on learning shares similarities with other proposed models, it also features notable differences. For example, the Bossert framework (Bossert et al., 1982) included neither the societal culture as a potential moderator, nor the possibility of reciprocal effects. Other scholars have argued against the conceptualization of instructional leadership as a process of indirect influence (Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Silva, White, & Yoshida, 2010). Instead they have proposed that the highstakes context for student achievement that has evolved globally since 2000 (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008) makes a reliance on “indirect instructional leadership” (e.g., Blasé & Blasé, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; KleineKracht, 1993) outmoded and insufficient in timeliness of impact. Thus, they asserted that American principals must adopt “direct instructional leadership strategies” that are designed to achieve rapid demonstrable results. This includes, for example, increasing the “density” of leadership activities that engage the principal in direct contact with students, such as coaching them for exams and motivating them to succeed (see Silva et al., 2010). It should, however, be noted that this assertion finds empirical support from only a single study in the literature. Donaldson (2001) asserted that any proposed model of school leadership must also be capable of contributing to the achievement of the results that we desire for children and also be sustainable for the leaders themselves. With these criteria in mind, the author’s reading of the research finds only occasional, and at best very weak, empirical support for the direct approach to instructional leadership advocated by the “direct effects advocates” (see also Hallinger & Heck, 1996a; Heck & Hallinger, 2009, 2014; Neumerski, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008; Scheerens, 2012; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Witziers et al., 2003). Moreover,

principal time that can be devoted to instructional leadership is already at a premium (see Buttram, Mead, Loftus, & Wilson, 2006; Cuban, 1988; Dwyer, 1986; Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013; Hallinger & Murphy, 2012; Marshall, 2004). Thus, I conclude that direct instructional leadership is neither sustainable for the principals, nor applicable to most of the contexts in which they work.

21.2.3 A Summary of the Evidence on Principal Leadership Effects Space limitations preclude the author from providing an indepth analysis of the evidence related to the model proposed in Figure 21.2. Nonetheless, the broad trend of findings among research reviews conducted since the latter 1990s can be summarized as follows. Selected leader characteristics such as selfefficacy, persistence, resilience, and resourcefulness have been identified differentiating more successful from less successful principals. Female principals, on average, are more highly rated as instructional leaders than their male counterparts. Leadership effects on learning are achieved through indirect and reciprocal processes rather than through direct strategies. Although the indirect leadership effects of principals on student learning are usually relatively small in magnitude, they are potentially important. Instructional leadership yields a stronger impact on student achievement than alternative leadership foci such as strategic or transformational leadership. Instructional leadership functions that build staff capacity through continuous professional learning yield the strongest impact on student learning outcomes followed by mission building and instructional management functions. The nature of principal leadership that impacts student learning varies according to the “developmental context” of the school (e.g., improving, declining). The societal and institutional contexts of schools shape both the amount of time and degree of focus on instructional leadership. Shared instructional leadership is increasingly supported by both empirical research and developments in school practice as a viable means of increasing the required “density of instructional leadership” needed to sustain schoolwide improvement.

Figure 21.2 Principal instructional leadership framework. Source: Hallinger & Murphy (1985).

The author wishes to suggest that our ability to draw these conclusions from empirical research with reasonable confidence represents an advance on the stateoftheart as it existed even 20, never mind 50 years ago. While many questions remain to be answered, the knowledge base is beginning to cohere into a set of interpretive guidelines for school leadership. By “interpretive guidelines” I mean recommendations that require “craft knowledge” in order to determine how to apply them to different contexts and situations. In the following section, I

will examine how our understanding of research on instructional leadership might inform the practice of school leadership.

21.3 Instructional Leadership: From Theory into Practice 21.3.1 The PIMRS Model of Instructional Leadership The earliest conceptual framework proposed for capturing instructional leadership was published by Hallinger and Murphy in 1985. The framework, often referred to as the PIMRS model, proposed 3 dimensions and 10 leadership functions in this leadership role (see Figure 21.2). The PIMRS model was subsequently used to inform the development of a research instrument, the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) (Hallinger, 1982, 1990). Although the PIMRS conceptual model and instrument have been used extensively in research and practice, they were never intended to be employed as a “menu.” They have, however, contributed to the body of research evidence discussed in this chapter (see Hallinger & Wang, 2015; Leithwood et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Witziers et al., 2003).

21.3.2 Instructional Leadership in Practice In 1990, Hallinger and McCary authored an article on the “strategic thinking of instructional leaders.” This article sought to blend what we now refer to as strategic leadership with emerging knowledge on principal instructional leadership. A principal (or leadership team) setting out to develop a school improvement plan or strategy needs to begin by asking a series of questions that will identify relevant conditions in the school. These include: What have been the goals of the school and to what extent have these been met? What is the trajectory of student performance results (e.g., how is performance distributed among different groups of students, and how does this compare to expected standards)? What are my school’s strengths and weaknesses (e.g., student engagement, curriculum and related resources, teaching quality, teacher commitment, community support, school culture and teacher collaboration, teacher knowledge, district support)? What threats and opportunities lie in the school and its environment, now and in the future (e.g., competition for students, impact of current or possible policy changes, changing demographics in the community, stability of resourcing, local politics)? What is the extent of our resources – financial and human – and how do these expand or constrain our options? What legal (e.g., labor laws, union contracts) and organizational conditions (district priorities, accountability systems) impact our potential courses of action? By answering these questions, the school’s leadership sets the stage for determining an approach to leading the improvement of teaching and learning. Fundamental to the practice of

instructional leadership is the notion that no single approach will work for all schools (Hallinger & Heck, 2011a, 2011b; Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). The application of instructional leadership in practice must be crafted in response to an understanding of the school’s particular context. In the following sections, I will not only define and illustrate the three dimensions of the PIMRS model shown in Figure 21.2, but also elaborate on how their application could vary in different schools. 21.3.2.1 Defines the School Mission The first dimension, Defines the School Mission, is comprised of two functions: Frames the School’s Goals and Communicates the School’s Goals. This dimension recognizes the oft mentioned role of leaders in helping to define purpose and set a direction for the school (Sun & Leithwood, 2015). Successful schools generally have a clearly defined mission and goals that give purpose to their organization and activities (Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Murphy & Torre, 2015; Sun & Leithwood, 2015). The emphasis is on fewer goals around which staff energy and other school resources can be mobilized. Although there is no single best approach for setting goals, the need for building staff commitment and ownership of these goals suggests the imperative for staff involvement (Bamburg & Andrews, 1990; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 2002; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood et al., 2008; Murphy & Torre, 2015; Robinson et al., 2008; Sun & Leithwood, 2015). The importance of communication of goals cannot be overstated. Kotter (1996) has asserted that goals are typically “undercommunicated by a factor of 10” in most organizations. Covey and colleagues (Covey, Merrill, & Merrill, 1995) claimed that inadequate communication of goals is responsible for the gap between vision of leaders at the top and execution by front line staff. Both formal communication channels (e.g., goal statements, staff bulletins, articles in the principal or site council newsletter, school handbook, assemblies) and informal ones (e.g., parent conferences, teacher conferences, curricular meetings, other discussions with staff) can be used to communicate the school’s mission and goals (Barth, 1990; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 2002; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood et al., 2008; Murphy & Torre, 2015; Robinson et al., 2008). However, effective communication of mission and goals occurs when leaders use them as frames of reference in the context of ongoing instructional, curricular, and budgetary decisionmaking. For example, one highly successful school superintendent constantly asked the question of his staff: “How will this decision affect teaching and learning in classrooms?” It mattered not whether the decision was related to curriculum, staffing, or bus schedules, he still asked the question. Indeed, he asked this question ad nauseam, to the point where staff finally began to ask the question themselves, even when he was not present. While almost all “effective organizations” are characterized by a clear and widely understood purpose, scholars have also noted some differences in how goals operate in different school contexts. Schools that are underperforming often lack a clear sense of purpose and direction (Duke & Salmonowicz, 2010; Murphy, 2008). Thus, for example, the literature on turnaround schools often places a strong emphasis on setting a clear direction, or mission, for the school

and building awareness, understanding, and commitment to the mission (Day, 2009; Duke, 2004; Duke & Salmonowicz, 2010; Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010; Murphy, 2008; Murphy & Torre, 2015; Sun & Leithwood, 2015). This was highlighted by Hallinger and Murphy (1986) in our study of effective California elementary schools. There was SES [socioeconomic status]related variation with respect to the school mission in the degree to which the schools focused on mastery of basic cognitive skills versus the attainment of broader intellectual and social goals. Even though their programs were clearly academically focused, teachers in the highSES schools were more likely than their lowSES counterparts to talk in terms of meeting the needs of the whole child. In the lowSES schools, teachers and administrators felt a keen responsibility to focus on the mastery of cognitively oriented basic reading and math skills. The lowSES schools were also somewhat more likely to have specifically delineated goals and objectives, though this pattern was difficult to interpret. In most cases, goals were developed as a result of participation in special programs, and teachers contended that these laundry lists of objectives did not have a pronounced influence on classroom instruction. (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986, p. 338)

In sum, instructional leaders accept accountability for school performance (see Edmonds, 1979). That accountability is demonstrated, in part, by making the school’s goals explicit and measurable. When widely communicated, the school’s mission and goals provide a basis for decisionmaking and can give meaning to work of teachers as they engage in school improvement. 21.3.2.2 Manages the Instructional Program The second dimension, Manages the Instructional Program, is comprised of three job functions concerned with “managing the technical core” of the school. These leadership functions focus on the role played by school leaders in organizing for highquality learning, developing the quality of teaching and learning, monitoring student progress, and making adjustments to foster success. This set of functions distinguishes instructional leadership from transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003). One would tend to think that developing teaching quality through teacher evaluation and feedback is a central task of principals. However, decades of research suggest that this is not typically the case (Bridges, 1992; Murphy, Hallinger, & Heck, 2013). In practice, principals report that teacher evaluation represents an unproductive use of their time. The reasons for this include a lack of time, lack of expertise on the part of (some) principals, cumbersome legal frameworks that limit consequences for poor performance, resistance from teacher unions, lack of meaningful incentives for superior performance, and resistance from teachers (Bridges, 1992; Hallinger, Heck, & Murphy, 2014). Nonetheless, over the past decade, the teacher evaluation function of the principal has attracted increased attention, especially in the United States and UK (Kimball & Milanowski, 2009). These recent attempts to reinvigorate the teacher evaluation function are characterized by two

features. The first is the use of “valueadded data” on the achievement progress of students to evaluate individual teachers (Murphy et al., 2013). The second is the increased use of systematic approaches to providing feedback to teachers on instruction (Goldring et al., 2015; Grissom, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2014). We note that after a decade of implementation of the “new generation” of teacher evaluation, there remains little empirical support for its impact on teaching and learning quality (DarlingHammond, AmreinBeardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012; Hallinger et al., 2014; Murphy et al., 2013). The emphasis within this instructional leadership framework lies in the use of feedback as a means of developing instructional capacity of teachers (Blasé & Blasé, 1996; Blasé & Kirby, 2009; Duke, 1990; Dwyer, Lee, Rowan, & Bossert, 1983; Goldring et al., 2015; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kimball & Milanowski, 2009). Thus, the principal, as well as middlelevel leaders, must assume responsibility for learning how to give effective feedback and make time for this potentially important task. Neither of these prerequisites should, however, be taken for granted. Training in effective coaching techniques has seldom been taught (successfully) in university preparation programs, and principals have frequently reported difficulty making time to “get into classrooms” (Goldring et al., 2015; Grissom et al., 2013, 2014; Hallinger & Murphy, 2012; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010; Marshall, 2004). Thus, it takes purpose, intention, interest, and selfconfidence for instructional leaders to pierce the invisible barrier of the classroom. In the Wallace Foundation research on successful school leadership, Leithwood and colleagues (Leithwood, Anderson et al., 2010) found that principals did find ways to offer productive feedback to teachers. Clayborn Knight, principal of Nesbit Elementary School in Tucker, Ga., where more than 90 percent of his 2,100 students live in poverty. Mr. Knight arrives by 6 a.m. to form his game plan for the day and handle administrative matters so he can help teachers improve instruction during the rest of the day. He roams from classroom to classroom to observe teachers, gives them informal feedback and presents model lessons. (Miller, 2015, p. 31)

We note that principals who succeed in overcoming this challenge tend to have three characteristics. They develop their own expertise in teaching and learning. They approach instructional leadership as a team responsibility, clearly delegating selected responsibilities to other members of the team. As in the case of Clayborn Knight noted above, they are more systematic in how they approach their time use each day, organizing activities to align with their priorities (see Hallinger & Murphy, 2012). Managing the Instructional Program also involves setting the stage for learning by organizing the curriculum, setting standards, and coordinating learning activities across classrooms. Coordinating the curriculum is a shared leadership responsibility that requires the school’s leadership team to maintain a “desirable”’ degree of alignment between the school’s

educational objectives, the curriculum taught in classrooms, and the assessments used to monitor student progress. In response to critics who fear that this amounts to “teaching to the test,” advocates of curriculum coordination ask, “When the stakes are high, is it fair to test students on content for which they have not been taught?” Researchers have documented that the performance of students from lower SES backgrounds tends to suffer when the “taught curriculum” is not well aligned to key tests used to assess student (and school) performance (DarlingHammond, 1995; Oakes & Wells, 1998). Instructionally effective schools place a strong emphasis on both standardized and criterion referenced testing as measures of accountability and benchmarks for improvement (Edmonds, 1979). The tests are used to diagnose programmatic and student weaknesses, to evaluate the results of changes in the school’s instructional program, and to help in making classroom assignments. The principal plays a key role in this area in several ways. He or she can provide teachers with test results in a timely and usable fashion, discuss test results with teachers (individually and collectively), and provide interpretive analyses for teachers detailing the relevant test data in a concise form (Goldring & Berends, 2009; Goldring et al., 2015; Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, & Portin, 2009). Again, an example drawn from the Wallace Foundation study of successful school leadership illustrates this point. Dewey Hensley, the principal of J. B. Atkinson Academy for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Louisville, Ky., where nearly all of the roughly 400 students were living in poverty, used data to get teachers to own their students’ performance. He lined a wall in the staff room with photos of teachers and colorcoded charts showing whether their students were at grade level, below grade level or significantly below grade level. Once one of Kentucky’s lowest performers, his school doubled its proficiency in reading, math and writing. (Miller, 2015, p. 31)

Our own earlier research into effective schools in California yielded similar examples. For example, in one effective school in a workingclass neighborhood, several teachers independently volunteered that their principal knew the achievement progress of each of their students. This example is offered in this contest to reemphasize the importance of visibility and modeling as key means of “shaping” the climate of a school. Leadership practices associated with Managing the Instructional Program appear to emphasize the “direct source of influence” that principals exercise over teaching quality. Yet, this perspective seems overly narrow to the author. Leithwood and colleagues (Leithwood, Anderson et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2008) refer to “Designing the Organization” as a key function of leadership for learning. With this in mind, the author would suggest that there are a number of organizational design decisions that fall within the dimension of Managing the Instructional Program. For example, when the author took charge as Head of School at an international school in Thailand, he found that it was quite common for faculty members teaching the same subject and

grade level to be teaching to different objectives, and using different textbooks and classroom assessments. A key organizational design decision was to mandate that teachers would form teaching teams and determine a common curriculum for the subject. Teachers had previously valued their autonomy above the needs of students. But results on the common exam were poor and students had complained that they were not being taught the same content in the same subject. Several facets are worthy of note in this example. First, the decision was made by the Head of School after investigation and input from department heads and teachers. Despite the initial lack of teacher support for the decision, the school was in crisis, and it was not possible to take time to build consensus prior to implementation. Moreover, the decision was framed in line with a reorientation of our mission toward “learnerfocused” classrooms. Second, the organizational design decision set the conditions for more effective teaching and learning rather than through the Head’s direct involvement in the teaching and learning process. Third, the design decision impacted subsequent actions taken to Coordinate the Curriculum and Monitor Student Progress. Fourth, although the design decision focused on curriculum and assessment, it was also taken with the longterm objective of creating a more collaborative culture in the school. Thus, as Day (2009) documented in his research in the UK, the earlier stages of “turnaround” are often characterized by more “centralized” decisionmaking, a focus on performance, and restructuring (i.e., what Leithwood calls organizational design). Furthermore, consistent with Day’s model, over time our school did organically grow key features of a more “collaborative culture”. 21.3.2.3 Develops a Positive School Learning Climate The culture of a school exerts a more powerful influence on the collective behavior of staff and students than any single leader (Barth, 1990; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Sarason, 1971). Thus principals must tread carefully when seeking to change the culture of a school. Thirty years ago, Saphier and King (1985) used the metaphor of “sowing the seeds of the culture.” This communicates the “mindset” the principal needs when working with the culture of the school. It highlights the fact that visible change in the culture of a school can take several years. Through the leadership functions in this dimension, the principal provides normative support for the school’s mission, maintains positive pressure and models moral support for shared commitments to improve teaching and learning. The work of Jane Stallings and others on allocated learning time first called attention to the importance of providing teachers with blocks of uninterrupted teaching time. Improved classroom management and instructional skills are not used to the greatest effect if teachers are frequently interrupted by announcements, tardy students, and requests from the office. The principal has control over this area through the development and enforcement of schoolwide policies related to the interruption of classroom learning time (Bossert et al., 1982). The contexts in which the principal is seen provide a key indicator to teachers and students of his or her priorities (Grissom et al., 2013). Although a significant portion of the principal’s time may be out of his or her control, the principal can set priorities on how the remaining time

is to be spent. Visibility on the campus and in classrooms increases the interaction between the principal and students as well as with teachers. This can have positive effects on student behavior and classroom instruction (Grissom et al., 2013; Hallinger & Murphy, 2012; Horng et al., 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2008; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003). When the school has a clear mission, it is the responsibility of the school’s leaders to model and protect what’s important, i.e., the values embedded in the mission. With this in mind, the earlier example of Clayborn Knight in the section on Managing the Instructional Program is equally relevant and powerful when we consider the role of leader visibility in fostering a positive school learning climate. In the business sector, this type of visibility is also called MBWA, or “Management By Walking Around.” MBWA is not “wandering around.” Rather it is a means of maintaining high visibility in key locations, which can be classrooms, the lunch hall, or extracurricular activities. What makes the “location” key is a combination of “symbolism” and intention. Symbolism refers to the interpretation of the leader’s visibility in the eyes of others. Intention refers to what the leader is seeking to accomplish by being visible in a given location. This can include any or all of the following: finding problems, providing moral and practical support, building relationships, providing feedback, listening, providing correction, and gathering information. By way of example, when we were doing research in one elementary school in California, we noticed that the principal left whatever he was doing at 11:30 sharp each morning to take tickets from students at the lunchroom. Although we had formed a perception of this principal as an excellent instructional leader, we wondered if this was an effective use of his time. When queried about this, he said: “ensuring that I take tickets at the lunchroom every day is my way of ensuring that I have a chance to say hello to every one of the 650 students and teachers in my school every day of the school year” (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). In a general sense, this function seeks to align goals, outcomes, and rewards in a more coordinated system of human resource management (e.g., Heneman & Milanowski, 2007). Few monetary rewards are available for principals to use with teachers. The single salary schedule and tenure system severely limit the alternatives open to principals with respect to motivating teachers. However, in schools money may only be slightly more effective than praise as an incentive. This suggests that the principal should make the best use of both formal and informal ways of providing teachers with praise and creating a positive school culture based on trust, mutual respect, and success (Barth, 1990; Knapp et al., 2009; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood, Anderson et al., 2010; Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Long before scholars started to talk about “professional learning communities,” Roland Barth (1990) called attention to the importance of creating a culture of continuous learning in schools (see also Saphier & King, 1985). Barth (1990) proposed that a key instructional leadership role of the principal lies in encouraging the learning of individual teachers as well as creating a culture of continuous development for all learners in the school. Robinson and colleagues’ (2008) metaanalysis also offers insight into this issue as it concerns the principal. Their results found that the principal’s support for and participation in

the professional learning of staff produced the largest effect size on learning outcomes of students. The principal has several ways of supporting teachers in the effort to improve instruction. He or she can arrange for, provide, or inform teachers of relevant opportunities for staff development. The principal also can involve teachers more actively in determining priorities for professional development, arrange time for meaningful teacher collaboration, and support the implementation of new skills (Day et al., 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 2010; Hallinger, Liu, & Piyaman, 2017; Kruger et al., 2007; Liu & Hallinger, 2017; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008; Sleegers, Geijsel, & Van den Berg, 2002; Thoonen et al., 2012). It is possible to create a school learning climate in which academic achievement is highly valued by students. Shaping a climate of success involves providing multiple, visible opportunities for students to be rewarded and recognized for their academic achievement and improvement. The rewards need not be fancy or expensive, but students should have opportunities to be recognized for their achievement both within the classroom and before the school as a whole. Kimberly Washington, principal of Hyattsville Middle School in Hyattsville, Md., zeroed in on behavior that interrupted teaching and learning—students who were hanging out in the halls and coming late to class. She instituted uniforms, got extra help for misbehaving students and celebrated students’ accomplishments at rallies. Creating a positive culture helped cut suspensions by 90 percent from one year to the next. (Miller, 2015, p. 31)

This is an excellent illustration for this dimension. Indeed, it provides concrete examples for Protecting Instructional Time as well as Providing Incentives for Learning. As such it illustrates three important points that I have sought to illustrate in this chapter. The first is that instructional leadership is not a heroic role, but rather an accumulation of many discrete activities, decisions, and practices. Second, instructional leaders infuse their activities with intention, and that intention is linked to the same core values embedded in the school mission (Barth, 1990; Walker, 2012). Third, the PIMRS framework is simply that, a framework that helps organize our thinking. In practice, the dimensions and functions often “bleed” into one another. With these points in mind, it should be clear why no list of the behaviors or practices of “successful principals” can be used to define “effective leadership.”

21.4 Challenges for Research and Practice Thus far, this chapter has sought to clarify the current stateoftheart on instructional leadership. Next I wish to consider some of the most productive targets and methods for research on instructional leadership in the coming decade. Since space limitations preclude a detailed treatment, the reader is referred to Hallinger and Wang (2015) for a more extended discussion.

21.4.1 Fruitful Topics for Research Four topics seem primed for further empirical treatment. The first concerns the antecedents of

principal instructional leadership. As discussed earlier, these include both personal characteristics and context factors. The personal characteristics that seem worth pursuing include leader selfefficacy, gender, and prior experience as a teacher. Perhaps of higher priority from a practical standpoint, we need a better understanding of how instructional leadership is shaped by the needs and constraints of particular contexts. For example, how does successful instructional leadership differ in turnaround situations compared with coasting or highly successful schools? We know that successful leadership practice varies in these different organizational contexts (e.g., Belchetz & Leithwood, 2007; Day, 2009; Hallinger & Heck, 2011b; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986), but have insufficient leverage on how. This research should be informed by contingency theories already in the general leadership literature (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). Contexts for leadership can also refer to cultural settings (Bajunid, 1996; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996). Much of the research on instructional leadership to date has been conducted in socalled “Anglocentric” societies. Scholars have proposed that the different goals, institutional structures, and sociocultural norms within national education systems shape both role expectations for principals and the types of practices that achieve results (Walker & Dimmock, 2002). A broader set of international (i.e., single society) and crosscultural studies is needed in order to understand if and how the practices that describe successful instructional leadership vary across different societies (Walker & Hallinger, 2015). A second line of inquiry concerns the “paths” through which instructional leadership impacts learning. The research reviews conducted by Hallinger and Heck (1996a, 1996b, 1998) built upon earlier theoretical efforts by Bossert and colleagues (1982) and Pitner (1988) to elaborate on the theoretical paths or means by which leadership is linked to student learning outcomes. Subsequently, researchers have sought to test different models that seek to explain the nature of this relationship (see Heck & Hallinger, 2009, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2010; Neumerski, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008; Scheerens, 2012; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Despite clear progress on this front, additional empirical efforts aimed at mediating paths between leadership and learning are needed. To the extent possible, these will include measures of leadership as well as teaching and learning (e.g., Heck & Hallinger, 2014), and complement traditional crosssectional surveys with mixed methods studies that offer deeper descriptions of why principals use the paths as they do (see Hallinger & Wang, 2015). A third line of inquiry would examine instructional leadership from sources beyond the principal (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Rigby, 2013; Spillane, 2006). Ideally, these studies will not exclude the principal, but rather seek to incorporate the full set of instructional leadership resources (i.e., principal, administrative team, teacher leaders) in the school. Indeed, the tricky part of this research from a technical point of view is to gain a picture of the collective effects of leadership without losing the capacity to assess the contributions of the different parts. This is important because even when leadership is “distributed” we still wish to understand the nature of the principal’s contribution (Hallinger & Heck, 2010, 2011a, 2011b). Finally, despite ongoing interest among the profession in issues of principal preparation and

training, we have identified very few highquality studies of “treatments” designed to foster and support instructional leadership. By treatments I refer to the “impact” of preparation programs, discrete professional development programs, or coaching and mentoring interventions. Moreover, unlike the main body of research in this domain, this line of inquiry lends itself to experimental and quasiexperimental research methods (e.g., Goff, Guthrie, Goldring, & Bickman, 2014; Leithwood & Levin, 2008; Maag Merti, 2014; Miller, Goddard et al., 2016).

21.4.2 Research Designs and Methods The research in this domain of educational leadership and management has progressed over time, in part, through the use of more sophisticated statistical methods (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger & Wang, 2016). Nonetheless, the field largely remains a “one trick pony” relying almost exclusively on crosssectional surveys, a trend that has persisted since its inception as a field of scholarship in the 1960s (Bridges, 1982; Haller, 1979; Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b). As a field of study, we must admit that there are limits to what this type of research can yield. That is, it can only address a certain “slice” of research problems before it begins to yield diminishing returns. It has been observed that much of the research in educational administration is conducted by doctoral students. Because the crosssectional survey is less timeconsuming and complex than some other methods, it tends to be used with the greatest frequency. Moreover, this state of affairs never seems to change (see Haller, 1979). With this in mind, the following recommendations are made with the foreknowledge that they will challenge the time, expertise, and resources of many of those who engage in empirical research in educational leadership. First, we must acknowledge that the means through which leadership affects learning is comprised of a complex, multistaged causal chain whereby the effects, when detected, are still in the “small range” (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a; Robinson et al., 2008; Scheerens, 2012; Witziers et al., 2003). Since the “effects” of leadership on learning unfold over time (Hallinger & Heck, 2011a), more studies need to employ longitudinal research designs. Only in the last halfdozen years have we begun to gain examples in our field (e.g., Bowers & White, 2014; Brown & Chai, 2012; Feldhoff, Radisch, & Klieme, 2014; Goff et al., 2014; Grissom et al., 2013; Hallinger & Heck, 2010, 2011a, 2011b; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Maag Merti, 2014; May et al., 2012; Mulford & Silins, 2009; Sleegers, Thoonen, Oort, & Peetsma, 2014; Thoonen et al., 2012). The results are very encouraging, and we need more studies in which the time frame is sufficient to reveal the effects of leadership on teaching and learning. Second, our field has not yet done enough at exploring leadership through the analysis of largescale secondary databases (e.g., PIRLS, TALIS). Admittedly, these studies often suffer the limitations of imperfect measurement of constructs. Nonetheless, the large sample sizes and, in some cases, multinational perspectives offer a different set of lenses through which to see broad trends in leadership practice (e.g., Bowers & White, 2014; Lee & Hallinger, 2012; Urick & Bowers, 2011, 2014; White & Bowers, 2011). Third, metaanalysis represents another useful approach that has gained purchase in our field

over the past dozen years (e.g., Hallinger, Li, & Wang, 2016; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Scheerens, 2012; Sun & Leithwood, 2015; Witziers et al., 2003). While conducting metaanalyses can be technically challenging, there are an increasing number of examples of metaanalytic studies being conducted as doctoral dissertations (e.g., Bulris, 2009; Hallinger et al., 2016; Leithwood & Sun, 2012). This trend should be encouraged—even for doctoral students—for topics on which a sufficient body of empirical work has been completed. Fourth, progress in understanding the types of issues identified above (i.e., leadership paths, impact of context) will benefit greatly from the use of mixed methods research designs (Creswell, 2008). Indeed, in cases where doctoral researchers, for example, continue to rely on crosssectional research designs in studies of leadership and learning, the utility of the results will be enhanced greatly by complementary qualitative data analysis. Thus, for example, sequential explanatory research designs (Creswell, 2008), in which the researcher selects cases for qualitative analysis based on broadscale quantitative analysis, are well suited for addressing many of the “why” questions that are highly relevant when studying principal leadership. Again, we have some examples, but we still need more (Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Liu & Hallinger, 2017; Sammons, Davis, Day, & Gu, 2014). Fifth, I would suggest that our field has made insufficient use of “succession studies” as a research design for examining leadership effects (Giambatista, Rowe, & Riaz, 2005; Hart, 1991; Mentzer, 1993; Miskel & Cosgrove, 1985). Succession studies use the natural turnover of leaders as an opportunity to study the differential impact of new leaders on the organization. Despite the promise shown by succession research conducted during the 1980s, there have been disappointingly few followup studies using this research design in educational leadership studies during subsequent decades (see Miskel & Owens, 1983; Rowan & Denk, 1984). I understand that the tools needed to conduct metaanalyses and analyze large secondary data sets exceed the level of analytical training offered in many—if not most—doctoral programs in educational leadership. Moreover, the reasons that students continue to rely on cross sectional surveys have changed little since Haller’s (1979) classic study of research methods in educational administration. Research designs are more frequently chosen by graduate students for pragmatic reasons than for their capacity to make “contributions to knowledge” (Haller, 1979). Nonetheless, in the interests of identifying the frontiers of knowledge in this field, I have tried to outline the methods that are best suited to move selected highimpact lines of inquiry concerned with leadership for learning forward.

21.5 Conclusion This chapter has traversed the landscape of research and practice on principal instructional leadership as it has evolved over the past 50 years. I have sought to document how instructional leadership has evolved from an ambiguous prescription for American principals into a more clearly defined, researchbased set of globallyrelevant leadership practices.

Still, much work is yet to be done before we can provide focused guidance to practicing school leaders on “how to implement instructional leadership in my school.” Nonetheless, I am optimistic that with a continued collective effort from the global community of scholars, we will be able to provide this type of guidance in the decades to come. While this caveat will, no doubt, prove disappointing to some policymakers and practitioners, the process of building a firm knowledge base in any field takes time and educational leadership remains quite young as a field of applied research. I would like to close the chapter on an optimistic note with a quotation from a principal in Thailand. This principal was seen by staff in Thailand’s Ministry of Education as a maverick who did things his own way. He grew small innovative programs in his school, over time, rather than implementing readymade, ministryrecommended programs. Yet, he succeeded in bringing his programs to fruition where many other principals did not. His reflection on what he learned along the way reprises several important lessons on leadership that I have sought to highlight in this chapter. These include the role of vision, the importance of self efficacy, the embedding of vision in daily routines, the necessity of understanding one’s context, and having the patience and persistence to see change occur. When I started out as a principal they called me a crazy old teacher and didn’t know what to do with me. But you must have faith in what you want to do. If you want people to change or to change a school, you need to grow faith in your own mind first. But once you know something’s a good thing to do, you’ll be able to do it. Once you have faith, you begin to pay attention to the right things, to do the things that need to be done every day. Many of the things I tried to do with the teachers at first didn’t work. It took me a couple of years—and “failures”—before I learned what different teachers and students preferred and needed. It was only after I began to understand these conditions that the seeds that I planted began to grow—and that is when we could see the school change. (P. Chantarapanya, personal communication, May 6, 2011)

References Bajunid, I. A. (1996). Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 50–73. Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R. (1990). School goals, principals and achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175–191. Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Belchetz, D., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful leadership: Does context matter and if so, how? In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective (pp. 117–137). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school

headteachers and principals on student outcomes. London, UK: EPPICentre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1996). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378. Blasé, J., & Kirby, P. (2009). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34–64. Bowers, A. J., & White, B. R. (2014). Do principal preparation and teacher qualifications influence different types of school growth trajectories in Illinois? A growth mixture model analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 705–736. Bridges, E. M. (1967). Instructional leadership: A concept reexamined. Journal of Educational Administration, 5(2), 136–147. Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The stateoftheart, 1967– 1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12–33. Bridges, E. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher. London, UK: Falmer Press. Brown, G. T., & Chai, C. (2012). Assessing instructional leadership: A longitudinal study of new principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), 753–772. Bulris, M. E. (2009). A metaanalysis of research on the mediated effects of principal leadership on student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Carolina State University, Greenville, NC.

Buttram, J. L., Mead, H., Loftus, D., & Wilson, J. O. (2006). Allocation of school leaders’ time. Retrieved from http://www.dasl.udel.edu/sites/dasl.udel.edu/files/users/user10/Allocation%20of%20School%20Lea Covey, S. R., Merrill, A. R., & Merrill, R. R. (1995). First things first. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. DarlingHammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465–483). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

DarlingHammond, L., AmreinBeardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15. Day, C. (2009). Capacity building through layered leadership: Sustaining the turnaround. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership (pp. 121–138). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., … Kingston, A. (2011). Successful school leadership: Linking learning and achievement. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Donaldson, G. A. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Duke, D. L. (1990). Developing teacher evaluation systems that promote professional growth. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4(2), 131–144. Duke, D. L. (2004). The turnaround principal: Highstakes leadership, Principal, 84(1), 12– 23. Duke, D. L., & Salmonowicz, M. (2010). Key decisions of a firstyear “turnaround” principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 33–58. Dwyer, D. (1986). Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1), 3–18. Dwyer, D., Lee, G., Rowan, B., & Bossert, S. (1983). The principal as instructional leader: No single vision, no simple formula. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15– 24. Erickson, D. A. (1979). Research on educational administration: The stateoftheart. Educational Researcher, 8(3), 9–14. Feldhoff, P. T., Radisch, P. F., & Klieme, P. E. (2014). Methods in longitudinal school improvement research: State of the art. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5). Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Giambatista, R. C., Rowe, W. G., & Riaz, S. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical review of leader succession literature since 1994. Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 963–

991. Goff, P., Guthrie, E. J., Goldring, E., & Bickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682–704. Goldring, E., & Berends, M. (2009). Leading with data: Pathways to improving your school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104. Goldring, E., Huff, J., May, H., & Camburn, E. (2008). School context and individual characteristics: What influences principal practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 332–352. Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2014). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 1–26. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. Grobman, H., & Hynes, V. (1956). What makes a good principal? NASSP Bulletin, 40(223), 5– 16. Gross, N., & Herriot, R. (1965). Staff leadership in schools. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Haller, E. (1979). Questionnaires and the dissertation in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(1), 47–66. Hallinger, P. (1982, 1990). Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Sarasota, FL: Leading Development Associates. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–351. Hallinger, P. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271–306. Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 498–518. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996a). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996b). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980–1995. In K. Leithwood et al. (Ed.), International handbook of research in educational leadership and administration (pp. 723– 784). New York, NY: Kluwer. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of vision, mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger et al. (Eds.), The handbook of educational leadership and administration (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011a). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 149–173. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011b). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27. Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 5–28. Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 4–11. Hallinger, P., Li, D., & Wang, W. C. (2016). Gender differences in instructional leadership: A metaanalytic review of studies using the principal instructional management rating scale. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 567–601. Hallinger, P., Liu, S., & Piyaman, P. (2017). Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning? A comparative study China and Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1–17. Hallinger, P., & McCary, M. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 90–108. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985). Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–248. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American

Journal of Education, 94(3), 328–355. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97, 5–21. Hallinger, P., & Wang, W.C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Hart, A. W. (1991). Leader succession and socialization: A synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 451–474. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Heck, R. H. (1993). School context, principal leadership, and achievement: The case of secondary schools in Singapore. Urban Review, 25(2), 151–166. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 626–658. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the effects of school leadership on teaching and learning over time. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681. Heck, R. H., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and student achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94– 125. Heneman III, H., & Milanowski, A. T. (2007). Assessing human resource alignment: The foundation for building total teacher quality improvement. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523. Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. T. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standardsbased evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34–70. KleineKracht, P. (1993). Indirect instructional leadership: An administrator’s choice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 1–29. Knapp, M., Copland, M., Honig, M., Plecki, M., & Portin, B. (2009). Learningfocused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kruger, M., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P. (2007). The impact of school leadership on school level factors: Validation of a causal model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 1–20. Lee, M. S., & Hallinger, P. (2012). Exploring the impact of national context on principals’ time use: Economic development, societal culture, and educational system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 461–482. Lee, M. S., Walker, A., & Chui, Y. L. (2012). Contrasting effects of instructional leadership practices on student learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 586–611. Leithwood, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2010). School leaders’ influences on student learning: The four paths. In T. Bush, L. Bell, & D. Middlewood (Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and management. London, UK: Sage. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform lowperforming schools . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with the school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2008). Understanding and assessing the impact of leadership development. In J. Lumby, G. Crow, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 280–300). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto. Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309–339. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. P. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school

leadership: A metaanalytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423. Leitner, D. (1994). Do principals affect student outcomes: An organizational perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 219–238. Lipham, J. (1981). Effective principal, effective school. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2017). Leading Teacher Learning in China: A Mixed Methods Study of Successful School Leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun and K. Pollock (Eds.). How school leadership influences student learning: The four paths (pp. 279–303). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Louis, K. S., Dretzkea, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. Maag Merti, K. (2014). Conducting intervention studies on school improvement: An analysis of possibilities and constraints based on an intervention study of teacher cooperation. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 590–616. Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. Marshall, K. (2004). How I recovered from HSPS (Hyperactive Superficial Principal Syndrome): A progress report. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 701–709. May, H., Huff, J., & Goldring, E. (2012). A longitudinal study of principals’ activities and student performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 417–439. May, H., & Supovitz, J. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2) 332–352. Mentzer, M. S. (1993). The leader succession–performance relationship in a nonprofit organization. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 30(2), 191– 204. Miller, G. (1960, April). What is the role of the principal in developing good relationships with staff? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 19–22. Miller, W. (2015, April 17). Want reform? Principals matter too. New York Times, p. A31. Miller, R. J., Goddard, R. D., Kim, M., Jacob, R., Goddard, Y., & Schroeder, P. (2016). Can professional development improve school leadership? Results from a randomized control trial assessing the impact of MCREL’s Balanced Leadership Program on principals in rural

Michigan schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 531–566. Miskel, C., & Cosgrove, D. (1985). Leader succession in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 87–105. Miskel, C., & Owens, M. (1983). Principal succession and changes in school coupling and effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes: What do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 157–183. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2009). Revised models and conceptualization of successful school principalship in Tasmania. In B. Mulford & B. Edmunds (Eds.), Successful school principalship in Tasmania. Launceston, Tasmania: Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania. Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 74– 98. Murphy, J. F., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354. Murphy, J. F., & Torre, D. (2015). Vision: Essential scaffolding. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 177–197. Nettles, S., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724–736. Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347. Oakes, J., & Wells, A. S. (1998). Detracking for high student achievement. Educational Leadership, 55, 38–41. Opdenakker, M., & Van Damme, J. (2007). Do school context, student composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in secondary education? British Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 179–206. Pitner, N. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 106–132). New York, NY: Longman. Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., & Adams, E. A. (1995). Leadership as an organizationwide phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4),

564–588. Rigby, J. G. (2013). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 610–644. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 564–588. Rowan, B., & Denk, C. E. (1984). Management succession, school socioeconomic context, and basic skills achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 517–537. Sammons, P., Davis, S., Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Using mixed methods to investigate school improvement and the role of leadership: An example of a longitudinal study in England. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 565–589. Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational Leadership, 42(6), 67–74. Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Scheerens, J. (2012). School leadership effects revisited. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21stcentury schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22, 181–203. Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663. Silva, J. P., White, G. P., & Yoshida, R. K. (2010). The direct effects of principal–student discussions on eighth grade students’ gains in reading achievement: An experimental study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 772–793. Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., & Van den Berg, R. (2002). Conditions fostering educational change. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Sleegers, P., Thoonen, E. J., Oort, F., & Peetsma, T. (2014). Changing classroom practices: The role of schoolwide capacity for sustainable improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 617–652. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73–92. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Sun, J. P., & Leithwood, K. (2015). Directionsetting school leadership practices: A meta analytical review of evidence about their influence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 499–523. Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oorta, F., & Peetsmaa, T. (2012). Building schoolwide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 441–460. Uhls, H. (1962). What’s important Mr. Principal? NASSP Bulletin, 46(273), 108–111. Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2011). What influences principals’ perceptions of academic climate? A nationally representative study of the direct effects of perception on climate. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 322–348. Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2014). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 96–134. Van de Grift, W. (1990). Educational leadership and academic achievement in elementary education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(3), 26–40. Walker, A. D. (2012). Leaders seeking resonance: Managing the connectors that bind schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(2), 237–253. Walker, A. D., & Dimmock, C. (2002). Moving school leadership beyond its narrow boundaries: Developing a crosscultural approach. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 67–204). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Walker, A., & Hallinger, P. (2015). A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 554–570. White, B. R., & Bowers, A. J. (2011). Principal effects in Illinois: A research brief (Policy Research: IERC 2011–2013). Illinois Education Research Council. Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 398–425.

22 CASE STUDY Restorative Justice: An Alternative Approach to School Discipline Tom Cavanagh Colorado State University

22.1 Introduction Discipline is an important issue in schools, particularly in the classroom. Discipline is intricately linked with achievement (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010); therefore, the issue of the achievement gap cannot be discussed without also discussing discipline. In alignment with that idea, discipline cannot be discussed without consideration of race. Students of color are disciplined more often and more harshly, resulting in a schooltoprison pipeline, particularly for male students of color (Cavanagh, 2009a; Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). On January 8, 2014, the United States Department of Education issued the new Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline policy in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice. This policy focused on reducing the disproportionate application of discipline for students of color. Under this policy schools are required to change from a culture of rules and punishment, including zero tolerance, to a culture of relationships. In this culture students are held responsible for their behavior and for the need to heal the harm to relationships resulting from wrongdoing and conflict (Cavanagh, 2009b). This educational policy shift that has occurred has a direct impact on the use of restorative justice in schools. In this chapter the principles and practices of restorative justice will be discussed. The topics that will be explored are the conceptual framework, basic principles, importance of relationships, the evidence, restorative activities in the classroom, restorative activities outside of the classroom, additional restorative interventions, culturally sustainable restorative practices, action plan, stories, and conclusion.

22.2 Theoretical Framework In this section the underlying theories of school discipline will be discussed. Understanding this conceptual framework leads to a better understanding of the definition of restorative justice. Later in this chapter, restorative justice will be defined in terms of principles. The conceptual framework for introducing restorative justice practices into schools is threefold. The first is Nel Noddings’s (1992) ethic of care in the classroom. Angela Valenzuela (1999) expands on Noddings’s work with a focus on how educators need to care for students’ learning and also care for them as culturally located individuals. The idea is we can’t have one

or the other; we need to have both. Second are the important contributions of Gloria Ladson Billings (2014) and Geneva Gay (2000) on culturally responsive pedagogy in the classroom. The third area is restorative justice principles and practices (Zehr, 1995). These principles and practices are important in schools because they allow us to move away from the zero tolerance orientation, which has been the status quo in schools in the United States for many years. Several theories by respected authors form the lens through which the principles of restorative justice are conceptualized. This new discourse blends together areas of educational theory related to relational ethics and the ethic of care, culturally responsive pedagogy of relations, and restorative practices. The ideas surrounding relational ethics and the ethic of care are based on Nel Noddings’s (1992) work. She focused on applying her ideas about the importance of relationships and care to classrooms. This theory emphasizes solidarity, community, and caring about relationships. The work of restorative justice takes Noddings’s theory and applies it to the whole school, resulting in the theory of a culture of care in schools. Noddings’s writings, as well as the other theories discussed in this chapter, are meant to be more practical than normative. Noddings’s ideas are particularly useful when relating to the idea that children need to experience and learn that caring is reciprocal—I care for and about you, and you respond appropriately to that care. While in the past we could safely assume children learned these lessons at home, in our present society we can no longer make that assumption. As a result the work of educators today is to make sure students understand caring and behave in caring ways. Classroom relationships are based on the theory of a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. Russell Bishop’s (2008) work emphasized a culturally responsive pedagogy of relations in classrooms. Bishop’s approach to pedagogy emphasized that relationships, rather than curriculum, are at the core of what schooling is about. The application of restorative justice principles in schools builds on the work of Angus Macfarlane (2007), Ted Glynn (Bishop & Glynn, 2003), Geneva Gay (2000), and others and focuses on relationships and interactions between teachers and students. As a result these relationships are the foundation of restorative practices in the classroom. Finally, based on this theory, school discipline policies can be focused on restorative practices. Sean Buckley and Gabrielle Maxwell’s (2007) comprehensive research on the importance of restorative practices in New Zealand schools revealed that schools using these practices can create learning environments where students feel they belong and can achieve. Restorative practices are grounded in the writings of Howard Zehr (1995) and build on the research conducted by the Restorative Practices Development Team (2003) at the University of Waikato in New Zealand.

22.3 Applied Behavior Analysis The assertive discipline model has been the underlying theoretical framework for responding to school discipline problems for well over 25 years. This theory is based on the idea of

separating learning from discipline, where teachers attend to the learning, and students exhibiting problem behaviors are referred out of the classroom to administrators and other staff for discipline. This model was developed by Lee and Mary Canter (2001). However, over the years this model has become outdated. This model needs updating, particularly with regard to students of color. The new theory needs to focus on building the capacity of students and teachers to respond to classroom issues related to discipline. In that way students, particularly African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American students, can remain in the classroom as much as possible, where they have the opportunity to learn, rather than being referred out of the classroom to be disciplined. Traditionally discipline in schools was in alignment with the theory of applied behavior analysis (Cooper, 1982; Horner & Sugai, 2015; Skinner, 2014). Applied behavior analysis theory is based on the idea of managing children by fixing them. There is no focus on the teachers and relationships between the children and teachers. As a result, under this theory teachers operate from a position of power, that is, that student misbehavior is a challenge to personal power and is considered a personal affront, and teachers use that position as the basis for responding to problems regarding student behavior. The mantra used for the assertive discipline model (Canter & Canter, 2001) is applicable: “Teachers’ right to teach, and students’ right to learn.” Under this way of thinking, teachers have low tolerance for misbehavior and see children who are misbehaving as a problem that needs to be “fixed.” The theory of assertive discipline is not culturally appropriate and contradicts the underlying sociocultural theory of restorative justice based on relationships. Applied behavior analysis theory is the theory used to support such popular school interventions as schoolwide behavior support (SWBS), positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS), and response to intervention (RTI). This theory and, as a result, these interventions claim to be colorblind or culture free. Consequently, equity, discrimination, and cultural differences are not taken into consideration.

22.4 Sociocultural Theory In contrast, sociocultural theory (Bishop & Glynn, 2003; Feryok, 2013; Mercer & Howe, 2012; Sawyer, 2012; Smith, 2012) is based on the way indigenous and culturally diverse people, like Latino/Hispanic, African American, and Native American people, see the world. Sociocultural theory appears to align with the opportunity gap identified by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in a speech on September 18, 2012, at the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Topeka, Kansas. This opportunity gap is focused on the opportunity to learn. At schools with traditional discipline policies, Latino/Hispanic, African American, and Native American children do not have the same opportunities to learn as their White counterparts at the same school because these children are disciplined outside of the classroom (i.e., the learning environment), more often and more harshly. As a result these children are being deprived of the right to learn (Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). A sociocultural worldview is based on the values of relationships and human dignity. As

humans, we inherently desire to live in relationship with other people. These relationships are based on the idea that a person’s dignity is a birthright, and no person has the right to attack that dignity. As a result, the behavior of a person needs to be viewed separately from who they are as a person. Rather than seeing behavior of children as a snapshot, people embracing sociocultural theory view behavior more in line with a video of the child over a lifetime. In this way the local cultural community and the families of culturally diverse children attending the school are the ones who determine what being culturally responsive means for the local school community. For example, the Hispanic parents at Hinkley High School in Aurora, Colorado, wanted teachers in the school to be trained in restorative justice practices. So they secured a grant to pay for this training (Cavanagh, Vigil, & Garcia, 2014). Under sociocultural theory, teachers are also seen as responsible for, at least in part, and contributors to the behavior and also the academic achievement of the children they teach. Issues related to behavior become an opportunity for learning rather than a barrier to learning. In contrast to the theory of applied behavior analysis, sociocultural theory calls for a change in the way educators in a school think, talk, and act with regard to schooling. This change calls for restorative justice principles and practices to be adopted within a culture of care. The real issue pointed out in the literature is not that instruction lacks quality as much as the fact that some students are just not in a classroom where they can learn (Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). This process results in these children losing their motivation to learn over time and eventually dropping out of school. This phenomenon is particularly true for children of color. For instance, Gorski (2015) reported that the graduation rate in the state of Colorado was 66.7% for Latino/Hispanic students compared to 83.2% for White students, and that’s an unacceptable rate. Table 22.1 illustrates the differences between the traditional approach to responding to student behavior problems and the alternative approach to responding to wrongdoing and conflict. The traditional approach is based on a medical model of diagnosis and treatment, that is, the teacher decides the problem behavior warrants referral outside of the classroom to an administrator or staff person. The alternative approach is based on a cultural model, where the capacity of teachers and students is built to respond to wrongdoing and conflict in the classroom.

Table 22.1 Comparison of traditional and alternative approaches to responding to wrongdoing and conflict in classrooms. Traditional Students as passive receptors Rules, standards, and curriculum Teacher in control

Alternative Students as cocreators Relationships and interactions Power is shared

Teacher responsible Misbehaviors are disruptions to learning Consequences determined by expert Punishment and retribution are deterrents Medical model

Shared responsibility Wrongdoing and conflict are learning opportunities Building capacity of students and teachers to solve problems nonviolently Healing the harm to relationships Cultural model

22.4.1 Traditional Model Traditionally, student behavior problems are viewed as disruptions to learning (Canter & Canter, 2001; Rogers, 2003). Under this model students causing harm are removed from the site of the harm (classroom) and sent to an “expert,” usually a dean, assistant principal, or administrator who is charged with the responsibility for dealing with or fixing the problem, identified as the student. As a result students and teachers are deprived of the opportunity to build their capacity to respond to problems resulting from wrongdoing and conflict by healing the harm to these relationships. Under this model the erring student is disciplined (punished), that is, given consequences for the behavior. No effort is made to build the capacity of this student, or of the students or teacher(s) harmed, to solve problems nonviolently. Neither is there healing of relationships harmed by the wrongdoing or conflict. Consequently, the student is sent back to the classroom where the harm occurred, without healing the harm to relationships that has taken place, and without the student, his or her peers, or the teacher gaining experience of learning how to solve problems nonviolently. Generally the treatment is not based on “what works,” nor is it evidencebased. Schools have adopted this form of discipline process based on a theory of students’ “right to know” and teachers’ “right to teach” (Rogers, 2003). In this way inappropriate behavior is seen as disruptive to the learning of others and sets up a bifurcated classroom culture of us versus them, failing to address repair of the harm done or responsibility for causing the harm.

22.4.2 Alternative Model In the alternative model, students and teachers collectively learn how to respond to

wrongdoing and conflict. The focus is on building healthy relationships by healing the harm to relationships resulting from wrongdoing and conflict. In this way the capacity of students (and teachers) is improved to respond to problems, particularly related to student behavior. Their capacity is also developed in building and maintaining healthy relationships and solving problems nonviolently. In particular, students and teachers learn about and use such restorative practices as restorative conversations (Drewery, 2004), peacemaking circles (Pranis, Stuart, & Wedge, 2003), and family group conferences (Maxwell & Morris, 1992). The alternative approach is a cultural model, where the focus is on creating a culture of care in schools and classrooms. At the core of this kind of school is an unrelenting focus on building healthy relationships. With this model, the capacity of students and teachers to create a culture of care is improved, replacing punishment of behavior problems. Inappropriate behavior is seen as a learning opportunity, and a culture is developed for learning together how to create a different future for everyone.

22.5 Contrasting Approaches The contrast between the traditional rules and punishment approach to discipline and the restorative justice approach is outlined in Table 22.2 (Cavanagh, 2009c; Macfarlane, 2007). This table illustrates the two different ways of responding to discipline problems in schools. Currently the dominant discourse in schools is focused on consequences. However, some schools are choosing an alternative discourse based on restorative justice. Table 22.2 Contrast of traditional punishment and restorative justice approaches. Source: Adapted from Cavanagh (2009c) and MacFarlane (2007).

Rules and punishment Students treated as passive receptors

Restorative justice Students treated as cocreators

Rules and consequences Teacher in control Teacher is solely responsible Misbehavior seen as disruption to learning Consequences determined by administrator Punishment and consequences are deterrents

Relationships Power is shared Responsibility is shared Wrongdoing and conflict are learning opportunities Building capacity of students and teachers to respond to behavior problems in the classroom Healing the harm to relationships

Under the traditional rules and punishment approach to school discipline, students are treated as passive receptors of discipline policies. Rarely do these students have a voice in developing these policies. Also they are not given the opportunity to express their needs

without the risk of repercussions. Schools have relied on rules and punishment to create the norms of behavior. When students do not follow these rules and regulations, they are punished. In this way schools base their discipline policies on the idea that students will behave appropriately in the future. In other words, punishment will be a deterrent to future bad behavior. Traditionally classrooms were structured so that teachers and administrators are in control. Teachers are expected to maintain this control without outside help. They are sometimes left isolated in their classrooms without the opportunity for coaching or mentoring. Typically, teachers are solely responsible for what happens in their classroom. The burden of accountability for classroom behavior lies solely with the teacher, and this responsibility is more than some teachers are capable of handling, particularly when they have students with special needs in the classroom. In the current climate of standards and accountability, curriculum has become the focus of attention. As a result, student misbehavior is viewed as disruptive to the learning. Students causing problems in the classroom are removed and referred to experts outside of the classroom so that the learning of the remaining students can continue. As a result of this response to problems related to behavior, students are excluded from classrooms to be disciplined by an administrator. Consequently, students who are harmed by the misbehavior are not included in the discipline process. They have no voice. In the end when the student is returned to the classroom, relationships remain broken, and the chances for a successful reintegration of the student into the classroom are lessened considerably. However, the new discourse of restorative justice offers an alternative way to respond to wrongdoing and conflict in schools. Schools can base their response to student behavior problems on this alternative idea rather than promoting passivity among students. Restorative justice rests on the idea that schools need to encourage selfadvocacy, selfcontrol, and individual dignity. This new discourse calls for teachers, administrators, students, and parents to cocreate discipline policies regarding responses to wrongdoing and conflict. In particular, students need to be given the space to voice their needs and challenge the status quo in a safe environment. A focus on relationships and interactions between teachers and students and among students is fundamental to the new discourse. Therefore, it makes sense that educators would want to help students learn how to build and maintain healthy relationships. This new discourse calls for teachers and students to share power. In this way students’ need for selfdetermination is recognized and honored. Their human dignity is respected. This discourse is based on the idea of shared responsibility for what happens in the classroom. In this way teachers and students take responsibility for responding to wrongdoing and conflict. Shared responsibility then recognizes that all people in the classroom are affected by the harm resulting from wrongdoing and conflict and that there is a need for everyone to have a voice in how to heal this harm. Wrongdoing and conflict are viewed as learning opportunities. By actively participating in this response to problem behaviors, both students and teachers learn how to make good choices when wrongdoing and conflict occur. They learn how to make peaceful and nonviolent choices through dialogue with each other.

Building the capacity of students and teachers to solve problems nonviolently is a key result of viewing wrongdoing and conflict as learning opportunities. In this way classrooms become more peaceful, and children grow up more likely to confront problems as adults nonviolently. Healing the harm to relationships is fundamental to maintaining healthy relationships. Because students say that relationships with their friends are a prime motivator for them to attend school, it is up to us, as educators, to help them learn how to create and maintain these relationships. This effort will help children stay in school and succeed. This new discourse focused on restorative justice is based on a cultural model. This model focuses on the impact responses to behavior problems have on the culture of the classroom. In the end, it’s about attitude, doing school “with” students, right and inclusive relationships across the school, teachers positioning and theorizing with regard to disciplining students who come from a different culture, and involving all staff.

22.6 Basic Principles of Restorative Justice in Schools Restorative justice is a recognized response to the problem of discriminatory school discipline policies and practices. Restorative justice practices are based on training teachers and administrators about how they can respond to these wrongdoing and conflictual problems without punishment. Practitioners of restorative justice use a relationshipsbased approach to problems related to behavior, where creating and maintaining relationships is the key. Educators using restorative justice practices are asked to value the importance of relationships, and specifically to seek a way for those relationships that are harmed to be repaired so there can be harmony in the classroom. Repairing broken and harmed relationships becomes the emphasis rather than punishing or having consequences.

22.6.1 Relationships In this approach educators can be thinking about how they can respond to behavioral issues in the classroom in a caring way rather than referring the students to another professional outside the classroom for punishment with consequences. If broken and harmed relationships are healed in the classroom, the student who created the harm is able to progress. However, if the teacher refers a student who misbehaves to a dean or administrator for punishment, the student returns to the classroom later. If relationships have not been repaired when the student returns to that classroom, they are not able to participate in a positive manner. Harmed and broken relationships still exist in the classroom, whether it’s with the teacher or with the student’s peers. In this age of social media, harming relationships seems to occur on a frequent, if not daily, basis. If educators can enable students to acquire the skills for healing relationships when harm has occurred, they will be helping them to maintain that motivation to come to school and to have the skills to get along in the workplace and in their marriages and their families. Restorative justice practices offer such processes as talking circles. Talking circles are used as a place for people to talk about issues in a way that is not dominated by any one person,

where each individual is able to talk and have a voice, because the person holding the talking stick or instrument does the talking, and everybody else listens. Positions of power and status have no place in the talking circle. Everyone has an equal voice. Talking circles are a method that is used in schools for welcoming students, setting the norms in classrooms, and solving problems, particularly those that are related to a group of students. Often behavior issues in the classroom affect the whole class, not just one or two individuals. These particular processes are important not only in solving problems, but also in managing classrooms. Classroom management is a significant issue in the United States. This is a major reason cited by teachers for leaving the profession within the first five years (Lindqvist, Nordänger, & Carlsson, 2014). Time and resources are being used to train teachers only to have them leave the profession within the first five years. The preparation of teachers in classroom management is the weakest area of teacher training. Teachers are also not well supported in managing classrooms once they are in schools. However, adoption of restorative justice principles and practices supports teachers, particularly new teachers, in managing classrooms positively and effectively. For example, in one classroom in our pilot study the teacher had completely lost control of her classroom. She went to the dean of students at the school and said, “I’m just desperate. I know you had this restorative justice going for a while, and I’ve ignored it and thought it was just not something that I wanted to be involved in and really wasn’t affected, but I’m desperate. Would you come into my classroom and hold a talking circle so we could set some norms and talk about these issues?” After the circle was held just once the teacher reported that “It has been different ever since.” In the talking circle the teacher and students came to an agreement. They wrote down the ideas that they came up with, and the agreement was posted on the classroom wall so that everybody could see the ideas and be reminded of what had been agreed. The teacher was impressed with how the climate of the classroom changed as a result of one talking circle. Often in this work the complaint or the criticism is heard that it takes too much time to engage in restorative justice practices. However, when you think of the disruptions that result from poor discipline, disorder, and chaos in the classroom, if one circle could make that much difference, the time spent preventatively saves time later on. This restorative justice process also helps students take responsibility for their behaviors. It is important to recognize that when students are referred out of the classroom to a dean, for instance, for punishment, they are not taking responsibility for what they have done or the harm caused to relationships. For students to be able to say, “Hey, I was wrong, and I need to tell you that I was wrong, and I need to apologize and see what I can do to fix the situation,” provides a learning opportunity for students. People involved in restorative justice practices turn what is called a disruption to learning into a learning opportunity. That’s a key issue when it comes to schooling and thinking about discipline.

22.7 The Evidence The research clearly shows that discipline and achievement are linked. The same research also shows that we can’t think of discipline and achievement without thinking of race because students of color are disproportionately represented in the statistics of underachievement, and these students are disciplined more harshly and more often (Gregory et al., 2010). Research demonstrated students of color tend to be disciplined more often than their peers (Joffe, 2014). For example, African American students represented 15% of the students in the study. However, they made up 35% of students suspended once, 44% of students suspended more than once, and 36% of students expelled from school. In addition, over half of the students arrested at school or referred to law enforcement were Hispanic or African American (Joffe, 2014). The second piece of research that’s important is the right to learn. The right to be learning in the classroom is considered to be a human right because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right of every individual to be literate. As a result, if educators keep students, particularly children of color, out of the classroom through referrals for issues related to behavior, these children are being deprived of the right to be literate, and the right to be able to learn (Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). The U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) research further showed that students of color are losing valuable instructional time due to exclusionary discipline practices, such as inschool and outofschool suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement. These practices create the potential for serious, longterm negative outcomes for students of color, and can contribute to the schooltoprison pipeline (Joffe, 2014). Consequently, there’s a real need for educators to change the ways that they respond to wrongdoing and conflict, particularly in the classroom, so that children in school, particularly children of color, can be present in the classroom and have the opportunity to learn. After all, society wants young people to be able to do well, to complete school, to enter the workplace, a university, or a technical school, to be the kind of person that they want to be and be successful in the way they think would be successful. It’s important to think of all these restorative justice practices and to keep in mind their cultural aspect. This idea brings to mind one interview I had with a young Maori girl who responded when asked about what it was like to be Maori in her school: “Most of the time the lights are out, except Tuesday afternoons.” I knew that the school administration said she was a fine student, never got into trouble, and earned good grades. However, she had to compromise and leave her identity as Maori at the school gate except on Tuesday afternoons during kapahaka practice, that is, Maori performing arts. That is not what we, as educators, want. We want her to be able to be Maori and to be proud to be Maori in the school all the time, in all her classes. That’s what a culturally responsive pedagogy is about, being able to let culturally diverse children be who and what they are all the time in the classroom, whether it is math or science or any other class, without exceptions. We can do that if we’re sensitive and listen to the words

of people like Geneva Gay (2000) and Gloria LadsonBillings ( 2014). Educators need to understand that they can create a new culture in schools—a culture of care, where educators care not only about the learning of these children but also about them as culturally located individuals (Valenzuela, 1999). At the core of a culture of care is the idea of “building healthy and caring relationships” (Cavanagh, 2012, p. 136). In alignment with this fundamental idea of building healthy and caring relationships, a culture of care is based on: (1) an ethic of care (caring for students’ wellbeing as a key role for teachers; Noddings, 1992); (2) culturally responsive pedagogy of relations (placing relationships at the center of teaching and learning; Gay, 2000; Ladson Billings, 2014); and (3) restorative practices (focusing on repairing harm, particularly to relationships; Macfarlane, 2007; Macfarlane & Margrain, 2011). This profound change in the culture of the school is based on the following ideas: Involving culturally diverse families and communities in the school. Embracing a culturally embedded vision for a new school culture based on what the culturally diverse community, families, and children want and need. Providing leadership for the school, particularly in the person of the principal, who supports a vision for change, is willing to take the risk of being unpopular, particularly with some faculty who want to maintain the status quo, and is willing to help those faculty who refuse to change to find a place to work where they are comfortable. Embedding a consistent, culturally appropriate pedagogy of relationships in all of the classrooms. Creating a sense that all students belong to the school community, similar to belonging to a family. Changing the language used in the school from labeling to restoring. Embedding a culturally appropriate response to wrongdoing and conflict in all of the classrooms. Finally, the teacher inquiry model (Butler & Schnellert, 2012) is used with educators at a school. This is a process of reflection on the meaning of these data in light of the principles of sociocultural theory. This model of inquiry contrasts with the usual problem to solution practice without reflecting on the meaning of the data and a meaningful response.

22.7.1 Importance of Relationships 22.7.1.1 Collegial Relationships Restorative tools can be used to build and maintain a healthy community among leaders and staff in schools. Often there is tension between faculty and administration in schools. This tension is noticed by students and affects them. As a result, it is important to find a way to minimize this tension. Restorative practices, particularly in the form of talking circles, provide

a safe place for faculty and administration to give voice to their feelings and emotions. If this kind of safe place is provided, tensions will be minimized. Also problemsolving restorative circles provide an opportunity to address difficulties and come to a consensus agreement on how to deal with them. 22.7.1.2 Teacher–Student Relationships Restorative tools can also be used to build and maintain a healthy classroom community among teachers and students. At the heart of creating a culturally appropriate pedagogy of relationships are the relationships and interactions between teachers and their students. It is important that teachers realize that their relationships with culturally diverse students in particular make a big difference in students’ motivation to do well and to attend school. As an example, one assistant principal at a large high school in the Denver Metropolitan area explained: So, are they going above and beyond to really form a good relationship with those kids instead of saying this kid, he can’t do things my way; I’m going to just keep sending him out, and I don’t know why they think people are going to get rid of these kids. I tell them, “They are going to be in your classroom all year, so they’re not going anywhere. We don’t have anywhere to put them, and even if we did, we wouldn’t, and so that’s why the restorative justice—the restorative relationship piece is so important.” (Cavanagh et al., 2014, p. 571)

22.8 Restorative Activities in the Classroom In order to reduce referrals and, as a result, reduce students’ time out of the classroom and increase their time for learning, the capacity of teachers and students to respond to wrongdoing and conflict needs to be improved. Restorative justice principles and practices offer a means for developing the capacity of students and teachers to respond to wrongdoing and conflict in a nonviolent way. The following restorative justice practices can be used by teachers and students to respond to wrongdoing and conflict particularly regarding problem behaviors in the classroom.

22.8.1 Restorative Language and Conversations At the heart of creating a new culture of care in schools is the use of restorative language as part of a new way of talking. This restorative language looks at respecting the dignity of every person in the school. Most importantly, labels are avoided. A strengthsbased approach is used by looking at the strengths of individuals rather than looking at their deficits. As a result, there is a need to create a space for holding conversations to resolve issues between people. Restorative conversations offer this possibility by focusing on the problem rather than on the person. In these conversations the first thing is to identify the problem and agree exactly what it is. Then the conversation turns to the effects of the problem. Next, the conversation focuses on what it is like when the problem does not exist. Finally, the conversation concludes with an

agreement as to what steps can be taken to move from the current state where the problem exists toward the state where the problem does not exist.

22.8.2 Community Circles Community circles are a semiformal tool to help teachers and students build connectedness. This sense of connectedness is created through holding talking circles for purposes of welcoming everyone to the classroom and to create a sense of cooperation by establishing norms in addition to the nonnegotiable rules. So restorative community talking circles are held for two different reasons. The first is to welcome students at the beginning of the year or new students as they arrive during the school year, and to make them feel comfortable in the classroom. This type of welcoming needs to be held in each classroom that the student attends. The second purpose of communitybuilding circles is to foster cooperation among the students and the teacher. This circle is held for the purpose of establishing classroom norms, which go beyond the nonnegotiable norms that every school has and generally each teacher has for his or her individual classroom. These norms are jointly agreed upon by the students and the teacher as the norms for behaving in the classroom. If these norms are written down on a piece of paper, signed by all students, and then posted in the classroom, they can be referred to from time to time if needed and even revised as appropriate.

22.8.3 Restorative Circles Restorative circles combine the two interventions, that is, the restorative conversation and the community circle, for the purposes of group problem solving. Sometimes problems arise, particularly regarding behavior that affects the whole class rather than one or two individuals. In this case it is worthwhile to hold a restorative circle so as to address the conflict or wrongdoing that has created a problem in the classroom. In this talking circle the format for restorative conversations is used in a talking circle process.

22.8.4 Restorative Activities Outside of the Classroom, Restorative Conferencing For those situations that require a response to wrongdoing and conflict outside of the classroom, particularly regarding issues that pose a more serious threat to safety, there is the opportunity to use the restorative justice practice called restorative conferencing. Restorative conferencing can be described in the following steps: preconference, conference, and agreement. 22.8.4.1 Preconference The preconference is used to prepare students, staff, parents, and anyone affected by the incident of wrongdoing or conflict so that everyone knows the story of what happened before the conference, and understands the conference format. The preconference offers an opportunity for the participants to decide whether or not they want to take part and for the facilitator of the conference to decide whether or not a conference can be safely held, that is,

that no further harm will occur. 22.8.4.2 Conference Formal restorative conferences are used to address specific incidents of serious harm. They are facilitated by trained people. The conference is held when everybody agrees to participate, and the conference can be held without any further harm occurring. The main purpose of the conference is to let the participants tell their story to one another. The primary participants are the person who caused the harm, the person who was harmed, and the affected community or communities, together with support personnel for the person causing the harm and the person who was harmed. Ideally the participants will meet face to face. However, in some circumstances this is not permissible, possible, or feasible. Also the person who was harmed may choose not to meet face to face. In this event people can participate in other ways, for example through an advocate, by phone, or by letter. The idea is to have their voice present as part of the conference. Participants in the conference are seated in a circle with the facilitator at the top of the circle and the cofacilitator across from the facilitator. To one side of the facilitator will be the person who was harmed and their support personnel. To the other side of the facilitator will be the person who caused the harm and their support personnel. The community members can be seated on either side of the cofacilitator. The role of the facilitator is to make sure that the participants understand and agree to the ground rules and to ensure that a conversation is held where no further harm is caused. The facilitator also oversees any agreement that is reached as a result of the conversation. The role of the cofacilitator is to take notes of what was said during the conference and particularly those items that might be part of an agreement. The cofacilitator then uses the notes to write up the agreement for everyone to sign at the end of the conference. 22.8.4.3 Agreement The agreement focuses on specific plans to put right the harm that has been done, including personalized ways for students to learn new skills/attitudes to avoid future trouble, and allows for easy monitoring and followup. The agreement must be agreed to by all the participants present and must be simple, that is, written in simple language so everyone can understand. It must be achievable—something that the person who caused the harm can do in a reasonable amount of time. And the agreement must be measurable, that is, whatever is agreed must be able to be measured in such a way that it is clear when the agreement has been achieved or completed.

22.8.5 Additional Restorative Interventions 22.8.5.1 Brief Restorative Interventions for Administrators, Deans, and Counselors

These referralbased problemsolving tools are designed to be used by administrators, deans, and counselors. These processes occur outside of the classroom and involve the use of a scripted and facilitated talking circle to repair any harm to relationships, such as children being out of school for such things as suspension, placement in an alternative setting, or incarceration. As these students return to the school, they need to be welcomed back as a member of the school community. Also they need to have the opportunity to repair the harm to relationships that may have provoked or resulted from the outofschool placement. 22.8.5.2 Brief Restorative Interventions for Teachers and Students These problemsolving tools were designed to be used by teachers and students. These processes occur inside the classroom and involve the use of a scripted and facilitated talking circle to repair any harm to relationships associated with students being out of the classroom for any reason, but particularly when harm to relationships has occurred associated with the child being out of the classroom. As these children return to the classroom they need to be welcomed back, advised of the major events they missed, and given the opportunity to repair the harm to relationships that may have provoked or resulted from their placement outside of the classroom.

22.8.6 Culturally Sustainable Restorative Practices Because of the problem of the discriminatory nature of traditional discipline practices in schools and because of the need for schools to adopt nondiscriminatory discipline policies and practices, it is important to use restorative justice principles and practices of building and maintaining relationships and exercising holistic care. Culturally sustainable restorative practices need to focus on these ideas (Cavanagh, 2012): Building and maintaining healthy, caring, and respectful relationships. Responding restoratively to student wrongdoing and conflict. Regarding student wrongdoing and conflict as an opportunity for building trusting and caring relationships that can be the foundation for repairing any harm to those relationships and promoting positive relationships. Helping students and teachers to build their capacity to solve problems nonviolently.

22.8.7 Action Plan Educators at all levels are encouraged to create a plan of action based on the principles of appreciative inquiry (Patton, 2015). These particular individual and community action plans are needed in order to change the culture of schools to a culture of care based on restorative justice principles and practices. This profound change in school culture is needed in order to address the racebased achievement and discipline gaps (Gregory et al., 2010) in a systematic way rather than treating these two gaps as separate issues. These plans of actions need to be based on building upon the assets of the community, rather than the deficits. Educators need to create such an action plan as a result of entering into a

dialogic process, legitimating the voices of all members of the community. Three questions need to be addressed in this dialogue (Patton, 2015): 1. What are we doing well with regard to implementing restorative justice principles and practices in order to create a culture of care in this school? 2. What would it look like ideally if this school had a culture of care based on restorative justice principles and practices? 3. What steps can we take now to begin to move from where we are toward that ideal? The writing of such an action plan is the first step of a threeyear journey for changing the culture of schools. The first year is focused on a needs assessment. The second year is focused on capacitybuilding, and the third year is focused on sustainability.

22.8.8 Stories By way of examples of how restorative justice principles are employed in practice, here is a description of a couple of cases of how a culture of care was created using restorative practices. The first example involves a pilot project that was conducted at a high school of about 1,500 students located on the outskirts of Denver, Colorado in a community that is very diverse, primarily populated with people of lower socioeconomic status (SES) who are new immigrants from Mexico and other parts of South America, such as Guatemala and El Salvador. This high school has an enrollment of over 60% Latino/Hispanic students, and other students of color compose another 20%. White students are definitely the minority group in the school. However, the teachers are largely White and affluent and come from outside the community, resulting in a cultural gap because the teachers come from a vastly different community than where the students live. The teachers speak English at home, while many of the Latino/Hispanic children speak Spanish at home. The teachers eat different foods and celebrate different holidays than the students. Before the research and professional development team began working at this high school, it was controlled by the gangs. There was a strong police presence, metal detectors, and dogs sniffing the students’ lockers. This was the climate of the school when the culture of care pilot project began. Now let’s fast forward three years and talk about what the climate was like when the research team left the school. The police were largely in the parking lot, drinking coffee and observing, and were rarely seen inside the school. There were no students roaming the hallways between classes and even during classes. There were no gang colors being worn. So what happened during this threeyear pilot project? The research and professional development team went into the school and began working with a group of teachers and administrators called the equity team. These were educators that wanted to change things at school and were dedicated to using restorative justice principles and practices as the basis for creating a new culture of care. The first year was dedicated to doing a needs assessment. The second year was spent building

the capacity of the teachers. The third year was devoted to creating sustainability. So in that first year the researchers observed teachers and provided them with feedback. They interviewed Latino/Hispanic students and their parents, as well as the principal and counselors, to get an overview of what was going on in the school and what needed to be changed. Interestingly, the parents became involved after being interviewed, and they obtained a grant to provide restorative justice professional development training for the teachers. Before the next school year started, a restorative justice trainingthetrainer professional development training was held so that the participants in the training could then go out and train others, and that’s exactly what’s happened. About 12 teachers and administrators were initially trained, and after three years restorative justice practices were spread throughout the school community. During the second year, teachers were observed and given feedback each quarter. As a result, four times a year all of the teachers were observed and given feedback by the equity team and the research and professional development team about what was observed in the classroom regarding culturally appropriate pedagogy and how responses to wrongdoing and conflict changed from punishment and consequences to those focused on repairing the harm to relationships. This shift was not only for the students but also the staff. Staff began using these processes for resolving their own disagreements. One time during a discussion and disagreement about what textbook to adopt for the math curriculum, faculty in the math department used the restorative justice talking circle to resolve their differences. They were happy with the results, and since then the restorative justice talking circle has become the norm for resolving issues, not only in the classroom but outside the classroom as well. This school became one that looked at how to resolve issues in a different way. As a result, a number of changes occurred. Truancy dropped to almost zero. In fact one teacher said, “What am I going to do? I used to depend on these students not showing up. Now they’re showing up, and I don’t know how to teach them.” Another interesting result was the improved graduation rate for Latino/Hispanic students. Now that they stayed in school and completed high school, the graduation rate improved from 50 to 80% in three years. Following the high school pilot project, the research and professional development team introduced the culture of care at a middle school. Here is one specific example of what can happen when restorative justice principles and practices are introduced in a middle school. The middle school where the research and professional development team worked in the 2014–2015 school year had a majority of students that were Latino/Hispanic, largely of low SES. The dean of students called the leader of the research and professional development team one day. He said, “I have a group of girls who are Latino/Hispanic except one girl is White. They used to be best friends, but now they aren’t getting along, and it’s about one of the girls bringing marijuana to school. So would you facilitate a circle for them?” The leader of the research and professional development team agreed to go to the school. Before the talking circle got started, one girl walked into the room, looked around to see who

was there, and said, “I’m not doing this.” She left. A couple of other girls came in. One said, “I think I’ll come in. I don’t know if I’ll say anything.” The leader said, “That’s fine. You can just sit here.” So they sat down, and the leader said, “What I want to explain is we have a talking stick here. The person who holds the talking stick does the talking, and the rest of the people have to listen. The talking stick gets passed around the circle, not across. Everybody gets a chance to participate. If you don’t want to say something, fine; just pass the stick to the next person, but we encourage everybody to participate. Everything that is said in the circle needs to stay in the circle, and we need to promise each other that that’s what we agree to do.” Then the leader said, “The dean of students asked me to come here today. So I’m going to ask him to tell me what’s the problem, and then I’m going to ask you. Do you agree?” The dean started talking about the problem being one of getting along. These girls used to get along, and he wanted to see if the participants in the circle could repair the situation so they could get along again. The girls had a different view about the problem, however. They saw it as a girl bringing marijuana to school, for certain, but the girl who got blamed for bringing marijuana to school and got suspended was not the girl who should have taken the blame. That was an interesting relation. As the talking circle continued, the participants heard that one of the girls in the talking circle was relying on a girl she thought was a trusted friend to tell her the truth, when in fact it looked like she hadn’t told the truth. So this girl, after the talking stick had gone around the circle several times, said, “You know, I think I need to change my mind. I think I made a mistake, and I thought my friend was telling me the truth, and obviously she wasn’t, and as a result you took the blame, and you were suspended for five days.” As the talking circle ended, the participants agreed that they would get along in the future. They would work at having a good relationship and be more open to each other and listen to each other and hold another circle if they needed to. As the girls left the room, they were hugging each other and chatting. When another administrator came into the room a few minutes later, he said, “What the heck. I don’t know what happened in here, but I never expected that kind of outcome.” The leader said, “That’s the power of the talking circle. It really has its own power. If you believe in miracles, that’s exactly what we saw.” Educators are encouraged to try the talking circle and to use it in their practice. It is a very simple but very effective tool. The students can even facilitate the circle, but it’s a powerful tool, and you should try it.

22.9 Conclusion The phrase restorative justice is a relatively new and often unrecognized term in education. However, with the adoption of a new Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline policy by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice in January of 2014, this term became

well known. While the ideas presented here are based on research conducted over a period of more than 10 years (Berryman, Macfarlane, & Cavanagh, 2009; Cavanagh, 2003, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d; Cavanagh, Macfarlane, Glynn, & Macfarlane, 2012; Cavanagh et al., 2014; Macfarlane, Glynn, Cavanagh, & Bateman, 2007; Vigil, Cavanagh, & Garcia, 2013) and the restorative justice professional development training referenced here is based on evidence (Corrigan, 2012), there is more research to be conducted to legitimate the place of restorative justice in education. Presently a systematic review is being conducted by the respected Campbell Collaboration focused on how restorative justice qualifies as a schoolbased intervention for reducing exclusions from school (Valdebenito, Eisner, Farrington, Ttofi, & Sutherland, 2015). Also a report was published posing research questions for future research in the field (Hurley, Guckenberg, Persson, Fronius, & Petrosino, 2015). The research questions cover the areas of implementation readiness, implementation and effectiveness, impacts of racial and ethnic minorities and students with disabilities, leadership/training, data and measurement, and sustainability. The results and findings from these studies will improve the work of practitioners implementing restorative justice principles and practices in schools. In the end the goal is to reduce the discriminatory disciplinary policies and practices in schools and eliminate the schooltoprison pipeline.

References Berryman, M., Macfarlane, S., & Cavanagh, T. (2009). Indigenous contexts for responding to challenging behaviours: Contrasting Western accountability and Maori restoration of harmony. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 5(1), 1–32. Bishop, R. (2008). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. The Professional Practice of Teaching, 3, 154–171. Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (2003). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. Buckley, S., & Maxwell, G. M. (2007). Respectful schools: Restorative practices in education: A summary report. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Institute of Policy Studies, School of Government. Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1206–1220. Canter, L., & Canter, M. (2001). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior management for today’s classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Cavanagh, T. (2003). Schooling for peace: Caring for our children in school. Experiments in Education, 31(8), 139–143.

Cavanagh, T. (2007). Focusing on relationships creates safety in schools. set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 31–35. Cavanagh, T. (2009a). Restorative practices in schools: Breaking the cycle of student involvement in child welfare and legal systems. Protecting Children, 24(4), 53–60. Cavanagh, T. (2009b). Creating schools of peace and nonviolence in a time of war and violence. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 64–80. Cavanagh, T. (2009c). Creating a new discourse of peace in schools: Restorative justice in education. Journal for Peace and Justice Studies (Special Issue on Restorative Justice), 18(1–2), 62–84. Cavanagh, T. (2009d). Creating a new discourse of peace in schools: Restorative justice in education. Journal for Peace and Justice Studies (Special Issue on Restorative Justice), 18(1–2), 62–84. Cavanagh, T. (2012). Creating peaceful and nonviolent schools in the midst of war and violence. In P. R. Carr & B. J. Porfilio (Eds.), Educating for peace in a time of “permanent war”: Are schools part of the solution or the problem? New York, NY: Routledge. Cavanagh, T., Macfarlane, A., Glynn, T., & Macfarlane, S. (2012). Creating peaceful and effective schools through a culture of care. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33(3), 443–455. Cavanagh, T., Vigil, P., & Garcia, E. (2014). A story legitimating the voices of Latino/Hispanic students and their parents: Creating a restorative justice response to wrongdoing and conflict in schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 47(4), 565–579. doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.958966 Cooper, J. O. (1982). Applied behavior analysis in education. Theory into Practice, 21(2), 114–118. Corrigan, M. (2012). Restorative practices in New Zealand: The evidence base. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Drewery, W. (2004). Conferencing in schools: Punishment, restorative justice, and the productive importance of the process of conversation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 332–344. Feryok, A. (2013). Teaching for learner autonomy: The teacher’s role and sociocultural theory. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 213–225. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gorski, E. (2015). Colorado graduation rates inch up, dropout rates dip again. The Denver Post. Retrieved from www.denverpost.com

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68. Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). Schoolwide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–6. Hurley, N., Guckenberg, S., Persson, H., Fronius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2015). What further research is needed on restorative justice in schools? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Joffe, B. (2014, November 15–19). Racial disproportionality in school discipline and the schooltoprison pipeline . In 142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition, New Orleans, LA. LadsonBillings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. Lindqvist, P., Nordänger, U. K., & Carlsson, R. (2014). Teacher attrition the first five years: A multifaceted image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94–103. Macfarlane, A. H. (2007). Discipline, democracy, and diversity: Working with students with behaviour difficulties. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press. Macfarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T., & Bateman, S. (2007). Creating culturally safe schools for Maori students. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36, 65–76. Also published, with permission, on New Zealand Ministry of Education’s LeadSpace website, dedicated to building leadership capacity. Retrieved from http:/www.leadspace.govt.nz/leadership/articles/creatingculturally.php Macfarlane, A., & Margrain, V. (2011). He Tapuwae o Mua: Footsteps towards responsive engagement with challenging behaviour. In V. Margrain & A. Macfarlane (Eds.), Responsive pedagogy: Engaging restoratively with challenging behaviour (pp. 7–26). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER. Maxwell, G. M., & Morris, A. (1992). The family group conference: A new paradigm for making decisions about children and young people. Children Australia, 17(4), 11–15. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teacher and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pranis, K., Stuart, B., & Wedge, M. (2003). Peacemaking circles: From crime to community.

St. Paul, MN: Living Justice Press. Restorative Practices Development Team. (2003). Restorative practices for schools: A resource. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, School of Education. Rogers, B. (2003). Effective supply teaching: Behaviour management, classroom discipline and colleague support. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Sawyer, K. (2012). Extending sociocultural theory to group creativity. Vocations and Learning, 5, 59–75. Skinner, B. F. (2014). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: B. F. Skinner Foundation. Smith, L. H. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed Books. Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, D., Ttofi, M., & Sutherland, A. (2015). Schoolbased interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Vigil, P. M., Cavanagh, T., & Garcia, E. (2013). Developing peacemakers in the classroom: An alternative discourse in a culture of war and violence. Peace Studies Journal, 6(1), 79–91. Winn, M. T., & Behizadeh, N. (2011). The right to be literate: Literacy, education, and the schooltoprison pipeline. Review of Research in Education, 35, 147–173. Zehr, H. (1995). Changing lenses. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Part 5 Evaluation and Assessment Teachers and learners have always been subject to evaluation and assessment. It is important to know where teachers and their students stand in relationship to the standards and variables viewed as central to the teaching and learning process. Are teachers and learners being evaluated on their achievements or by metrics that no longer provide an honest picture of what is being accomplished? The chapters in this section look at possible answers to this question. In “Back to the Future: Assessment from 1990 to 2016,” Elliott Asp outlines the genesis of numerous factors leading to the focus on assessment in education. Asp provides the reader ample opportunity to reflect on the conflicting approaches to assessment in teaching and learning and to consider alternative purposes and uses of assessing the achievement of teachers and learners. OxenfordO’Brian and Uchiyama’s “Views of Classroom Assessment: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow” provides an overview of classroom assessment from the early twentieth century to the present, describes current conceptions of effective assessment within the context of K12 classrooms, and suggests future directions for datadriven school assessment. The authors cite a need for additional research in educator assessment literacy in relation to assessment standards, and they provide an example of classroom assessment. In “Rethinking Teacher Quality in the Age of Smart Machines,” Zhao challenges the current definition of “teacher quality” and provides evidence and examples of ways teaching has and should change given the transformation in learners’ circumstances. The author outlines current assumptions of teaching and learning and leads the reader to recognize the necessity for revisiting the definition of what effective teaching should entail. Bennett and Anderson’s discussion of the instructional practices of teachers in “Rethinking the Intersection of Instruction, Change, and Systemic Change” offers the reader a schematic for considering instruction and ways to impact the learning of all students. In viewing the interactive nature of instruction through a theoretical, practical, and research lens, the authors encourage the reader to rethink current practices and the longitudinal effect of change. In “On the Limits to EvidenceBased Learning of Educational Science,” Ladwig offers the rationale behind the quest for evidence in educational research and a close analysis of research on evidencebased learning. Through the author’s description of political practices in Australia and examples of the impetus toward evidencebased learning, he illustrates core problems of empiricism that educational researchers should be aware of in order to create more focus on educators who are closest to the learners.

23 Back to the Future: Assessment from 1990 to 2016 Elliott Asp Colorado Education Initiative

23.1 Introduction Assessment has become an increasingly popular topic among educators, policymakers, parents, and students. Over the past 25 years their views of the appropriate role for assessment in education have changed significantly. This is due in large part to the performance assessment revolution of the 1990s and the emergence of standards and assessments as the basis for federal and state education reform efforts. The interest in assessment also grew out of an expanding knowledge base regarding the powerful impact of assessment on classroom instruction and student achievement (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998a). In addition, policymakers believed that public reporting of student achievement data from largescale state tests along with sanctions and rewards associated with those results would lead to positive changes in educator practice and outcomes for students (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2011). The development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2008 and the creation of the two national assessment consortiums funded by the federal government to develop measures of the CCSS in 2010—the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)—expanded the interest in assessment to a broader set of stakeholders that extended beyond just educators and policymakers. As PARCC and SBAC became operational and were administered for the first time in the 2015–2016 school year, student assessment became a polarizing, “hot button” ideological issue creating new alliances that cut across the political spectrum.1 At the core of this increasingly widespread interest in (and sometimes fear of) assessment on the part of a variety of stakeholders are some longstanding themes, including: The struggle to find the right balance between assessment of learning and assessment for learning at the classroom, school, district, and state level. Continued attempts by policymakers to use largescale assessment for a variety of different purposes ranging from accountability to providing diagnostic data for teachers and students. The developing understanding of the role of assessment in changing instructional practice and improving student achievement. These themes drove our conversations about assessment in the 1990s, and they still do so today. In this chapter we will explore these concepts and how they have influenced the role of assessment at the state and national level and, most importantly, what we have learned about

maximizing the power of assessment to improve student achievement and inform instruction in classrooms and schools. We will begin with a review of developments in largescale assessment and accountability over the past 25 years and then focus on the parallel track of our increasing knowledge about classroom formative assessment (the next iteration in the assessment revolution) and how it influenced largescale assessment as well as instructional practice. We will then contrast assessment of learning and assessment for learning and focus on how assessment for learning can improve instructional practice and increase student learning. Finally, we will outline a concept of a truly comprehensive assessment system that provides useful data for continuous improvement at the classroom and state level.

23.2 The Growth of LargeScale Assessment and the Expansion of AssessmentBased Accountability Federal education policy requiring objective testing for accountability in K12 settings was initiated in 1965 in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I of ESEA required state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to “evaluate the effectiveness of programs in meeting the special education needs of educationally deprived children” and specified that the “evaluations will include effective measurements of educational achievement in basic skills” (as cited in MerkelKeller, 1986, p. 9). At the time, a lack of consistent ways to assess students and no consequences for failing to do so meant this provision had no practical impact on assessment in schools, but it did establish the groundwork for what was to come next (Popham, 2011). Nine years later, the 1974 ESEA reauthorization established a national reporting system on the effectiveness of Title I, which required local education agencies to collect student achievement data for students benefiting from Title I funding and report results to state education agencies that ultimately provided those data to the federal government. The 1988 reauthorization of ESEA further expanded requirements for local education agencies to provide evidence of the achievement of students benefiting from Title I funds. For the first time SEAs and LEAs were required to annually assess students benefiting from Title I funds (Thomas & Brady, 2005) and report on the results. Amidst the expansion of uses of objective assessment to evaluate the impact of federal K12 programs, in 1983, then Secretary of Education Terrence Bell commissioned the report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This report declared that, “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people” (p. 1). The recommendation made to remedy this situation was that educational institutions at all levels establish “more rigorous and measurable [emphasis added] standards and higher expectations for academic performance” (p. 4). This report ignited more than a decade of intense activity aimed at reforming education systems and practices in the United States focused on reorienting our educational systems around what we wanted students to know and be able to do, or standards, and holding schools accountable for students meeting those

standards through the use of student assessment results. Six years later, in 1989, President George H. W. Bush convened the nations’ governors for a National Education Summit in Charlottesville, Virginia to respond to perceived inadequacies in K12 education. At this summit, the governors established six national goals for U.S. education to meet by the year 2000 and committed to monitoring them; the goals included the following: all children will start school ready to learn, 90% of high school students will graduate, students will be competent in basic subjects and exhibit responsible citizenship, and U.S. students will lead the world in mathematics and science (Bush, 1989). The National Education Goals “became one of the centerpieces of educational reform in the 1990’s” (Vinovskis, 1999, p. 1), cutting across both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations (Klein, 2014). In 1990, President Bush along with the governors established the National Education Goals Panel to annually report on the nation’s progress toward the National Education Goals with threeterm Colorado governor, Democrat Roy Romer, as the first chair. However, “it was clear from the panel’s first report, issued in the fall of 1991, that a lack of clear assessment measures complicated the task” (Klein, 2014, p. 20). This set the stage for an expansion of comparable measures of student achievement at the state level. As the leader of the National Governors’ Association education task force, then Governor Bill Clinton played a key role in the 1989 National Education Summit. Not surprisingly, the 1994 Clinton presidential administration reauthorization of ESEA, the Improving America’s School Act (IASA), further expanded federal requirements related to assessment consistent with the agenda established at the National Summit. “The law required that states set challenging and rigorous content standards for all students and develop assessments, aligned with the standards, to measure student progress” (Shepard, Hannaway, & Baker, 2009, p. 2). The accountability provisions of IASA also required states to disaggregate student achievement data by statutorily specified student groups (Fast & Erpenbach, 2004). This was a departure from prior reauthorizations because it expanded federal testing requirements to all students, not just those benefiting from federal funds. In addition, because IASA required that assessments be tied to standards and to determining the achievement of those standards—rather than comparing students with one another— many state officials found they needed to move toward a starkly different assessment strategy for their state’s accountability tests. (Popham, 2008, p. 9)

This represented a shift for states both in the range of items that were included in state tests and in how they scored those tests (Riddle, 2008). The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) during the George W. Bush administration, further intensified the focus on using assessment results for state, district, and school accountability. It established a target for all states to reach by 2014— 100% of students scoring proficient on state accountability tests—with commensurate increases in the requirements for the percent of students scoring proficient each year leading up to 2014. It also required states to specify, report on, and meet targets for the performance of

disaggregated groups of students. NCLB included a series of potential sanctions for districts and schools that failed to meet these targets, although subsequent state waivers reduced those requirements. NCLB expanded the grade levels and content areas in which states were required to administer assessments to include English language arts (ELA) and math for grades 3–8, and once in high school, and in science once in grades 3–5, 6–9, and once in high school. Even before NCLB, largescale testing was big business. By 2000, developing and scoring largescale tests was a very lucrative endeavor. According to a 2001 Frontline report (Public Broadcasting Service, 2001): [T]est sales in 1955 were $7 million (adjusted to 1998 dollars), that figure was $263 million in 1997, an increase of more than 3,000 percent. Today (2001), press reports put the value of the testing market anywhere from $400 million to $700 million. (para. 3) Fueled by the testing and reporting requirements of NCLB, the testing market continued to grow. And, as of 2015, the revenue generated by the four largest commercial testing companies (Pearson, ETS, Houghton Mifflin, and McGrawHill) was over $2 billion and they collectively spent $200 million on government lobbying activities (Kamenetz, 2015). In 2005, George W. Bush’s Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, announced a Growth Model Pilot Program that allowed states to apply to use growth measures as a means of complying with the NCLB accountability requirements. Participating states’ growth measures had to: be based upon assessments in each of grades 3–8 and high school in both language arts and mathematics; produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year; and receive approval through the NCLB peer review process. This encouraged an expansion of new scoring methodologies and ways of measuring the impact of educational programming on student learning. One of the most popular methods for measuring student growth was developed in Colorado and was aptly named the “Colorado Growth Model” (Colorado Department of Education, 2015a). This method is employed by a number of states in their accountability systems and requires annual testing across grades to provide the most accurate measure of growth. In spite of a fiveyear reauthorization cycle in the law, between 2002 and 2015 Congress did not consider reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, the Obama administration’s U.S. Department of Education (USDE) pursued other mechanisms to influence K12 education. They established a process by which states could seek waivers for certain provisions of ESEA, and implemented several Race to the Top (RTTT) competitive grant programs. Both of these efforts had a substantive impact on accountability testing. In 2011, Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, invited Chief State School Officers to apply for voluntary waivers from certain provisions of NCLB, asserting that the law had encouraged some states to set low academic standards, recognize growth in student learning, and do little to support the teaching profession or recognize the most effective teachers (McNeil, 2011). Four billion dollars of RTTT funding was awarded to 10 states in 2010, and $200 million to seven additional states in 2011. An additional $360 million was awarded to the two national

assessment consortia in 2010 (PARCC and SBAC). These organizations developed new largescale tests administered for the first time in the consortia member states in the 2014– 2015 school year. These tests, designed to measure student progress in meeting the Common Core State Standards, were computer based and used technologyenhanced items to provide a more authentic and reallife application of the knowledge and skills contained in the CCSS. However, this use of technology also led to a number of problems in the first administration, ranging from lack of bandwidth and enough computers for all students to test at the same time, to glitches in the software and concerns about student data privacy and security. Because standard setting and other reportingrelated issues had to be negotiated across numerous states, scores from the first administration were not available to students and teachers until late in the fall of 2015 following a spring 2015 administration. In Colorado, for example, individual student scores were not available to districts until December of 2015—as compared to the usual timeline of mid to late August for previous state assessment results. These logistical issues (many of which are typical in the first administration of a new test) caused some teachers and administrators to become disillusioned with the new assessments because of their impact on instructional time and the lack of useful and timely data. At the same time, some parents, policymakers, and political activists viewed these assessments as “federal” tests and believed they were developed under the direction of the Obama administration to advance a particular political agenda and were part of what they viewed as federal overreach into state and local control of education—even though the USDE had nothing to do with the development of these assessments or the content standards on which they were based (Golod, 2014). These logistical and political problems led some parents to opt their students out of the state tests (often with the encouragement of teachers and administrators, although some students opted out on their own). And, since student optout was not random and often involved highperforming students, many states suspended their accountability systems for the 2014–2015 school year because of concerns about the representativeness of the data. In December of 2015, after 13 years, the U.S. Congress finally reauthorized ESEA. The Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) was the first time since ESEA passed in 1965 that a reauthorization provided vehicles for states to scale back on their uses of student assessment results. ESSA maintained the federal testing requirements of NCLB, but allowed states more flexibility in how they used the results from state assessments in their accountability systems. The full impact of ESSA on state assessment and accountability programs will not be known until the rules/regulations for implementing the law are established by the USDE and states develop their implementation plans. However, it is clear that the expansion of largescale state assessment and testbased accountability has run its course. Educators, students, parents, and policymakers are all concerned about the amount of instructional time devoted to preparing for and administering largescale assessments and the lack of useful data produced by these measures. There is little support for the status quo and many want to see significant reductions in testing time and scope of these programs. One exception comes from advocacy groups that are concerned about the

continuing achievement gaps across racial and socioeconomic lines. But even these groups acknowledge the impact of testing on instructional time (L. Ragland, personal communication, 2015). One of the most important lessons from the backlash against SBAC and PARCC is one that assessment experts have long cautioned policymakers about (and which they have mostly ignored)—the difficulty of trying to use largescale assessments for other than summative purposes (e.g., Linn, 2000, 2008). Both PARCC and SBAC attempted to provide summative data about student progress and also provide diagnostic information at a level of detail that would guide instruction (they proposed to do this through a suite of assessments as well as using the results from the summative test). To do that requires a longer test and more testing time. It seems clear that educators do not believe that the data from largescale assessments are timely and detailed enough to guide instruction on a regular basis and view results from classroom and other local assessments as much more useful in that regard. They see the results from largescale assessments as a poor return on the investment of time required to administer the assessments, especially given the logistical issues involved with infrastructure and hardware that schools and districts continue to experience (Colorado Department of Education, 2015c). As we shall see, a better choice might be to integrate largescale and classroom assessment. One of the most intriguing aspects of ESSA is the provision for seven states (or consortium of states) to conduct assessment pilot projects along the lines of the New Hampshire pilot that was approved by USDE before the reauthorization.2 The ESSA pilot program has the potential to expand our knowledge about the integration of largescale and classroom assessment and how a comprehensive system could provide comparative summative results at the district and school level as well as data that can guide instruction on a timely basis.

23.3 The Assessment Revolution and a Focus on the Power of Classroom Assessment While largescale assessment was becoming increasingly unpopular among educators, students, and parents, we were learning a great deal about other forms of assessment. This learning process started with the assessment revolution of the late 1980s, which was a backlash against existing assessment methodologies and uses of assessment data. The revolution was spearheaded by reformers who were not measurement experts,3 but were so bold as to criticize traditional assessment practices anyway (e.g., Wiggins, 1989). Initially, the focus of this criticism was on commercially developed normreferenced tests (e.g., the Iowa Test of Basic Skills [ITBS] and the California Test of Basic Skills [CTBS] among others). However, the critique expanded to focus on all forms of traditional tests because they tended to emphasize lowlevel outcomes easily measured by selected response items and were decontextualized from the real world of students and teachers (Stiggins, 2007; Wiggins, 1989). These reformers used phrases such as “creating tests worth taking” (Wiggins, 1992) to describe different forms of assessments that were characterized by authentic applications of

knowledge and skills in reallife settings and that called on students to engage in forms of higherorder thinking such as synthesis, evaluation, and the creation of new knowledge. Unlike most selected response tests, these new forms of assessment, often lumped under the heading of authentic assessment and/or performance tasks, were purposefully designed to be engaging for students and serve as instructional guides for teachers (Wiggins, 1992). Some members of the measurement community soon joined this movement calling for instructionally useful assessments that helped teachers more fully comprehend the nature of the standards they were teaching and enabled students to understand and embrace learning targets (e.g., Popham, 1998; Shepard, 1989). The use of performance assessments among teachers grew because of their instructional utility and level of student engagement with the tasks. Performance assessment design became (and continues to be) a widespread and very useful strategy for developing instructional units and lessons.4 In addition, as states adopted a standardsbased approach to school reform in the mid to late 1990s, they began to include performance tasks in their assessment systems as part of measuring student progress in meeting state content standards (Asp, 2000). This next generation of state assessments aligned with content standards broke new ground in several ways. First, many states incorporated openended or constructed response items (i.e., performance assessments) into their assessment systems in a very deliberate attempt to send signals to teachers and students regarding the nature of the standards and how they should be taught. For example, the math portions of the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) included items that required students to show the thought process they used in solving a problem (either by writing or using diagrams) as well as their computations (Asp, 2001). To get full credit for the item, students had to demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the problem as well as the correct answer. The reading component of CSAP required students to write about what they read, make inferences from text, and identify themes across a variety of text formats (e.g., a story, a poem, and a nonfiction article) focused on the same general content. The writing subtest of CSAP was probably the most revolutionary. Students actually had to write as part of a largescale state assessment; although hard to imagine today, this was in and of itself a major change. In the past, students answered multiple choice questions about writing as a proxy for their ability to construct a piece of writing. As one teacher put it, “on previous tests no one wrote, they bubbled” (K. Montague, personal communication, 1999). CSAP writing included several short constructed response items (in which students wrote a paragraph on a particular topic) and a longer piece that required students to engage in a writing process where they developed an outline, wrote a rough draft, and returned the next day to revise it and produce a final draft. While there were issues with the nature of the prompts on the writing test (e.g., they were typically decontextualized and did not require a student to respond to text), the CSAP writing assessment had a powerful impact on the nature of writing instruction in Colorado (as did similar largescale assessments in other states). According to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, teachers reported spending much more

time having students write than before CSAP, and they focused on a writing process that incorporated drafting, self and peer feedback, and revising and editing (Taylor, Shepard, Kinner, & Rosenthal, 2001). To be fair, teachers also reported negative impacts on instruction in response to the state test such as narrowing of the curriculum to exclude those subjects not tested and an overemphasis on practicing test items and formats at the expense of “real” instruction, among others (Taylor et al., 2001). This issue is discussed in greater detail later. Some states tried to use performance assessment as the foundation of their state testing system. Vermont, for example, employed literacy and math portfolios as the primary methodology for the statewide assessment program in the late 1990s. This was highly successful as a professional development strategy for teachers, but was not sustainable from a technical perspective (Koretz, Stecher, Klein, & McCaffrey, 1994). Nebraska took another approach and worked diligently to develop a state accountability system based completely on local assessments that did not utilize statewide tests. The state abandoned this course after several years because they were unable to meet federal technical requirements for comparability and validity (O’Hanlon, 2006). The focus on performance assessment waned to a degree in the late 1990s as new research findings documenting the power of formative classroom assessment practices to improve student achievement became known. In some sense, formative assessment was the next revolution or at least the next step in an evolving conceptualization of assessment’s role in instruction. The seminal writers in this area were Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam, whose meta analysis of the impact of formative assessment practices on student achievement changed how we think about classroom assessment (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003). As Jan Chappuis (2015) put it: Their research review examined studies that collectively encompassed kindergarteners to college students; represented a range of subject areas including reading, writing, social studies, mathematics, and science; and were conducted in numerous countries throughout the world, including the United States. The gains reported in the studies they describe are among the largest found for any educational intervention. (p. 3) Black and Wiliam’s classic article, “Inside the Black Box,” which appeared in Phi Delta Kappan in 1998 (Black & Wiliam, 1998b), summarized how formative assessment practices operated in the classroom to produce significant gains in student achievement. The increasing emphasis on formative assessment as an effective instructional strategy to raise achievement in the research and practitioner literature was not lost on commercial publishers. A large number of socalled formative assessment products were quickly added to their catalogues and some existing products were relabeled as formative assessments (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2008). However, most of these assessment resources were really interim assessments that predict scores on state tests and/or provide information for progress monitoring and were, in many cases, mislabeled as formative assessments. We will examine the nature of formative assessment in more detail in the section on “Assessment for Learning.” As of the writing of this chapter in 2016, there are two very different schools of thought among

educators, policymakers, and the public at large regarding assessment. One is characterized by the rebellion against state tests by students, parents, educators, and policymakers as evidenced by the optout movement that has emerged in a number of states. In many cases this has been spearheaded by students who are refusing to take tests they find irrelevant and in conflict with other activities that they consider more important, such as the AP test, IB test, and classroom assignments (Brudin, 2014). As was pointed out earlier, state tests are perceived by a number of stakeholders as taking too much time away from instruction, not providing useful data in a timely fashion, and costing too much (Strauss, 2012), not to mention the concerns about the amount of data being collected on students and the privacy and security of those data (Nagel, 2014). In some states, these concerns had been legitimized in state statute or by state boards of education.5 The recent reauthorization of ESEA, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), also contains a provision that supports a parent’s right to opt out (Editorial Projects in Education, 2015). A more positive trend is the increasing research base documenting the effectiveness of formative assessment practices in increasing student achievement. This research has drawn a great deal of interest from educators, and many parents also support the use of formative assessment, even if they are not exactly sure what it means.6 While the dislike for largescale assessment by teachers and parents and the support of formative assessment by teachers and parents seem diametrically opposed, there is a way forward. The future will include constructing comprehensive assessment systems that build coherence between largescale and classroom assessment and maximize the utility of both forms of assessment to improve instruction and student performance. That will be our concluding topic. First, we need to clarify our assessment vocabulary in order to build an understanding of both assessment of learning and assessment for learning and how they can work together to improve instruction and increase student learning.

23.4 Making Sense of Assessment: Creating a Common Vocabulary As we have seen, we are in an era of unprecedented interest in assessment among educators and lay persons alike. As a result, there has been a notable increase in our professional and popular assessment vocabulary such that it is laden with overlapping categories and descriptors. Many different terms are used to describe the same assessment and they typically confuse form with function. This makes it difficult to have meaningful conversations about assessment and to understand the role of assessment in student learning. Assessments can be categorized or described according to their source/place, timing or frequency of administration and/or purpose. The source of an assessment refers to where it originated from or who developed it and who is responsible for its administration. Assessments can be developed by teachers for use in their classroom or constructed by a team of teachers to use across classrooms or the entire school or district. States often bring together teachers from a number of districts to develop banks of classroom assessments that can be

made available to teachers across the state.7 Sometimes these are referred to as state assessments. However, state assessments are typically thought of as standardized measures developed by a vendor that are designed to measure student progress in meeting state standards. While a test company may have the state contract and direct the development process, often many teachers and other educators in the state are involved in item writing and review processes. Some teachers, schools, districts, and states use offtheshelf products from test vendors. These could be labeled national tests since they were developed by a “national” company without the involvement of educators from particular states and are intended to be used across the country, even though they are not given on a national basis. There are national assessments of college readiness such as the ACT and SAT that are taken voluntarily by individual students as well as required by statute to be administered to all students in a particular grade in some states.8 PARCC and SBAC are often labeled as national or federal assessments (particularly by opponents of the Common Core) even though the federal government did not develop the assessments,9 and states voluntarily chose to participate in the consortiums. In fact, in many states PARCC or SBAC are part of larger state assessment systems. So in that sense these assessments could be called state tests. As you can see, using source/place as a way to describe assessments soon loses its meaning. Assessments can also be described in terms of the timing and sequence in which they are given. From this perspective assessments can be labeled pre/post, onthespot, daily, weekly, short cycle, interim, endofunit, endofcourse, endofyear, midterm, or final and so on. While the timing of assessments can be a helpful descriptor at times, this can quickly become confusing when combined with source/place. For example, an endofcourse assessment can be teacher developed or a national test (such as the Advanced Placement Tests). Some states have mandated that certain pre/post assessments of reading be administered to all students in the early grades to track their progress in learning to read. These could be pre/post and/or state tests. In any event, these descriptors are not very helpful in understanding the nature of these assessments. A much more useful way to describe assessments is in terms of their purpose. There are a number of purposes or uses for assessments (or more correctly, assessment data). These include: Diagnostic Benchmark Anchor/calibration Predictive Growth Summative Formative

For instance, an assessment can be used diagnostically to determine a student’s strengths and areas for improvement in a particular subject to guide instruction. An anchor assessment could serve to calibrate or confirm a teacher’s judgments about her students’ progress or cause her to gather more evidence because of a lack of agreement between the results from the anchor assessment and what the teacher has observed on a daily basis. An assessment may provide predictive data about a student’s likely score on a future assessment or success in another level of schooling. Assessment given several times throughout the school year or at least once every year can provide evidence of student growth. While there are many purposes for assessment, they can be most usefully categorized under the heading of summative and formative. A summative assessment is an assessment of learning—how much progress did a student make in meeting particular learning goals (i.e., course objectives, state standards, and so forth). Data from summative assessments are often used as an indicator of instructional/teacher effectiveness.10 Summative assessments are typically given at the end of a unit of instruction (end of chapter, unit, quarter, semester, etc.), but not always. Most largescale state and district assessments are designed to be summative, but many teacherdeveloped assessments are primarily used for summative purposes as well. If the assessment results are just recorded/reported with no thought about how instruction might be improved, then the assessment is summative, regardless of the purpose for which it was designed. Formative assessments are used to inform instruction and provide feedback to students so they can understand where they are in meeting certain learning targets and adjust their own approaches to learning to improve their performance. However, the term formative assessment is really a misnomer. Formative assessment is not an event, it is a process. It is a set of practices that a teacher engages in to improve instruction and increase student achievement. Formative assessment practices can include specific assessment events. However, formative assessment is an ongoing process that employs a variety of ways of gaining information about student progress ranging from informal strategies such as questioning and observation to more formal approaches such as assigning students specific tasks or using summative measures in a formative way. From this perspective, an assessment is not summative or formative in and of itself; although some assessments are specifically designed to be summative or formative. Assessments become summative or formative depending on how they are used. With apologies to Forrest Gump, “assessment is as assessment does.” A summative assessment can be used in a formative way, just as formative instruments can be used in a summative manner. For example, a teacher may use an endofunit test (primarily designed to be summative) in a formative process by having students review their own performance, identify areas of strength and weakness, and set goals for improvement. The teacher may also use the results from the test to identify topics for reteaching and other ways to improve her instruction. Even the results from a state test, in which the results are not available for many months after the test is administered, can still be used formatively if teachers use the data to inform instruction and students reflect on their own performance (even if the data are somewhat dated). On the other hand, formative measures can be used in a summative way. Results from formative practices can be collected in a portfolio or as components of a body of evidence that can be evaluated to determine

student progress in meeting specific learning targets or mastering certain content standards. While assessments that are designed for a specific purpose lend themselves to that purpose (e.g., state tests have limited utility as formative measures), that does not mean that they cannot be used for other purposes. In fact, many policymakers believe (or at least hope) that large scale endofyear state tests can provide summative and diagnostic data with equal effectiveness—a belief that is not supported by leading researchers (e.g., Linn, 2008) and has not held up in practice. The concepts of summative and formative assessment are useful, but they are more meaningful when considered in the broader context of assessment of learning and assessment for learning (Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012). These terms describe the use of assessment in a much more transparent and useful way and remind practitioners and the public that the same assessment can be used in different ways even when the assessment was designed for a particular primary purpose. Now we will turn to an examination of the nature of assessment of, and for, learning in greater detail.

23.5 Assessment of Learning (AOL) The term assessment of learning is often used interchangeably with summative assessment, because summative assessments are designed to measure whether and how much learning has taken place during a unit of instruction. However, assessment of learning (AOL) is a much broader term that implies a comprehensive process while summative assessment is more of an event (a single test) that can be a part of the process of assessment of learning. AOL is a procedure for determining student progress in achieving particular learning goals. Assessment of learning refers to strategies (emphasis added) designed to confirm what students know, demonstrate whether or not they have met curriculum outcomes or the goals of their individualized programs, or to certify proficiency and make decisions about students’ future programs or placements. It is designed to provide evidence of achievement to parents, other educators, the students themselves, and sometimes to outside groups (e.g., employers, other educational institutions). (Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth, 2006)

Besides being a publicly reported marker of student progress, AOL can also be the basis for determining the impact of instruction and educator effectiveness. The most common examples of AOL are largescale state testing/accountability programs. These programs are typically designed for two purposes. One is to describe and label the performance of schools and districts to inform policymakers and the public about the quality of districts/schools and the degree to which public resources have been effectively and efficiently utilized. The second purpose is to provide information about individual student progress. Because the results from these assessments have such high stakes for schools, districts, educators, and at times students (e.g., high school graduation, the awarding of college credit and so forth), the demands for the technical quality are very high. However, depending on results from one summative assessment to determine the quality of districts and schools as well as make judgments about individual

student progress or teacher effectiveness is not a sound strategy no matter how technically sound the assessments may be. It makes much more sense to develop an AOL approach that incorporates a variety of highquality assessments whether at the state level or in the classroom (Chappuis et al., 2012; Popham, 2008; Shepard, 2015; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). A set of summative assessments can be constructed and organized as a comprehensive body of evidence that could be used to make judgments about student learning.11 At the school, district, or state level this could involve the results from statewide assessments in combination with data from local assessments. At the classroom level, teachers have long combined evidence from a variety of assessments as part of assigning student grades. However, grades have traditionally not been true measures of student learning, but rather an indicator of how well students have met the requirements of the class, both academic and behavioral. Developing a body of evidence or some other set of strategies to assess what learning has occurred can be a productive way to plan a unit of instruction (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). As Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe point out in Understanding by Design, thinking like an assessor helps teachers identify what the critical learning goals are and what assessment evidence they will accept that students have met those goals. It then becomes the role of the teacher to teach students how to do well on those assessments. If the assessments are “worth taking,” then “teaching to the test” makes sense. This requires classroom teachers to develop highquality assessments of learning that make the learning targets clear to students and themselves. In other words, teachers need to develop assessments that are valid measures of the learning goals for students and that provide reliable results that generalize across various applications of the knowledge and skills learned. The terms validity, reliability, and generalizability are not ones that most teachers learned about in their preparation programs, at least not in ways that were useful in the classroom. Teachers do not need to be measurement experts, but they do need to understand how these measurement concepts apply in the design of AOL that can guide instructional planning. The goal here is to see how these ideas can inform classroom practice, not to provide a technical overview. Validity refers to the degree that the claims or inferences made from the results of the assessment are justified. Reliability refers to the consistency of the scores over time. Another way to say it is: “If a student takes the same assessment next week as he did last week and did not learn any more of the content being tested, he should receive the same score.” Generalizability is a kind of subset of validity that refers to the consistency of scores when the knowledge and skills are applied in different settings. Let’s explore these concepts in greater detail from a teacher’s perspective. Validity is not “black and white.” That is, a test is not valid or invalid. One builds a case for the validity of an assessment by collecting different kinds of evidence that, taken together, support the claims or inferences that are made from the data generated by the assessment (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 2014). Reliability is part of the evidence for validity. If an assessment has a low degree of reliability, the case for the validity of the instrument is difficult to make. Reliability is improved if the questions/tasks are clearly stated

so that all students understand them in the same way. In addition, scoring processes need to be clear and consistently followed, especially for performance assessments that involve human judgment to score. Generalizability (especially for classroom purposes) requires that the application of the knowledge and skills that make up the learning targets be assessed in several diverse settings, particularly if students’ ability to perform on the assessments might be related to the setting. That is one major reason why quality AOL incorporates more than one assessment episode and multiple strategies. Teachers do not need to be measurement experts or spend a lot of time worrying about the technical aspects of their assessments from a psychometric perspective, but they do need to ensure that those classroom assessments that have high stakes for students are reasonable measures of the learning targets they are supposed to measure. The process of improving the validity of their assessments of learning can be a helpful instructional tool. For classroom teachers, gathering evidence to support the validity of an assessment is a multi step process. Here is one way it might work. First, the teacher breaks down or unpacks the learning goals for a unit of study (e.g., particular content standards) so that it is clear what students need to know and be able to do to meet those goals. The second step is to develop a task or several tasks that, if done well, would serve as evidence that students had met the learning goals. Another way to think about it is to answer the question: “What could students do that would convince you and others that they had met the targets?” A third step is to develop a scoring method that captures the key components of the task and the learning targets. For performance tasks, this would likely involve a rubric with directions about how to apply it. Next, the teacher might field test the assessment(s) to see if it elicits a range of responses from students (particularly higher levels of thinking and understanding) that illustrate various levels of mastery of the learning target. The assessment(s) would be revised based on feedback from the field test. Another useful step would be to collect student work that illustrates various levels of mastery of the goals and annotate the reasons/rationale for the scores. Finally, the results from the assessment could be compared to student performance on other assessments of the same learning target to see if they are comparable across the assessments. The rigor of the validitybuilding process becomes more or less important depending on the stakes attached to the assessment(s). For example, if the assessment(s) determines whether the student passes a class, is allowed to enter another class, or graduates from high school, it is critical that the assessment(s) go through a thoughtful and rigorous design and validation process. If the assessment(s) is used in less highstakes situations (e.g., part of a grade in a class or feedback to parents on student progress), the technical requirements are not as high. In any event, if a teacher plans on using these AOL on a longterm basis and/or they form an integral part of a class or unit of study, then it is important that the assessment process be a valid one. The process of developing assessments of learning and accumulating validity evidence for them is useful for two reasons. First, it helps the teacher to be certain about the judgments made about the progress of students in meeting their learning goals. Therefore, what was reported to students and parents about students’ performance is more accurate and informative

and provides better feedback regarding teacher effectiveness and how to improve it. More important is the instructional utility of this kind of development process. By carefully unpacking the learning goals for students and then thinking through what it would look like if students mastered those goals, the teacher becomes much more clear about what she needs to teach students and how to plan instruction. In addition, these assessments also provide a goal for students. They provide an opportunity for students to understand what mastery looks like and makes abstract goals real and concrete. The more carefully this is done, the more explicit the learning targets become and the more focused instruction can be. This avoids the situation that occurs in too many classrooms where instructional practice “kind of looks like the content being taught,” but does not reflect a true understanding of the learning goals and a well articulated plan for helping students meet them. Although individual teachers can develop validity evidence by carefully articulating learning targets and thoughtfully developing tasks that measure those targets, the evidence for the validity of the assessment(s) becomes more powerful if the teacher designs the assessment(s) in collaboration with other teachers with similar content expertise and invites external experts into the process. For example, teachers might work together to unpack content standards. Then they could engage employers in the community who are familiar with the knowledge and skills embedded in the learning targets and how they are applied in reallife settings. Their input will help clarify the knowledge and skills that make up the learning targets and jobrelated experience that would be critical in developing tasks that allow students to show what they know in authentic contexts. Community members can also help with the identification of key components of the standards which could form the basis of a scoring rubric and may even participate in the scoring process. This would inform instructional planning and boost community support for school and district’s goals. The process for developing AOL is sophisticated and nuanced and the details for how to do this are beyond the scope of this chapter, but there are many excellent resources available.12 While the AOL process can be a helpful instructional tool, assessment for learning is far more useful to teachers in planning and informing instruction and improving student achievement. We now turn to that topic.

23.6 Assessment for Learning (A4L) As was said earlier, assessment for learning (A4L) has been shown to be a powerful vehicle for improving instruction and increasing student learning. A4L and formative assessment are often used interchangeably. Both terms imply a process, not an event. However, we are going to use A4L because the term formative assessment is often confused with an event or single assessment activity. Paul Black, Dylan Wiliam, and their colleagues (2003) did a metaanalysis that involved the review of over 3,000 studies which documented that when teachers used formative assessment practices effectively student achievement increased dramatically, especially among low achieving students.13 This work has had a profound impact on how we view the role of

assessment in student learning (Popham, 2011). However, this impact only occurred when A4L was implemented with fidelity. In the widely read “Inside the Black Box” articles and other publications, Black and Wiliam (1998b) and their colleagues (2003) describe how/why formative assessment practices actually work in classrooms and how teachers go about putting them into practice. On the heels of the Black and Wiliam findings, a number of “how to” publications on formative assessment aimed at teachers have appeared. These describe a variety of ways of utilizing formative assessment practices in the classroom. However, when one examines the literature on formative assessment it is clear that there are a small number of strategies, but many techniques for putting them into practice (Black et al., 2003). These strategies can be organized in a variety of ways, but we find it most useful to categorize them as either feedback or questioning. Feedback can be organized around the source: self, peer, and teacher. Questioning can range from formal to informal. Examples include traditional tests and quizzes, performance activities, teacherdirected classroom discussions, onthespot queries, and so forth. Let’s examine both of these in more detail, beginning with feedback. Royce Sadler (1989) was one of the seminal writers about the nature of feedback and how it works to impact student achievement. Sadler (1989) saw feedback as most useful when it is nonevaluative, specific, and actionable. For example, feedback that results in a grade is not likely to be used in a formative manner by students. For most students, the grade signals the end of the conversation about the work. Whether the grade is an “A” or an “F,” the reaction is generally the same in terms of student interest in improving their performance (although their affect may differ)—that is, “I know if I succeeded or not and there is nothing else to learn.” When feedback comes in the form of nonjudgmental information about strengths and areas for improvement, the data are useful for all students no matter what their overall level of proficiency in the particular content might be. And it creates the expectation everyone can improve their performance regardless of their level of mastery. Handinhand with the need for feedback to be nonevaluative is the requirement for it to be specific and related to a particular set of knowledge and skills. For example, providing feedback on particular aspects of writing according to a rubric is much more useful than vague comments like “awkward” or “wordy.” The feedback should point to areas where improvement is needed in very precise terms. Finally, feedback must be actionable if it is to be useful to students. Students cannot improve their work if they don’t know what to do. It is much harder to make a sentence less awkward than it is to focus on specific aspects of word choice and language usage in revising a piece of writing. These aspects of feedback are key to its effectiveness as a formative practice, but the source of the feedback can be the student himself, peers, and/or the teacher. Teacher feedback is critical, not only because of the teacher’s content knowledge and expertise, but also for the opportunity to teach students how to give themselves and others meaningful feedback. Students are not used to doing this, and they need to be taught how. This needs to be part of the curriculum just like teaching other skills. In the beginning, peer feedback is typically given in vague terms like “good job” or “I liked it” rather than highlighting specific areas of strength or

areas for improvement. However, students can be taught to use a rubric or some other format to provide useful feedback for themselves as well as their peers (Asp, 1999). And that is true for all students K12. For example, kindergartners can use a set of sample papers to evaluate their own writing and identify what they need to do to improve as well as middle and high school students can. This process can be made easier with anchor papers or other exemplars of student work along with rubrics and other guides for identifying key aspects of the skills and knowledge that define the learning targets. While these kinds of tools are very helpful, the key is having students practice giving feedback with guidance from the teacher. This is an effective instructional activity because it teaches students what quality work looks like and helps them understand where they are in meeting learning targets. Questioning is the other strategy for formative assessment. Questioning includes tests and quizzes, homework assignments, class discussion, informal questions during class activities, and observation. And the nature of the questions is critical. The goal is to determine student progress in meeting the most important learning targets (not simple recall of facts) and gain information that will inform instruction. The most useful data come from shortcycle activities that enable teachers to adjust instruction on a frequent basis, minutebyminute in some instances (Black & Wiliam, 1998b). Some teachers are very good at asking the “right” questions intuitively (i.e., thoughtprovoking inquiries that reveal students’ thinking), but all teachers can become better by carefully thinking through the nature of the questions they will ask and determining how to most effectively pose specific questions in order to provide the data needed to adjust instruction. One of the most efficient ways to use questioning in a formative way is to build it into the routines of the classroom. For example, some teachers have students respond to a small number of questions about the lesson as an exit slip when they leave class or transition to another subject. This provides the teacher with daily data for planning the next lesson. Other examples include the use of small whiteboards by students to quickly respond to teacher questions. The teacher can glance at student responses while walking around the room or have them hold up the boards so she can do a quick scan for understanding. Some teachers give students red, yellow, and green cups, cards, or other objects that they can use to signal their level of understanding or comfort with the content being taught (red means “stop” and reteach; yellow means “some hesitation,” not ready to move on; green means “I understand” or I am comfortable with moving on). Technology can be very helpful in this process. For instance, many classrooms have access to clickers where students can anonymously respond to teacher questions with a remote device and the results can be quickly recorded and displayed. The most effective use of both formative assessment strategies, feedback, and questioning and their associated techniques is in the context of a comprehensive approach to A4L. A foundational component of this approach is the creation of an environment where A4L can flourish. This involves taking deliberate action to develop a culture of continuous improvement and high expectations for all students. Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck’s (2006) work on mindsets is a useful way to think about this. Dweck describes two kinds of mindsets: fixed and growth. A fixed mindset is one in which students believe their ability to learn is based on their level of intelligence. This

mindset can be paralyzing for students of all ages. Students who believe they can learn only because they are highly intelligent have a difficult time being wrong or failing in some intellectual task. They are reluctant to try new things in which they might not do well at first and reveal that they are not as smart as they or others thought. Students who hold a low opinion of their intellectual ability often don’t try at all because they do not want to look foolish or stupid in front of their classmates. A growth mindset is one in which students believe they can learn more or improve their performance by working hard. From this perspective, intellectual ability is not the limiting factor in student learning, it is how hard students are willing to work that makes the difference. A growth mindset helps create a culture of continuous improvement because it conveys the message that all students are capable of and expected to improve their learning. This message can be conveyed (or not) by the manner in which teachers employ feedback and questioning. That is why nonevaluative feedback is so important. Besides helping students to be responsible for their learning, it also signals that improvement is what is important, not the starting point—everyone can get better. Formative assessment techniques can also deliver the message of continuous improvement and high expectations for all. For example, when teachers call on students randomly rather than on those who raise their hands and provide scaffolds for students who are struggling, they give the message that all students are expected to respond and share their thinking. There are a number of questioning techniques that teachers can use to convey high expectations (see Marzano, 2007, for a summary). The important point here is to remember that teachers constantly communicate with students regardless of whether they intend to or not—in fact, “they can never not communicate” (Marzano, 2007). They are always giving messages to students about how they feel about them as learners and as people. The message that all students can learn at high levels is delivered through specific behaviors (such as how and to whom teachers direct questions). Platitudes like “all kids can learn” are only real to students when teachers act on them. Formative assessment practices can be a very effective way to communicate teachers’ beliefs about the ability of all students to learn and grow. The other key component for implementing a comprehensive approach to A4L is planning where and how to use formative assessment practices to guide instruction and give feedback to students. In his book, Transformative Assessment in Action, James Popham (2011) lays this process out in detail. Jan Chappuis and her colleagues (Chappuis et al., 2012) provide some very helpful guidance as well. The essence of this process involves teachers identifying where they will use formative assessment practices to make “immediate” instructional decisions, “nearfuture instructional adjustments,” and “lastchance adjustments” (in Popham’s parlance, 2011). In addition, teachers need to determine how and when they will provide feedback to students so students can adjust their approach to learning. This kind of plan requires teachers to have a long view of how students learn and meet the key learning targets as well as how they should approach instruction. These maps of important subskills and key content that students must master in order to reach the larger learning targets are often referred to as learning progressions (Heritage, 2008; Popham, 2011). Learning progressions help a teacher understand what critical prerequisites are necessary for students to master on their way

to meeting the overarching goals of the unit of study. Once that progression has been identified, teachers can decide where and how to use formative assessment practices for short and longterm adjustments in instruction and when to provide feedback to students on their progress. Taken together, developing a culture of continuous improvement and planning for the use of formative assessment practices constitute the key elements of A4L and are fundamental to the successful implementation of A4L in schools. However, this is only one step, albeit a very important one, in employing the power of assessment as a tool for improving instruction and improving learning. The next step is to build coherence (Shepard, 2004) between AOL and A4L so that they build on and reinforce each other and comprise assessment as learning. That is our next and final topic.

23.7 Assessment as Learning: Linking Assessment of and for Learning In order to align AOL with A4L, it is important to understand the key differences between classroom and largescale assessment. Largescale here means any assessment that goes beyond the classroom, such as across classes in a school, schools in a district, districts in a state, and so on. Two dimensions of assessment are critical to that understanding: the degree of standardization and the manner in which students show what they know (or the item type). Assessments can range from highly standardized in which all students take the same test at the same time under the same conditions to assessments that are individualized based on unique student characteristics. Largescale assessments (which are typically designed to be AOL) are inherently highly standardized. They have to be because the results are intended to be comparable across different groups of students. The more distinctive the settings that students taking the assessment come from, the more standardized the assessment must be to yield valid data. The best examples of these assessments are state tests that are intended to compare student mastery of state standards across schools and districts. These assessments are usually given once a year during a specified time window. In order to ensure that the differences in results across schools and districts reflect true differences in student learning and not other nonlearning variables, these assessments must be given under very specific conditions. Time limits must be strictly enforced, proctors must give the same directions to all students, and the resources available to students must be the same across all settings in which the test is being administered. If this is not the case, then differences in results across and within schools and districts may be due to differences in how the assessment was administered rather than real differences in student achievement. Classroom assessments can range from highly standardized to unstandardized. This is because teachers give a variety of assessments and have many opportunities to measure student progress toward learning targets as opposed to the “onetime shot” for largescale assessments. Teachers alter the conditions for assessments on a routine basis. For example, a teacher will often adapt and even modify14 an assessment for certain students (e.g., students

with disabilities or gifted and talented children). Teachers will give some students more time than others because they know that particular students take longer to show what they know. Sometimes they provide different levels of support, resources, and scaffolding depending on student need. Some limited and very specific adaptations are available with largescale state tests, but modifications are not allowed except for a very small percentage of students with extreme disabilities who take a different assessment than other students. This is because a state assessment is only given one time a year and there is no way to make sense of the results unless there is a high degree of standardization. However, a teacher routinely combines results from a variety and number of assessments when determining student progress. And she can adjust the results from different assessments because of her indepth knowledge about her students’ progress based on a comprehensive body of evidence. This knowledge of students is even more precise and useful if the teacher develops a plan for assessment of learning that incorporates a variety of assessment episodes and formats as we suggested earlier. The item type or response mode between largescale and classroom assessment is inherently different as well. At one end of the response type continuum are items where the student chooses the correct answer from a series of alternatives (selected response or multiple choice). At the other end, the student actually performs or applies the skills and knowledge that are being assessed (i.e., performance assessment). Between selected response and performance assessment are a series of increasingly more openended response types (e.g., fillintheblank, short answer, constructed response, essay). For example, students could be asked to demonstrate their knowledge of the scientific process on an assessment by: answering multiple choice questions about the scientific process; constructing a short answer or paragraph describing the scientific inquiry process; writing an essay about how the scientific process works; or conducting a scientific study and analyzing the validity of the results. Because of time constraints and costs, most largescale assessments utilize predominantly multiple choice item formats because they are quick to administer, relatively easy to standardize, and inexpensive and easy to score. However, some largescale assessment systems have incorporated performancebased approaches for some time, as we pointed out earlier. The latest generation of largescale state assessments (such as PARCC or SBAC) incorporate a greater proportion of performance items, which are more sophisticated than on earlier state assessments thanks to the availability of technologyenhanced formats. For example, the performancebased component of the PARCC assessment makes up half the test and includes highly authentic reading and writing tasks. Even with those advances, there are constraints around the use of performancebased item formats on largescale tests. Performance assessments take a long time to administer (time lost to instruction) and score (because they have to be scored by human beings, which requires training and supervision), and they are difficult to standardize. Sometimes the attempt to standardize these items results in a decrease in their instructional utility. Further, the results from performance assessments often don’t generalize from the application of knowledge and skills in one specific context to

another. On the other hand, classroom teachers are relatively free to incorporate assessments from both ends of the continuums. They can develop assessment systems that include a variety of item formats and degrees of standardization depending on the purpose of the assessments and the needs of their students. They may use short multiple choice interest or ability surveys to get at how students see themselves as readers, for example. These can be unstandardized because the goal is to reveal how students feel about their ability in a subject area or identify student interests. Teachers can also use longterm performance tasks as teaching tools to help students develop a capstone project that demonstrates their progress in meeting the learning targets of a unit of study. They may use some standardized measures as the overall summative component of their plan for assessment of learning. One of the most important roles for a state assessment system is providing a signal to teachers and students about the nature of the standards being assessed. This is especially true with the next generation of standards and assessments (Kamenetz, 2015). Largescale state assessments are clearly not well suited for formative purposes, but they can guide the development of student learning goals and classroom summative assessments and formative practices if they show the full range and depth of the standards. Teachers need to be familiar with these largescale assessments and how they portray overall learning targets so they can link classroom instructional activities and state expectations and build coherence (Shepard, 2004, 2015) between classroom and largescale assessment. This enables teachers to prepare students to be successful on largescale assessments without turning their classrooms into lifeless environments focused on test preparation, something that has happened all too frequently in the past 25 years (Kamenetz, 2015; Shepard, 1989; Shepard & CuttsDougherty, 1991). In a learningbased classroom, assessment is integrated with curriculum and instruction in a seamless cycle. In fact, it is often hard to tell where assessment ends and instruction begins in a classroom where AOL and A4L are planned as a package. It is the teacher’s role to teach students how to do well on the assessments that she accepts as evidence that students have met the learning targets. Assessment from this perspective becomes curriculum in a very legitimate and useful way. Not as test prep or item practice, but as a guide for teachers and students that illustrates the learning targets and provides meaningful feedback to teachers about how to modify instruction and to students regarding their progress and how to improve their learning strategies. What is needed is a system of assessment that is more than assessment of learning or assessment for learning, but assessment as learning. To make the best use of the power of assessment to improve student achievement and focus and enliven our classrooms, we must help educators and policymakers envision assessment in this way.

23.8 Conclusion We began this chapter outlining the following three overarching themes that have defined stakeholder interest in assessment for the past 25 years:

The struggle to find the right balance between assessment of learning and assessment for learning at the classroom, school, district, and state level. Continued attempts by policymakers to use largescale assessment for a variety of different purposes ranging from accountability to providing diagnostic data for teachers and students. The developing understanding of the role of assessment in changing instructional practice and improving student achievement. Finding a balance between AOL and A4L and the need to stop trying to use largescale assessment for purposes for which it was not designed have been informed by our developing understanding of the role of assessment in improving student achievement. We now know that the expansion of largescale assessment for accountability purposes did not improve student achievement or instructional practice and, in some ways, has had a negative impact on both. And the balance between AOL and A4L in classrooms and state accountability systems is not where it should be. There continues to be too much attention given to AOL. The good news is that we now know much more about how largescale and classroom assessment impacts learning. We need to maximize that knowledge to move forward. We need to be clear about the purpose of largescale assessment and design and utilize measures that serve that purpose well. We know how to develop sampling procedures to gather district and school comparable data that are far less costly and intrusive in terms of instructional time (e.g., NAEP). If stakeholders want a statelevel report on each student, we can shorten state tests to provide data on student mastery of standards at the highest level and let teachers use other measures to understand individual student strengths and areas for improvement. If we can reach a consensus on the role of largescale assessment, then we will be able to bring the optout issue under control, but this will only happen if the data from these assessments are relevant and meaningful to those who are impacted by it, namely students, teachers, and parents. The greatest opportunity for that may lie in the integration of classroom and local assessments into state assessment and accountability systems and building coherence between largescale and classroom assessment. This work will require a new concept of technical quality that goes beyond our existing norms. While getting clear about the “why” of largescale assessment is critically important, the biggest “bang for our buck” in regard to improved student outcomes will come from increasing teachers’ understanding of assessment as learning and their capacity to implement it on a regular basis in their classrooms (Popham, 2011). This involves using the process of formative assessment and integrating A4L with AOL as an instructional and planning tool. This will require some shifts in how we train teachers and building administrators and the kind of support we give them on a daily basis in their schools. This work has been happening for some time in some schools and districts, across the country, and some states have been promoting changes in assessment and accountability pilots. The assessment pilot program and the requirement for additional measures to be included in state accountability systems called for in ESSA hold great promise. More than anything, we must not

ignore what we have learned about assessment and its impact on student learning over the past 25 years and put those lessons to good use.

References Asp, E. (1999). The relationship of large scale and classroom assessment. In R. Brandt (Ed.), Assessing student learning: New rules, new realities. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Asp, E. (2000). Assessment in education: Where have we been? Where are we headed? In R. Brandt (Ed.), Education in a new era (pp. 123–157). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Asp, E. (2001). To think or not to think: Thinking as measured on state and national assessments. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds (pp. 497–510). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–73. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 81–90. Brudin, J. (2014). Thousands of students protest Colorado’s standardized tests. Denver, CO: Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.cpr.org/news/story/thousandsstudents protestcoloradostandardizedtests Bush, G. (1989). Joint statement on the education summit with the nation’s governors in Charlottesville, Virginia. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=17580 Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right—using it well (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14–19. Colorado Department of Education. (2015a). Colorado measures of academic success: What to expect for the 2015–16 school year. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/cmasfactsheet Colorado Department of Education. (2015b). Colorado content collaboratives. Retrieved from

http://www.cde.state.co.us/contentcollaboratives Colorado Department of Education. (2015c). Colorado growth model. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/coloradogrowthmodel Colorado Department of Education. (2015d). Participation and parent excusal. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/factsheetsandfaqsassessment#participation Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Editorial Projects in Education. (2015, December 9). The Every Student Succeeds Act: Explained. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/12/07/theevery studentsucceedsactexplained.html?r=266168630 Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011, September 19). Issues A–Z: No Child Left Behind. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/nochild leftbehind/ Fast, E., & Erpenbach, W. (2004). Revisiting statewide educational accountability under NCLB. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Golod, A. (2014, March 4). Common core: Myths and facts. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/specialreports/aguidetocommon core/articles/2014/03/04/commoncoremythsandfacts Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing of the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Kamenetz, A. (2015). The test. New York, NY: Public Affairs. Klein, A. (2014, September 24). 1989 education summit casts long shadow. Education Week, 34(5), 20. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5–16. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16. Linn, R. (2008). Validations of uses and purposes of state assessments. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with

purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Crown in Right of Manitoba as represented by the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth. Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth, School Programs Division. Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. McNeil, M. (2011, April 27). NCLB waivers plentiful under Duncan. Education Week, 30(29), 1, 30. MerkelKeller, C. (1986). The evolution of evaluation: Title 1 to chapter 1. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED269440.pdf Nagel, D. (2014, January 22). Concerns over student privacy widespread among Americans. The Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2014/01/22/concernsover studentdataprivacywidespreadamongamericans.aspx National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. New Hampshire Department of Education. (2015). Performance assessment of competency education. Retrieved from http://www.education.nh.gov/assessmentsystems/pace.htm O’Hanlon (2006, July 4). Feds reject assessment program. Retrieved from http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/fedsrejectassessment program/article_75263fc66ae357b1b9509defe4d0d8e9.html Popham, W. J. (1998). Standardized tests should not be used to evaluate educational quality: A debate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Popham, W. J. (2011). Transformative assessment in action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Public Broadcasting Service. (2001). The testing industry’s big four. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/testing/companies.html Rich, M. (2014, May 29). Common Core Standards face a new wave of opposition. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/education/commoncore standardsfaceanewwaveofopposition.html?_r=0 Riddle, W. (2008). K12 education: Special forms of flexibility in the administration of federal aid programs. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Shepard, L. (1989). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 4–9. Shepard, L. (2004). Curriculum coherence in assessment design. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shepard, L. (2015). Large scale assessment and accountability. Presentation at the Annual Winter Legislative Conference, Colorado Association of School Boards, Denver, CO. Shepard, L., & CuttsDougherty, K. (1991). The effects of high stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Shepard, L. A., Hannaway, J., & Baker, E. L. (2009). Standards, assessments and accountability: Recovering the promise of standardsbased education . Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. Stiggins, R. (2007). Educating the whole child. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 22–26. Strauss, V. (2012, May 18). How standardized tests are affecting public schools. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answersheet/post/how standardizedtestsareaffectingpublicschools/2012/05/17/gIQABH1NXU_blog.html Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2001, September). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on highstakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/asurveyteachersperspectiveshighstakes testingcoloradowhatgetstaughtwhatgetsl Thomas, J., & Brady, K. (2005). The elementary and secondary education act at 40: Equity, accountability and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of Research in Education, 29(51), 51–67. Vinovskis, M. (1999). The road to Charlottesville: The 1989 education summit. Alexandria, VA: National Education Goals Panel. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Towards more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703–713. Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking. Education Leadership, 49(8), 26–33. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Notes

1 CCSS and the assessments created by the national assessment consortiums designed to measure student progress in meeting these standards have been opposed by coalitions of liberals and conservatives in a number of states and were issues in the 2016 presidential campaign (Rich, 2014). 2 The New Hampshire pilot utilizes results from locally scored common performance assessments which are vetted with data from periodic largescale assessments as well as scoring audits as the basis for annual determinations of student progress in meeting standards by teachers (New Hampshire Department of Education, 2015). 3 Many of these assessment reformers had backgrounds in instruction and/or professional development rather than educational measurement. Because of their lack of formal training in psychometrics, they were sometimes labeled as “wellmeaning, but naïve educators” who did not understand the science of measurement. 4 In their very popular book, Understanding by Design, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005) described a process for designing instructional units that helped teachers to “think like an assessor” as they developed units of study. 5 The Colorado Legislature included a parent “optout” provision in an “assessment reform bill” in May of 2015 (Colorado Department of Education, 2015d) that gives parents the right to opt students out of standardized testing and prohibits schools and districts from taking any action against students who opt out. The Colorado State Board of Education passed a resolution prohibiting the Department of Education from imposing any penalties against districts and schools that do not meet federal test participation requirements. 6 Many parents, policymakers, and even educators confuse formative assessment with interim assessments, which is compounded by the misuse of the term by test publishers. 7 Colorado’s “content collaboratives” are a good example of this kind of work (Colorado Department of Education, 2015b). New Hampshire’s performance assessment of competency education (PACE) project is based on teacherdeveloped performance assessments (New Hampshire Department of Education, 2015). 8 Colorado and Illinois are examples where all students in 11th grade are required to take the ACT, although both states have now switched to the SAT. 9 The federal government provided the funds to develop these assessments, but did not direct the assessment development process or require states to join one of the consortiums. 10 Many states now require that a portion of a teacher’s evaluation include student performance data (Colorado statute SB10191 is an example). 11 Douglas County School District in Colorado utilized teacher judgment based on a body of evidence that incorporated a variety of teacherchosen formative and summative assessments along with common district anchor assessments to determine student mastery of

content standards (Asp, 1999). 12 Examples include: Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005); Classroom Assessment for Student Learning (Chappuis et al., 2012); Classroom Assessment and Grading that Work (Marzano, 2006). 13 Their metaanalysis showed an effect size of .5 in general on student achievement. The effect size varied depending on the particular strategies used. 14 Accommodations refer to changes in test administration that allow a student to show what she knows without changing what the test is measuring. Examples include reading a writing prompt to a blind student or scribing a written response for a student that has motor problems and difficulty with handwriting. Modifications are changes that allow students to access an assessment in order to provide some data about their learning, but change what the assessment is measuring.

24 Views of Classroom Assessment: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow Julie OxenfordO’Brian 1 and Kay P. Uchiyama2 1 University of Colorado Denver 2 University of West Florida

24.1 Introduction Educational assessment has been described as the “bridge between learning and teaching” (Wiliam, 2010, p. 18) because it is how teachers can determine the degree to which their students are learning the content they are teaching. This chapter focuses on educational assessment within the context of K12 classrooms. We start by defining classroom assessment and then review how classroom assessment has evolved within the United States over the last century including the many forces which have influenced it. This leads to an updated description of assessment literacy for educators and a description of what we currently know about the status of educators’ related skills and practices. A vignette from an actual sixth grade mathematics classroom illustrates what classroom assessment could look like when it forms a bridge between learning and teaching. We conclude the chapter with potential future directions for classroom assessment.

24.2 Defining Classroom Assessment The National Research Council publication, Knowing What Students Know, defines assessment as “a process by which educators use students’ responses to specially created or naturally occurring stimuli to draw inferences about the students’ knowledge and skills” (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001, p. 8), or in short, “a process of reasoning from evidence” (p. 2). They further specify that assessment includes the cognition and learning in a subject area, the tasks or situations used to prompt students to demonstrate valued knowledge and skills, and the methods and tools used to reason from the observations to interpret the assessment results. In the classroom context, this translates into assessment including the following: the learning objectives as expressed through the curriculum; the observations, questions, assessment tasks/items (tests, homework, etc.) that provide evidence of student learning; and the analysis and interpretation of the evidence (Wilson, 2004). The above descriptions of assessment distinguish between the process of assessing and the tools and methods used to collect learning evidence as part of that process. In other words, assessment is a process not an object. Several authors also emphasize the role of assessment in decisionmaking. According to Russell and Airasian (2012) assessment is “the process of collecting, synthesizing, and

interpreting information to aid in decision making [emphasis added]” (p. 3). Brookhart and Nitko (2015) define assessment as “the process for obtaining information that is used for making decisions [emphasis added] about students, curricula and programs, and educational policy” (p. 492). The decisions made by classroom teachers that utilize assessment results are varied. They can be described by questions such as: Do students bring the knowledge or background needed to access the curriculum being presented in this class? Will some students need additional supports? What are students prepared to learn next? Are the planned learning activities meeting students’ needs, or should they be adjusted? To what degree was an instructional approach effective during a specific class session? To what degree are students able to demonstrate valued skills and knowledge? What grades should students receive? Which students are ready to move on to the next level? Which students should participate in different types of learning experiences (e.g., intervention support or advanced courses)? Decisions that utilize assessment results to inform instruction and learning are formative. Decisions that represent a judgment or summary of what learning has occurred are summative. Whether they relate to inform the learning process or evaluating it, the decisions made using assessment are an essential role in teaching and learning.

24.2.1 The Evolution of Classroom Assessment in the United States To better understand the current form of classroom assessment in the United States and to envision future directions, we build upon the above definitions to describe the evolution of classroom assessment and the external influences that have shaped it. These influences include the use of assessment for school and district accountability, simultaneous evolution of theories regarding how students learn (from behaviorist to constructivist and sociocultural), increased prevalence of formative uses of assessment, more recent uses of assessment results in educator evaluation, and changing conceptions of educator assessment literacy.

24.2.2 Early Accountability Uses and Behaviorist Learning Theories The earliest uses of the results of classroom assessment in the United States link directly to the beginning of the provision of education as a “public service” in the mid1800s (Public Broadcasting Service, 2001). Once K12 education became available to all citizens, supported by taxes, and mandated for certain ages of children, the public began to ask for an accounting of the value of public education. In response, classroom assessment results were used to provide formal student progress evaluations in the form of narrative descriptions of the skills that students had gained through their participation in public education. By the early 1900s, rapid growth of high schools created the need for more efficient ways to account for what students were getting out of going to school. This resulted in another classroom use of assessment—teacher calculation of percentages to certify student accomplishment in different subject areas. Some questioned both the variability and the reliability of these percentages as measures of student learning. To reduce the variability (if not the reliability), by 1918 most high schools moved to assigning students grades using a scale with fewer categories—A, B, C, D, F (Guskey & Bailey, 2001). Uses of this scale to assign summative grades to students at the end of a term or course still dominated U.S. classrooms into the twentyfirst century

(Marzano, 2006). As these early uses of classroom assessment illustrate, concerns about and accounting for the use of public funds drove both the format and the uses of classroom assessment, and those uses were largely summative. 24.2.2.1 Behaviorist Learning Theory Summative uses of assessment, often with the decisionmakers located outside of the classroom, shaped assessment practice in U.S. classrooms for much of the twentieth century. This was reinforced by the dominant educational theory of the time, behaviorism. Behaviorist learning theories “conceived of learning as the accumulation of stimulusresponse associations,” and advocated the use of assessment to “ensure mastery before proceeding to the next objective” (Shepard, 2000a, p. 5). Behaviorist theories assume that the stimulus or motivation for changes in behavior is external to the learner and the adults within the education system. From this perspective, assessment results provide motivation through rewarding some behavior and punishing others and should “incentivize” desirable behaviors. Behaviorism influenced not only uses of assessment, but also the characteristics of assessment tools. Within a behaviorist paradigm, assessment should measure typical performance—the performance a student would be likely to sustain over time (Gipps, 1999). Assessment results should be used to provide reinforcing stimulus to the learner to motivate behavior change (Crain, 1992). To meet these purposes, assessment tasks that required no judgment on the part of the scorer, such as selected response (truefalse, matching, or multiple choice) items, were preferable to those types of tasks in which scorer judgment plays a role (Shepard, 2000a) such as extended written responses, essays, or performance tasks. Within a behaviorist paradigm, the feedback provided to students should be evaluative; it should be in the form of rewards or encouragement for mastering content, and punishments or discouragement for failing to master content (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). Using assessment results to assign grades is consistent with behaviorist theories, as is using assessment results to rate the performance of schools and districts. 24.2.2.2 Objective Testing Early development of assessment instruments was consistent with behaviorist theories. In 1905, French psychologist Alfred Binet published the first intelligence test, which was designed and used to sort students into learning experiences based on their abilities (Gipps, 1999). Then in 1908, the American behaviorist Edward Thorndike published achievement tests designed to document the needs and set the direction for failing schools. These tests shared the same item formats (selected response) and scoring approach (based on comparing testtaker performance and discerning individual differences). Their standardized format allowed for comparisons across schools and provided a remedy for the perceived lack of reliability of teacherdeveloped tests (Shepard, 2006). The use of standardized objective tests in public educational contexts expanded further after World War I as a result of the army’s successful use of these tests to place recruits into different roles (Gipps, 1999). Behaviorist learning theories and associated objective tests encouraged beliefs among classroom teachers that assessment should be separate from instruction, uniformly administered, and objective to be fair (Shepard,

2000a). 24.2.2.3 Objective Testing for Accountability The focus on standardized objective testing intensified when U.S. federal education policy mandated the use of student assessment results to account for state, district, and school use of federal funds. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) required state and local education agencies to evaluate program effectiveness using measures of students’ basic skills. At the time, a lack of consequences meant this requirement had little impact on assessment in schools (Popham, 2008). However, subsequent reauthorizations of ESEA expanded upon the basic premise that accountability for federal funds should consider student assessment results. The 1974 ESEA reauthorization required states and local education agencies to collect student achievement data from students benefiting from federal funds. The 1988 reauthorization required annual assessment of the same students and reporting on the results (Riddle, 1989; Thomas & Brady, 2005).

24.2.3 CognitiveBased Learning Theories and StandardsBased Education Reform During the last quarter of the twentieth century, even while federal policy stimulated the expansion of standardized objective tests, cognitivebased constructivist (and later sociocultural) learning theories gained in popularity among educators (Shepard, 2000b). These perspectives offered a different view of assessment. 24.2.3.1 Constructivist Learning Theory Unlike behaviorist theories, constructivist learning theories assert that learning is an individual process of constructing meaning from experience, or as Phillips (2000) put it, “knowledge is made, not acquired” (p. 7). Possibly the most noted constructivist, Jean Piaget, proposed that every child progresses through a series of welldefined and recognizable developmental stages almost from birth (Crain, 1992). Each stage builds on the previous stage and contributes to the child’s development of conceptual structures or schemas through which they interpret each new experience (Phillips, 2000). Unlike behaviorists, constructivists locate motivation for learning within, rather than external to the individual (Crain, 1992). For constructivists, assessment should provide information about learners’ processes of making meaning from their experiences. Assessment should sample learners’ schema to reveal misunderstandings that could limit their ability to make meaning of new experiences (Hunt & Pellegrino, 2002). The types of assessment items that provide information about learners’ processes include those that require students to show their work, reflect on understanding, engage in a performance, or participate in a simulation. Unlike those used within a behaviorist tradition, these types of assessment are typically more subject to the interpretations of the scorer (Gipps, 1999). Also, unlike the behaviorists, within a cognitive constructivist framework feedback should include descriptive information upon which learners can act (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996).

24.2.3.2 StandardsBased Reform and Accountability In 1983, as constructivist learning theories gained momentum, then Secretary of Education Terrence Bell commissioned a report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). This report declared that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people” (p. 1). The recommendation to remedy this situation was that educational institutions at all levels establish “more rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations for academic performance” (p. 4). This report ignited several decades of intense activity in the United States focused on reorienting educational systems around what we wanted students to know and be able to do, or standards, and holding schools accountable for all students meeting those standards though the use of student assessment results. Standardsbased educational reforms were first reflected in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with the 1994 reauthorization, the Improving America’s Schools Act, or IASA (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). IASA required states to measure student learning in relationship to statedeveloped standards rather than simply comparing students’ performance to one another. 24.2.3.3 Influence on Assessment IASA resulted in changes in both the types of items states included in their tests, and how they were scored (Riddle & Skinner, 2007). States began to include more expanded written assessment items, even asking students to explain their thinking as part of mathematics tasks. States also implemented different scoring techniques, including reporting individual and aggregate scores in relationship to the degree to which students demonstrated proficiency on state standards rather than how students’ performance compared to one another, or criterion referenced scoring. Because IASA simultaneously expanded federal testing requirements to include all students, not just those benefiting from federal funds, educator exposure to these different types of items and scoring also expanded. Standardsbased reform also sparked a renewed interest in “performance assessment” (Kaestle, 2011; Koretz, 2008; Popham, 2008). Performance assessment is “a form of constructed response that requires students to complete a task that demonstrates skills and knowledge across a set of learning expectations” (Klinger et al., 2015, p. 676). According to Herman, Aschbacher, and Winters (1992), performance assessment includes “exhibitions, investigations, demonstrations, written or oral responses, and journals” and ideally “requires students to actively accomplish complex and significant tasks, while bringing to bear prior knowledge, recent learning, and relevant skills to solve realistic or authentic problems” (p. 2). Typically, performance tasks are scored using rubrics that consist of multiple criteria and a scale for students’ level of achievement for each criterion with descriptors for each level of quality in the performance (Koretz, 2008). Performance assessment requires learners to actively demonstrate learning for their achievement level to be determined (Brookhart, 1999; Hibbard et al., 1996; Madaus & O’Dwyer, 1999; Stiggins, 1987).

Performance assessment tasks not only measured the more complex thinking demanded by some state standards, but also had the potential to provide information about students’ processes of thinking (consistent with constructivist learning theories). Although challenges with cost and achieving a high level of reliability in scoring performance tasks ultimately limited states’ use of them for standardized accountability testing at the time (Stecher, 2010), these types of items continued to appear in instructional resources used in classrooms throughout this time period.

24.2.4 The Emergence of Formative Assessment and Sociocultural Learning Theories Another key development in classroom assessment, formative assessment, emerged as standardsbased reform gained momentum across the United States. However, the idea that assessment could be used formatively appeared much earlier. Michael Scriven introduced the term formative evaluation in 1967 to indicate the use of student achievement data to evaluate school programs and curriculum during rather than after the program had been completed (Cizek, 2010; Wiliam, 2010). Then in 1971, Benjamin Bloom asserted in his Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning that classroom assessment should be used “to provide students feedback on their learning progress and to guide correction of learning errors” (Guskey, 2010, p. 108). In 1989, a New Zealand researcher, Royce Sadler, described formative assessment as being “concerned with how judgments about the quality of student responses can be used to shape and improve the student’s competence by short circuiting the randomness and inefficiency of trialanderror learning” (p. 120). That same year, the Assessment Reform Group was established in the United Kingdom with a focus on the relationship between assessment and learning (Shepard, 2006). 24.2.4.1 Growth of Formative Assessment Practice A seminal review of literature published in 1998 by two members of the UK Assessment Reform Group (Black & Wiliam, 1998) reported that instructional innovations that included formative uses of assessment produced learning gains with effect sizes ranging between 0.4 and 0.7. While some researchers identified methodological questions about the Black and Wiliam review (e.g., Bennett, 2011), interest in formative assessment grew substantially following the Black and Wiliam review in part due to a practitionerfocused article reporting on their findings (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2008). In addition, state and national policymakers in the United States began to advocate for formative assessment, which they defined as a classroom version of datadriven decisionmaking , as a mechanism for transforming lowperforming schools (Frohbieter, Greenwald, Stecher, & Schwartz, 2011). In 2006, the Council of Chief State School Officers brought together U.S. educational leaders and researchers to develop a common definition of formative assessment as “a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes” (CCSSO, 2008, p. 3). Instances of formative assessment can be distinguished from other practices occurring

within classrooms as including the following actions by teachers or students: 1) Specifying (explicitly or implicitly) learning objective(s); 2) Collecting data (through formal or informal methods) about the actual level of student learning in reference to the objective(s); 3) Analyzing student learning data (in reference to the learning objective); 4) Interpreting student learning data (in reference to teacher practice and/or student learning needs); and 5) Taking action, based on the interpretation, to improve student learning and/or teacher practice. (OxenfordO’Brian, 2013, pp. 9–10)

Classroom assessment is formative only if it includes the teacher and/or student(s) using the information to improve teaching and learning. If assessment results are only used for grading, for example, the assessment practice would not be formative. 24.2.4.2 Sociocultural Learning Theory The increased focus in the United States on formative uses of assessment within classrooms and for datadriven school improvement corresponded with the growing influence of sociocultural learning theories. Sociocultural theories build upon the seminal contributions of Lev Vygotsky, and the many authors who expanded Vygotsky’s work to schoolbased contexts (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990; Gipps, 1999, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Moss, 2008; Wells, 1999, 2002). Vygotsky (1978) described learning as internalized social interaction mediated by culturally and historically developed artifacts and tools. One of Vygotsky’s most important contributions to explaining how learning occurs was his concept of the zone of proximal development, or ZPD (Wells, 1999). Learners’ ZPD is the knowledge, skills, and understanding that they could not demonstrate on their own, but could with help (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD highlights a key difference between sociocultural and constructivist theories; it shifts the focus away from what learners can demonstrate on their own (constructivist) and toward what they can demonstrate with help in the process of learning (sociocultural). Once identified, each learner’s ZPD becomes the target for instruction and learning activity. Other researchers (Black & Wiliam, 2009; James, 2008; Shepard, 2000b) draw upon sociocultural theories of learning to explain the role of formative assessment in teaching and learning. From a sociocultural perspective, formative assessment culturally and socially mediates learning; or as Moss (2008) describes it, formative assessment becomes “a way of looking at the evidence available for the ongoing interactions in the learning environment” (p. 224). Formative assessment is also a social practice, involving particular forms of interaction between and among teachers and students. Formative assessment is mediated by cultural tools including the tasks used in the collection of student learning data, learning objectives on which the learning data focus, processes or rules used to analyze and interpret student learning data, and protocols or material resources used to structure informal interactions that generate evidence of student learning (OxenfordO’Brian, 2013). It is through formative assessment that teachers and students identify students’ ZPD. Identifying learners’ ZPD requires student learning data to be collected during learning activity while students have access to help from the teacher or their peers and within the social context in

which learning activity takes place (Gipps, 2002; Shepard, 2000a). The model of formative assessment articulated by Sadler in 1989 directly corresponds to using formative assessment to target students’ ZPD (Shepard, 2006). This model is summarized by the following questions: (1) Where do you want to go? (2) Where are you now? and (3) How will you get there? (Heritage, Jones, & White, 2010; Shepard, 2006). The first two questions define the boundaries of the learners’ zone of proximal development. That is, the learners’ zone of proximal development is either between them or beyond “where the learner wants to go.” The third question, “how will you get there?,” identifies a target for instruction that is within the students’ zone of proximal development (OxenfordO’Brian, 2013, p. 79). Building upon their earlier review, Black and Wiliam (2009) used Sadler’s three questions to “unify the diverse set of practices that have been described as formative” (p. 5). They did so by adding the dimension of the actor (the teacher, the student, or other students as peers) to the three questions. This led them to identify the following as key formative assessment strategies for educators: 1. Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success with students. 2. Engineering effective classroom discussions and other learning tasks that elicit evidence of student understanding. 3. Providing feedback that moves learners forward. 4. Activating students as instructional resources for one another. 5. Activating students as the owners of their own learning (p. 8). We make explicit that formative assessment strategies also involve educators/students making adjustments to instruction/learning activity based on the interpretation of student learning results.

24.2.5 No Child Left Behind: Even Greater Focus on Testing Even as constructivist and sociocultural learning theories, and to some extent formative assessment practices, gained in popularity among educators, the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA harked back to a behaviorist approach. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) “set forth primarily an incentives theory of change…assuming that with sufficient motivation teachers (and other relevant school personnel) would find the means to improve instruction” (Shepard, Hannaway, & Baker, 2009, p. 10). NCLB established a nationwide target of 100% of students scoring proficient on state tests by 2014, with commensurate increases in the requirements for the percentage of students scoring proficient each year. It included a series of potential sanctions for states and local education agencies who failed to meet these targets. NCLB also increased the grade levels and content areas in which states were required to assess all students: Grades 3–8 and once in high school for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. Shepard and colleagues (2009) described the impact of NCLB on student learning and instruction as follows:

Since 1992, the era of testbased accountability has been associated with increasing student achievement, but improvements have not been as clearcut or dramatic as had been hoped and cannot be attributed solely to accountability policies…the intensification of pressures since NCLB has not produced commensurately greater gains. (pp. 2–3) They summarized the negative effects on classroom instruction as including increased focus on tested subjects (English language arts and math); less time allowed for science, social studies, art, music, and physical education; an even greater focus on ELA and math for disadvantaged students; increased time spent on test preparation; increased classroom use of tasks that resemble the state test formats; and a more intensive focus on students closest to proficiency cut scores.

24.2.6 Moving Beyond No Child Left Behind Congress did not reauthorize ESEA between 2002 and 2015. However, the Secretaries of Education under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama implemented additional policies that affected format, scoring, and the use of assessment results within classrooms. 24.2.6.1 Growth Models Margaret Spellings, the Secretary of Education under President Bush, introduced the “Growth Model Pilot Program” in 2005 which allowed states to use different kinds of assessment scores to meet federal accountability requirements (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). To participate in this program, states had to propose growth measures based on assessments in each of grades 3–8 and high school in language arts and mathematics that produced comparable results from grade to grade and year to year. States had to receive approval for their measures through a peer review process (CCSSO, 2009b). This program stimulated an expansion of new scoring methodologies and valueadded approaches to measuring the impact of educational programming on student learning. It also set the stage for additional uses of those measures at the classroom level. A CCSSO guide to the program recommended these next steps: “identify fruitful ways to integrate growth model results down to the classroom level” (CCSSO, 2009b, p. 39) and study ways in which “growth results could be used to identify promising teacher practices and ways in which growth results can be shared effectively with teachers” (p. 39). 24.2.6.2 Common Standards A 2008 report by the National Governors Association (NGA), CCSSO, and Achieve, Inc., again made the case for a standardsbased approach to improving education but with common standards across states. The report asserted that the “United States is falling behind other countries in the resource that matters most in the global economy: human capital” (p. 5). Among other recommendations, they called for states to adopt “a common core of internally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K12” (p. 6). In 2009, NGA and CCSSO convened state leaders and began the development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), starting with a common end point—college and career readiness. Initially, 49 governors and chief state school officers committed to this effort. They released the final

standards in 2010. By December of 2013, 45 states had adopted the CCSS. That number decreased to 42 states, Washington, DC, four U.S. territories, and the Department of Defense actively implementing the CCSS by August of 2015 (CCSSO, 2009a). The varied effects of the CCSS and implementation of the standards in classrooms across the United States have yet to be fully determined. One thing is certain; the framework that forms the basis of the curriculum used by a majority of schools in the United States is now common. This creates the conditions for shared development and use of classroom resources related to the CCSS. Associated policies enacted by the Obama administration (described below) and ubiquitous access to educational resources via the Internet have resulted in a vast amount of educational resources linked to the CCSS being made available to educators on demand and for free. 24.2.6.3 Race to the Top In 2010 and 2011, President Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, established the largest ever competitive educational grant program, Race to the Top (RTTT) (McGuinn, 2012), and announced an opportunity for states to seek waivers from certain accountability provisions of ESEA. Both the RTTT program and concurrent ESEA waivers had substantive impacts on state testing, local use of assessment results, and local access to CCSSaligned classroom assessment resources. Through the RTTT program, in 2010 the U.S. Department of Education (USED) awarded $360 million to two multistate consortia to develop and implement (across states) common assessment instruments designed to measure the Common Core State Standards in ELA and math. The two winning consortia were the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), which included 26 states, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), which included 31 states, with some overlap for a total of 46 states. These consortia were to provide new assessments for states to implement during the 2014–2015 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). An external review of the assessment blueprints of both consortia (Herman, La Torre Matrundola, & Wang, 2015) found they emphasized “deeper learning” or more complex and rigorous content, with a “dramatic increase in intellectual demand” (p. 17), achieved in part through the use of performance assessment tasks. The impact on classroom practices from these significant changes in state accountability assessment may be difficult to determine for some time. In part that is because participation in the consortia declined before the first administration of the tests in spring 2015, down to 18 states participating in SBAC and 10 participating in PARCC (Education Week, 2015) and again before the 2016 administration, down to 14 states participating in SBAC and 7 in PARCC (Gewertz, 2016). However, the national assessment consortia have increased educator exposure to different types of items and made a variety of assessment resources freely available, many specifically intended for classroom use (e.g., released items and scoring rubrics). Through the RTTT program, the U.S. Department of Education also provided substantial grant

awards to individual states—$4 billion to 10 states in two phases during 2010, and $200 million to seven additional states in 2011 (U.S Department of Education, 2010a). Competing for the awards encouraged the creation of a number of specific statelevel policies including the development and implementation of common, highquality assessments through participation in the national assessment consortia; implementation of statewide longitudinal data systems; development of unique student identifiers and matching of teachers to students; measurement of individual student growth on largescale standardized state assessments; annual evaluation of teachers and principals and the use of student growth measures to make tenure decisions and decisions on the removal of ineffective teachers and principals; and the use of student performance data as part of teacher credentialing (Howell, 2015). While states receiving RTTT awards were more likely to adopt these policies, states that competed but did not win were also likely to adopt policies related to promises made in their applications (McGuinn, 2012). In addition to implementing state policies consistent with the RTTT requirements, winning states received substantial funding to develop instructional resources aligned with the CCSS and make those resources publicly available. The comprehensive K12 ELA and math curriculum and associated instructional resources developed by New York’s State Department of Education, EngageNY, is a notable example. Since it was launched in 2011, the EngageNY site “has become a national resource and has attracted more than 6 million unique visitors from every State in the nation, averaging 22,000 each week” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., para. 4). Both parts of the RTTT program—the assessment consortia and state grants—expanded educator access to assessment instruments and tasks specifically associated with the standards that frame the content they were required to teach. Educators incorporate these resources into their instructional plans, and use them to collect information about their students’ learning. This places additional emphasis on the need for educators to be prepared to make appropriate choices about the assessment resources they select and use as part of classroom assessment. 24.2.6.4 ESEA Waivers In 2012, Arne Duncan invited states to seek waivers from 10 ESEA provisions, including the timeline for schools and districts to meet federal performance targets and school and district improvement requirements (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). To receive waivers, states were required to address several key principles for improving student learning outcomes including the following: 1. Demonstrate they had adopted college and careerready standards (the Common Core State Standards or comparable), corresponding English language proficiency standards, and aligned highquality assessments across grade levels in ELA and math that would make it possible to measure student growth (such as those being developed by the cross state assessment consortia). 2. Implement differentiated accountability and support systems that consider student achievement and growth of all students and disaggregated groups of students.

3. Start the process of implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems that included impact on student learning growth as a significant factor. While each had potential for impact on classroom assessment, state use of student assessment results as a significant factor in determining educators’ evaluation ratings would seem to have an immediate impact on classroom assessment. As of 2015, 43 states required “objective measures of student achievement to be included in teacher evaluations” (Doherty & Jacobs, 2015, p. 2). Using student assessment results to determine educators’ evaluation ratings posed a challenge to states because more than 60% of educators nationwide do not teach in content areas or grade levels assessed by states’ accountability assessments (Marion & Buckley, 2011). In response to this challenge, most states adopted Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as an approach to measuring educator impact on student learning growth, defined by the RTTT Technical Assistance Network as “a participatory method of setting measurable goals, or objectives, based on the specific assignment or class, such as the students taught, the subject matter taught, the baseline performance of the students, and the measurable gain in student performance during the course of instruction” (2010, p. 1). While the details related to how states and districts have implemented SLOs vary, within this approach educators use classroombased (or other similar assessment) results both to establish goals for their students and to evaluate the degree to which students have met those goals (Marion & Buckley, 2011). In addition, while SLOs were proposed as a solution for including student learning measures in the evaluation of teachers in nontested subjects and grades, ultimately states have included them as measures for all teachers (Hall, Gagnon, Schneider, Thompson, & Marion, 2014). This use has placed additional requirements on the quality of classroom assessment practices and more generally on educators’ use of assessment results. 24.2.6.5 Every Student Succeeds Act: New Opportunities In December of 2015, after 13 years without the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) being reauthorized, President Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This was the first time since 1965 that a reauthorization of ESEA provided vehicles for states to scale back on their uses of state assessment results. At the time of publication, implementation of ESSA is in its early stages. However, several provisions of ESSA have the potential to impact classroom assessment including the following: 1. Elimination of federal incentives (included in NCLB waiver requirements) for states to evaluate educators based in part on standardized, stateadministered assessment results. 2. An option for states to administer a series of assessments throughout the school year that result in a summative score in place of a once annual state accountability test. 3. The opportunity for up to seven states (selected/approved by the U.S. Department of Education) to try out innovative approaches to assessment used for accountability purposes. 4. Affirmation of federal support for the use of growth measures in school and district

accountability. States (and to some extent districts) have decisions to make related to these provisions that could lead them to place greater emphasis on classroom assessment results as part of a body of evidence used in school and district accountability or possibly to extend their use for educator evaluation (in place of state assessment results). In addition, the need for educators to be able to interpret and make use of student growth measures remains, as does the requirement for state testing in grades 3–8 and once in high school.

24.3 Educator Assessment Literacy To what degree do the classroom assessment practices of educators meet the expectations established by federal statute and related state policies? Stiggins (1991) defined assessment literacy as teachers knowing the difference between “appropriate and inappropriate uses of assessment results—thereby reducing the risk of applying data to decisions for which they aren’t suited” (p. 19). Popham (2009) expanded upon this definition referencing “teacher’s familiarity with those measurement basics related directly to what goes on in classrooms” (p. 4) and identified critical topics with which educators should be familiar including reliability, validity, bias, the development of a variety of types of assessment, and interpretation of classroom and accountability assessment results. Gareis (2013) defined assessment literacy as “a teacher’s knowledge, skills and wherewithal to construct and use relevant and dependable assessment techniques as part of the teaching process in order to progress students’ learning” (p. 10). He further described a “spectrum” of assessments from reading student body language to stateadministered accountability tests. These definitions of assessment literacy include teachers’ knowledge of measurement basics including reliability, validity, and bias; their ability to implement assessment in the classroom to inform teaching and learning and document learning; and teacher use of both classroom assessment results and assessment results collected for accountability purposes.

24.3.1 Standards for Assessment Literacy Two crossorganizational efforts in the United States over the last 30 years have attempted to further clarify teacher assessment literacy. The first occurred in 1990 when the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), and the National Education Association (NEA) jointly developed and released the Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students. The audiences for these standards were those engaged in preservice teacher preparation and professional development of inservice teachers. The standards included the following: Teachers should be skilled in choosing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions. Teachers should be skilled in developing assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions. The teacher should be skilled in administering, scoring, and interpreting the results of both

externally produced and teacherproduced assessment methods. Teachers should be skilled in using assessment results when making decisions about individual students, planning teaching, developing curriculum, and school improvement. Teachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil grading procedures which use pupil assessments. Teachers should be skilled in communicating assessment results to students, parents, other lay audiences, and other educators. Teachers should be skilled in recognizing unethical, illegal, and otherwise inappropriate assessment methods and uses of assessment information (p. 7). Following the publication of the U.S. standards, several other countries also worked to further clarify educator assessment literacy, publishing their own standards (DeLuca, LaPointe McEwan, & Luhanga, 2015). Canada published assessment standards for teachers in 1993, New Zealand and the United Kingdom in 2008, and Australia updated their standards in 2012. Analysis of these various standards by DeLuca et al. concluded that they were all congruent with the Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students standards. In 2011, Brookhart called for revisions to the U.S. standards predicated on several key developments in the field, including the following: the expansion of formative assessment as a key to increased student learning, increased focus on students as consumers of assessment results, the standardsbased reform movement, and the increased emphasis on assessment data for accountability purposes. Then in 2015, the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE) released an update to the 1990 standards, Classroom Assessment Standards for PreK12 Teachers (Klinger et al., 2015). Accredited by the American National Standards Institute, JCSEE brings together major professional organizations in the United States and Canada focused on the quality of evaluation with sponsoring organizations including the American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Evaluation Association (AEA), American Psychological Association (APA), CCSSO, and NCME. The JCSEE Classroom Assessment Standards extended the audiences and uses of the 1990 standards to include understanding assessment practices for teacher evaluations and feedback by principals, mentors, and other supervisors as well as individual use by teachers who want to improve their practice (Klinger et al., 2015). The new standards combined some of the 1990 standards and added new ones reflective of changes in the field and current research. For example, Standards 1 and 2 of the 1990 standards stated, “Teachers should be skilled in choosing [emphasis added] assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions” and “Teachers should be skilled in developing [emphasis added] assessment methods appropriate for instructional decisions.” The related JCSEE Standard (F3, Assessment Design) reads, “The types and methods of classroom assessment used should clearly allow students to demonstrate their learning” (Klinger et al., 2015, F3). This update places the focus on the quality of the methods used whether educators choose or develop them. Additions to the standards, reflective of research, included the use of feedback to improve learning, analysis of assessment results,

students’ active involvement in assessment, and communication with parents and other stakeholders about assessment results. The organization of the standards also changed. The 2015 standards are organized into three themes, Foundations, Use, and Quality. The Foundations standards focus on classroom development and implementation. The Use standards extend the standards into data analysis, use of results to increase learning, and reporting of results. Finally, the Quality standards emphasize reducing bias and increasing validity and reliability as they apply to the whole student population—the typical student, students with disabilities, gifted and talented students, and so on. Classroom assessment experts continue to call for increases in educators’ assessment understanding and expertise (Brookhart, 2011; Popham, 2006; Stiggins, 2014; Wiliam, 2014). In addition, new teachers report that they are ill prepared to understand and implement assessment practices for evaluating student learning (DeLuca & Bellara, 2013; Kahl, Hofman, & Bryant, 2013). 24.3.1.1 Determining if Educator Practice Meets Standards What are the gaps between the vision of assessment literacy established in the 2015 standards, or even in the 1990 standards, and current teachers’ practice? We may not know. Little empirical evidence is available quantifying teachers’ current level of assessment literacy (S. Brookhart, personal communication, February 23, 2016; W. J. Popham, personal communication, February 25, 2016; R. Stiggins, personal communication, February 24, 2016; D. Wiliam, personal communication, February 22, 2016). Similar gaps in administrator assessment literacy may also be present. This may be a direct result of inadequacies in instruments available to measure assessment literacy. Gotch and French (2014) reviewed 36 teacher assessment literacy measures available between 1991 and 2014. They considered instrument content, internal consistency, score stability, internal construction, and the correlation between teacher assessment literacy ratings and student learning outcomes. They concluded that the “psychometric evidence available to support assessment literacy measures is weak” (p. 16). The calls for increased assessment literacy have generated interest in documenting educators’ knowledge and skills. Deluca et al. (2015) developed an instrument designed to measure assessment literacy in three areas: (1) educators’ approaches to classroom assessment; (2) their perceived confidence in relation to contemporary assessment tasks; and (3) “their priorities and preferences for professional learning” (p. 23). They proposed using the results of data collected through this instrument to create professional development for classroom teachers and administrators. Some efforts have been made to increase educators’ assessment literacy. For example, a National Science Foundation project in Ohio provided ongoing professional development in assessment resulting in an increase in teachers’ assessment literacy (DarlingHammond & Richardson, 2009). Evidence from a study of teachers seeking National Board Certification indicated that teachers’ assessment literacy markedly increased over a period of three years (Lustick & Sykes, 2006; Sato, Wei, & DarlingHammond, 2008).

Improving teachers’ assessment literacy has become more urgent with the substantial increase in teachers’ access to assessment resources of varied quality, and as states began including teacher impact on student learning growth in educator evaluation ratings. The 2015 Classroom Assessment Standards provide a new foundation for determining baseline assessment literacy among teachers. Recent efforts to develop and evaluate the technical quality of assessment literacy measures are also promising, providing a first step toward broader understanding of the degree to which teacher gaps in assessment literacy pose challenges for educational improvement efforts, and the level and focus of teacher capacitybuilding needed to address those gaps.

24.4 Assessment as a Bridge between Learning and Teaching: A Vignette What does classroom assessment look like when it serves as a bridge between learning and teaching? What does it feel like for teachers and students? How could a teacher continuously make formative use of assessment as part of the instructional process? The following vignette describes a single 60minute class period with a real teacher. It illustrates the many ways one teacher used assessment on one day in a sixthgrade mathematics classroom in Colorado in the winter of 2012 (observed by one of the authors of this chapter, OxenfordO’Brian). Throughout we use notes to identify instances of this teacher making use of assessment as an integral part of her instructional practice. The day before the observation, the 23 students in the class completed a “ticketout” (or exit ticket) (Figure 24.1). The teacher typically assigned ticketout tasks when students had arrived at a point in the unit when they should have been ready to demonstrate mastery of a learning objective (once or twice a week). On the front of the ticketout, students wrote the objective for the day, the task, and their response. The back of the ticketout form included a “Learning Rubric” and an “Effort Rubric.” Students used these rubrics to selfrate their learning and the effort made to learn the objective. Students then completed the task independently. Before the next day, the teacher analyzed each student’s response noting mistakes and how students had completed the task.

Figure 24.1 Example ticketout form. As students entered the classroom, the teacher had written on a whiteboard at the front of the room the learning objective, “Demonstrate mastery of multiplying fractions.” On a board in the back of the classroom, she provided an agenda (warmup, homework circles, homework challenge, review ticketout, additional practice, and quiz). Students sat at tables with seats assigned based on results of a pretest administered at the beginning of the unit; each table included one student who did well on the pretest, one student in the middle, and one student who did poorly. The teacher used students’ pretest results to establish the default grouping of students for the unit. Warmup problems , projected on the board as students entered the room, included one computation problem and two number sense problems: (300 – 99.28),

, and

.

Students began working on these problems before the tardy bell rang. Referencing a sticky note with names of students who had struggled with tasks the day before, the teacher interacted with five different students during the warmup—observing their work on the warmup problems, asking questions, providing oral feedback including identifying student errors, and prompting students about their next steps. The teacher used information gained from tasks in which the students engaged during a prior class session to select students for additional support during the warmup. After students worked independently for 10 minutes, the teacher asked one student to go to the board to show her work on the first warmup problem. Once she was done, the teacher asked the class if they agreed or disagreed with the answer. Then the teacher asked the student at the board to select one of the “disagreeing students” to come to the board and show another way to complete the task. Once the second student was done, the teacher asked the students to compare the two approaches. She explained that this warmup problem included “subtracting with borrowing” because a number of students had made borrowing mistakes on an earlier quiz. Then she asked students to go back to the warmup problem and check each subtraction step one more time. The teacher based her choice of warmup problems on results from an earlier quiz. Next, the teacher reminded the students that the objective for this day was the same as the day before, to demonstrate mastery of multiplying fractions. She told them not to worry about taking a quiz on multiplying fractions during this class session; the class would determine their readiness to take the quiz after more practice. She then asked the students at their table to compare their responses to the other two warmup tasks. She used the same procedure, one student went to the board to show how she solved the first problem; the other students had an opportunity to agree or disagree with her work. However, this time the teacher modeled the problem on the board. She highlighted each step in a different color corresponding to the colors in a flow map of the steps for multiplying fractions posted on the wall, and provided feedback about each step. She demonstrated how the student had correctly completed the task with each step fully illustrated. The teacher used student work to provide feedback to the class as a whole about the steps in multiplying fractions. The teacher used a similar format to debrief the second multiplying fractions task. Most students indicated that they disagreed with the first solution a student presented, because the final answer had not been reduced. Then the student at the board selected a classmate to reduce the final answer. After the second student finished reducing the final answer, the teacher incorrectly indicated that additional reduction was possible. A different student corrected the teacher and explained why it couldn’t be further reduced. The teacher then told the class that she appreciated students checking her work because everyone can make mistakes. Homework circles was the next activity. The teacher initiated this activity by reviewing the prompts for how to talk in homework circles (projected on the board in the front of the room):

I don’t understand…What did you get for the first question? How did you get that answer? Let me help you solve this problem… and Raise hands when your group is finished. The teacher structured homework circles as an opportunity for students to provide peer feedback. The students took out their homework from the day before and immediately began talking to the others at their table. Some used the prompt on the board, “How did you get that answer?” Students identified and discussed similarities and differences in their work. Some students revised their homework during this peer dialogue. As students talked about their work, the teacher tapped three students to tell them that, based on the results of the ticketout from the day before, she believed they needed additional help with multiplying fractions. She assigned each of them to a computer on the side of the room where they could first review how to multiply fractions again and then complete several practice problems. Once they completed a problem, the computer program provided each student immediate feedback that they could use to complete the next problem. As each student finished, the teacher printed out a summary report on how he or she did. The teacher used the ticketout results to identify students needing additional assistance. The teacher moved around the room observing students as they talked in their homework circles, interacting with different groups. These interactions included the teacher prompting one student to ask another student at his table how he solved a particular problem; asking a student what he did first to solve a problem, to launch his explanation of his solution to his table group; and pointing out when students had different answers to the same problem and asking them to think about and explain why. The teacher used learning information gained from observations to provide verbal feedback to students as they worked in small groups. As one table group finished, the teacher quickly reviewed their homework and then asked them to distribute themselves to other tables. She asked these students to look in particular at the first and third steps of multiplying two fractions as they reviewed other students’ homework. Later she explained that these “helper students” were consistently completing all of the steps in multiplying fractions correctly and she hoped that hearing it from their peers would help other students understand how to correct their mistakes. She also hoped that explaining it to other students would solidify the procedure in the minds of the helper students. The teacher used students’ homework results to regroup students for peer feedback. Reviewing ticketout results was the next activity. First, the teacher asked students how they felt about meeting the learning objective, multiplying fractions, after they had completed the ticketout. Students indicated their feelings by holding their thumbs up, sideways, or down. Then the teacher commented that while there were exceptions, a number of students rated their own learning lower than what they demonstrated on the ticketout, and this was also how they

rated their learning on the ticketout selfassessment rubric. She also told the class that many students multiplied correctly, but didn’t accurately complete the final step of reducing the resulting fraction. The teacher asked students to selfassess relative to the ticketout, then provided oral feedback to the whole class about their selfassessment in relationship to their actual performance on the ticketout. The teacher then explained that, as usual, she would regroup students into mixed pairs (based on their results) for the ticketout review. Students would receive their ticketout responses from the day before, with mistakes identified and feedback on some. One student in each pair (who did better on the ticketout task) would take on a teacher role looking at the other students’ work and helping him or her to identify and correct any mistakes. Each student should pay attention to whether or not he or she reduced the final answer. Once they reviewed the ticketout results, the pairs should complete an additional practice problem projected on the board ( . She read the names of the pairs that would work together as she handed back the completed ticketout forms. As they got their papers, students sat down in pairs and began their review. The teacher used students’ ticketout results to regroup students for peer feedback. Five students were not included in the pairs. The teacher asked this group to work with her, explaining that their ticketout results suggested they were not remembering the procedure for multiplying fractions. She referred them back to their notes and then they did the ticketout problem together, reviewing each step. She prompted students to talk about where they got offtrack the day before. At this point, three of the students identified their mistakes. Two were still confused, so they completed the additional practice problem with the teacher prompting each step by saying, for example, “first make both numbers look like a fraction.” The teacher used students’ ticketout results to identify students needing additional support. When she finished working with the small group, the teacher again moved around the room observing pairs as they completed the additional practice problem. Sometimes she listened briefly and moved on; at four different tables she stopped and provided feedback to the students as they worked. When a majority had completed the ticketout review and the additional practice problem, the teacher showed students how to solve the additional problem on the board, highlighting and labeling each step. The teacher used learning information gained from observations to provide verbal feedback to students. Practice problems came next. The teacher told the class that they would do some additional inclass practice problems focused on the third step of multiplying fractions—reducing the final answer. She explained that most of the class had not reduced the fractions on the ticket out and that this was critical for clarifying what the number actually meant. It was also an

objective from a prior unit. She handed out six additional practice problems and completed the first problem with the class on the board, asking individual students to tell her what to do. While students worked individually on the other five, the teacher again moved around the room, stopping at each table at least once. She observed students, asked some to talk aloud to explain their work, and prompted others with next steps. After most students indicated they had finished, the teacher asked them to talk at their table about the final practice problem. The teacher identified additional practice problems based on ticketout results. The quiz was the final activity. With 15 minutes remaining, the teacher asked students if they felt ready to take a quiz on multiplying fractions. Several students indicated verbally that they were ready. Two indicated they needed additional assistance. The teacher then let students vote (with their hands) on whether or not they were ready to start the quiz. The vote was unanimous; the students wanted to take the quiz. Two students helped pass out the quizzes while the teacher talked with the two students who indicated they needed additional help. The rest of the class began the quiz. The teacher provided additional support based on student selfassessment. A focus on instances of this educator or students in this classroom using assessment results to move learning forward reveals more than 15 formative assessment episodes during a single class period. As is evident through this brief window into one classroom, for some educators, assessment and instruction are so interwoven as to be inseparable. This vignette raises the question, how can this type of classroom assessment practice become the norm for all classrooms?

24.5 Future Directions for Classroom Assessment This chapter provides a history of classroom assessment within the K12 context in the United States and an exemplar of classroom assessment in situ. Together, they provide a vision of how assessment use could transform classroom practice, and how their assessment practice could better reflect educators’ beliefs about learning. The chapter also summarizes the increasing federal (and state) pressure to base accountability in assessments. Where do we go from here? As noted previously, at the time of this publication little empirical evidence is available regarding educators’ assessment literacy across the United States. Many of the tools previously used to collect information about educator assessment literacy were developed using outdated assessment standards (Gotch & French, 2014). Moving forward, it will be critical to address this gap. We need additional research regarding the current level of educators’ assessment literacy in relation to the most current assessment standards. These efforts should concurrently investigate educators’ beliefs about learning, knowledge of assessment principles, and efficacy and skill with engaging in assessment within the classroom context. Once educators’ assessment literacy is clarified, ongoing consistent and highquality, professional learning experiences with the goal of shifting educators’ beliefs, knowledge, and/or practices to those consistent with the Classroom Assessment Standards for PreK12

Teachers can be appropriately targeted. Such experiences should be tailored to meet educators’ needs (Popham, 2009) and may incorporate various formats for professional learning (e.g., coaching, professional learning communities, synchronous and asynchronous Internet courses). Similar attention to preparing assessmentliterate administrators is also critical. Asking educators to examine their beliefs and practices about assessment and shifting them to be more consistent with current theory and effective practice is by definition asking educators to make changes in one or more ways. “Professional development programs are systematic efforts to bring about change in the classroom practices of teachers, in their attitudes and beliefs, and in the learning outcomes of students” (Guskey, 2002, p. 381). Thus, it will be critical for professional development efforts to simultaneously attend to the change process. We are optimistic about the future of classroom assessment practice in the United States. Many critical building blocks are already in place (e.g., increased focus on formative assessment as part of the learning process and new assessment literacy evaluation measures). Recent changes in federal policy have the potential to shift the assessment landscape further. We see examples of educators consistently using a variety of types of assessment evidence throughout the learning process to increase students’ achievement. We believe classroom assessment that is indistinguishable from instruction can become the norm in classrooms across the United States.

References American Federation of Teachers, National Council on Measurement in Education, and National Education Association. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students. Retrieved from http://buros.org/standardsteachercompetence educationalassessmentstudents Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–68. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. doi:10.1007/s1109200890685 Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12. Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, A. J. (2015). Educational assessment of students (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Cizek, G. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges. In H. Andrade & J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC: Author. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2009a). Development process. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/aboutthestandards/developmentprocess/

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2009b). Guide to United States Department of Education growth model pilot program. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Guide_to_United_States_Department_of_Education_G 2008.html Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. DarlingHammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(9), 46–53. DeLuca, C., & Bellara, A. (2013). The current state of assessment education: Aligning policy, standards, and teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 356–372. DeLuca, C., LaPointeMcEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2015, November). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment Evaluation Accountability, 28(3), 251. doi:10.1007/s1109201592336 Doherty, K. M., & Jacobs, S. (2015, November). State of the states 2015: Evaluating teaching, leading and learning. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/StateofStates2015 Education Week. (2015). The national k12 testing landscape. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/mapthenationalk12testing landscape.html?intc=highsearch Frohbieter, G., Greenwald, E., Stecher, B., & Schwartz, H. (2011). Knowing and doing: What teachers learn from formative assessment and how they use the information (CRESST Report 802). Retrieved from National Center for Research on Evaluation, https://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R802.pdf Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 11–126). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gareis, C. R. (2013, September). Assessment literacy for teachers: Connecting curriculum,

instruction, and student learning. Presented as an invited spotlight session at the Asia Pacific Education Assessment Conference. Singapore Academy of Principals, Singapore. Gewertz, C. (2016, March 28). Reach of PARCC, Smarter Balanced, drops sharply in 2015– 16. Curriculum Matters, Education Week [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2016/03 Gipps, C. (1999). Sociocultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355–392. Gipps, C. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on assessment learning. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14–18. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512 Guskey, T. R. (2010). Formative assessment: The contributions of Benjamin S. Bloom. In H. Andrade & J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 106–124). New York, NY: Routledge. Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hall, E., Gagnon, D., Schneider, M.C., Thompson, J., & Marion, S. (2014). State practices related to the use of student achievement measures in the evaluation of teachers in nontested subjects and grades. Retrieved from National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment, http://www.nciea.org/publications2/ Heritage, M., Jones, B., & White, E. S. (2010, May). Supporting teachers’ use of formative assessment evidence to plan the next instructional steps. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA), Denver, CO. Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED352389.pdf Herman, J. L., La Torre Matrundola, D., & Wang, J. (2015). On the road to assessing deeper learning: What direction do test blueprints provide? (CRESST Report 849). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Hibbard, K. M., Van Wangenen, L., Lewbel, S., WaterburyWyatt, S., Shaw, S., Pelletier, K., … Wislocki, J. A. (1996). A teacher’s guide to performancebased learning and assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of President Obama’s Race to the Top. Education Next, 15(4), 58–66. Hunt, E., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2002). Issues, examples, and challenges in formative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 73–85. doi:10.1002/tl.48 James, M. (2008). Assessment and learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment: Understanding for reflection and application. London, UK: Routledge. Kaestle, C. (2011). Testing policy in the United States: A historical perspective. Retrieved from the Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education, http:www.gordoncommission.org/publications_reports/assessment_education.html Kahl, S. R., Hofman, P., & Bryant, S. (2013). Assessment literacy standards and performance measures for teacher candidates and practicing teachers (Prepared for the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation). Dover, NH: Measured Progress. Klinger, D. A., McDivitt, P. R., Howard, B. B., Munoz, M. A., Rogers, W. T., & Wylie, E. C. (2015). The classroom assessment standards for PreK12 teachers . Kindle Direct Press. Koretz, D. M. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lustick, D., & Sykes, G. (2006). National Board certification as professional development: What are teachers learning? Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(5), 1–43. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs// Madaus, G. F., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 688–695. Marion, S., & Buckley, K. (2011). Approaches and considerations for incorporating student performance results from “nontested” grades and subjects into educator effectiveness determinations. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/Considerations%20for%20non tested%20grades_SMKB2011.pdf Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159. doi:10.1177/0895904811425911 Moss, P. (2008). Sociocultural implications for assessment I: Classroom assessment. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 222–258). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, & Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a worldclass education . Washington DC: Authors. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003) OxenfordO’Brian, J. (2013). Formative assessment in context (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (Order No. 3605480), http://search.proquest.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu/docview/1490994087?accountid=14506 Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). (2000). Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Popham, W. J. (2006). Needed: A dose of assessment literacy. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 84–85. Popham, W. J. (2008). The role of assessment in federal education programs. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. doi:10.1080/00405840802577536 Public Broadcasting Service. (2001). School: The story of American public education. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL00795BC38B4368D4 Race to the Top Technical Assistance (TA) Network. (2010). Measuring student growth for teachers in nontested grades and subject: A primer . Washington, DC: ICF International. Riddle, W. (1989). Education for disadvantaged children: Major themes in the 1988 reauthorization of Chapter 1. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Riddle, W. C., & Skinner, R. R. (2007). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A primer (RL33960). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/crs/39/ Russell, M. K., & Airasian, P. (2012). Classroom assessment concepts and applications. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & DarlingHammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’ assessment practices through professional development: The case of National Board Certification.

American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 669–700. doi:10.3102/0002831208316955 Shepard, L. A. (2000a). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. Shepard, L. A. (2000b). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning (CSE Technical Report 517). Retrieved from National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/tech517.pdf Shepard, L. A. (2006). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education & Praeger. Shepard, L., Hannaway, J., & Baker, E. (2009). Standards, assessments, and accountability. Education Policy White Paper. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531138.pdf Stecher, B. (2010). Performance assessment in an era of standardsbased educational accountability. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Stiggins, R. J. (1987). Design and development of performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(3), 33–42. doi:10.1111/j.17453992.1987.tb00507.x Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Facing challenges of a new era of educational assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 263–273. Stiggins, R. (2014). Improve assessment literacy outside of schools too. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 67–72. Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic460284.files/ESEA%20at%2040.pdf Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). “How does your teacher help you to make your work better?” Children’s understanding of formative assessment. Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 185–203. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d). Progress: Teachers, leaders and students transforming education. Retrieved from http://sites.ed.gov/progress/2014/11/highqualityandeasy touseresourcesdraweducatorsfromaroundthenationtoengageny/ U.S. Department of Education. (1995). The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OESE/archives/legislation/ESEA/brochure/iasabro.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Guide to United States Department of Education growth model pilot program 2005–2008. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544693.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2010a, August 24). Nine states and the District of Columbia

win second round race to the top grants [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/ninestatesanddistrictcolumbiawin secondroundracetopgrants U.S. Department of Education. (2010b, September 22). U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan announces winners of competition to improve student assessments [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/ussecretaryeducationduncan announceswinnerscompetitionimprovestudentassessment U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/eseaflexibilityacc.doc U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html Vygotsky, L. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (2002). Dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(1), 43–66. Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge. Wiliam, D. (2014). What do teachers need to know about the new standards for educational and psychological testing? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 33(4), 29–30. Wilson, M. (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

25 Rethinking Teacher Quality in the Age of Smart Machines Yong Zhao University of Kansas

25.1 Introduction The definition of teacher quality is one of the most critical questions in education because it directly affects the quality of the teaching force through framing policies and practices in the selection, preparation, and evaluation of teachers. Consequently the definition affects the quality of the entire education enterprise because teachers represent the largest proportion of education spending and are one of the most influential inschool factors affecting educational outcomes. However, amidst the raging debate about teachers, teacher education, and teacher effectiveness is a conspicuous lack of efforts to challenge the dominant conceptualization of teacher quality. The current definition of teacher quality that dominates teacher selection, education, and evaluation has two core elements: subject knowledge and ways to transmit the knowledge to students (Calderhead, 1996; Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2015; DarlingHammond, 2000, 2012a; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS], 1989; Rice, 2003). That is, teachers should know what they are supposed to teach and how to efficiently teach their students what they are supposed to learn. Under this definition, highquality teachers are those who know the content they are supposed to teach and who can effectively help their students master the content. This definition has rarely been challenged. Debates about teacher quality and teacher effectiveness have been fierce and ongoing, but the core elements of teacher quality have seldom been called into question. Instead, the debates have been directed at issues of equipping teaching professionals with the characteristics that will make them quality teachers. These include, for example, how teachers develop these characteristics (Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001; Wilson & Berne, 1999); to what extent teacher preparation programs contribute to the development of the characteristics (CochranSmith & Zeichner, 2005; DarlingHammond, 2000, 2012b; Huberman, 1983; Schmidt, Blömeke, & Tatto, 2011); how to attract individuals with the potential to become teachers of quality into the teaching profession (DarlingHammond & Lieberman, 2012; Wilson, Floden, & FerriniMundy, 2001); and how these characteristics are related to student learning outcomes (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; Wilson et al., 2001). The current definition of teacher quality goes unchallenged because it makes a priori sense within the current conceptualization of teaching, which presumes that a teacher’s primary responsibility is to teach predetermined knowledge and skills within a certain amount of time.

Teachers are generally considered the primary source of knowledge and the master of the skills in the classroom. Thus, they must know the content and how to transmit the content effectively. The value of content and pedagogical knowledge as the most important elements in effective teaching has also been supported by empirical evidence (DarlingHammond, 2000, 2012a; Rice, 2003). Decades of research suggest that content and pedagogical knowledge are strongly associated with student learning. Among the characteristics research has found to be important for effective teachers (Rice, 2003), the top ones are strong content knowledge and knowledge of how to teach it to others. What makes sense in one circumstance may not make sense in other situations. If the conceptualization of teaching changes, so should the definition of teacher effectiveness. There are alternative conceptualizations to the predominant model of one teacher alone teaching a group of children predetermined knowledge and skills. More importantly, the changing education landscape necessitates different ways to conceptualize teaching and thus different definitions of teacher quality. The current conceptualization of teaching arrangement is undergirded by a number of assumptions about education, teaching, and learning. These assumptions have both defined and reflected the reality of education in most schools for over a century. They have become the grammar of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Although they have been challenged along the way and different models have been proposed (Tyack & Cuban, 1995), these assumptions remain dominant today and continue to define qualities of teaching and teachers. However, these assumptions are facing a wave of challenges brought about by technological changes (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Schwab, 2015). As human society enters the age of smart machines, the current conceptualization of teaching defined by these assumptions is no longer adequate to prepare children for a rapidly changing world (Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2012; Goldin & Katz, 2008; Wagner, 2008, 2012; Zhao, 2012b). Some of the assumptions are also no longer valid and do not reflect the reality of education and learning (Bonk, 2011; Mitra, 2012; Rose, 2016). Thus, it is time to rethink the conceptualization of teaching and the necessary characteristics of quality teachers by examining the undergirding assumptions of teaching and teacher quality.

25.2 Challenges to the Current Assumptions The assumptions that support the current conceptualization of teaching and conceptualization of teachers’ responsibilities focus on the outcomes, process, and setting of teaching. Implicitly and explicitly, these assumptions underlie the conceptualization of the job of teaching and result in the definition of teacher quality as a teacher who possesses content knowledge and pedagogical skills. This section discusses challenges to the current assumptions.

25.2.1 Outcomes of Teaching The current assumption is that a teacher’s primary responsibility is to transmit predetermined knowledge and skills to students and thus the outcome of teaching is students’ mastery of the

predetermined knowledge and skill. The predetermined content is usually laid out in curriculum standards, guidelines, textbooks, or implied by tests. The content can usually be divided to fit specific time frames, such as a week, month, semester, or academic year. A teacher is expected to cover the prescribed content within the specified time period and ensure that students master as much as possible. This assumption is almost universally accepted. Virtually all teacher effectiveness research has used academic outcomes (i.e., student acquisition of the prescribed knowledge and skill) as the outcome measure or dependent variable. It is also why academic outcomes have been used as the primary indicator of teacher evaluation. Even those who oppose the use of test scores in teacher evaluation have not objected to the idea that academic outcomes are the goals of teaching. They contend that test scores reliably and accurately measure academic outcomes, that individual teachers can affect the outcome, and that students can improve their test scores within a short period of time. The assumption that teacher’s primary responsibility is to transmit prescribed knowledge has been challenged on multiple fronts. First, academic outcomes, especially when equated with test scores or grades, are not the only outcomes of education. They are a poor indicator of future success in life (Levin, 2012; Zhao, 2016b). Plenty of evidence suggests test scores have limited predictive power of an individual’s success in life or a nation’s economic prosperity. Scores on SAT, ACT, IQ, and other standardized tests have only weak associations with success in college or life in general (Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Levin, 2012; Zhao, 2016b). Performance on international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has not historically predicted the success of nations (Baker, 2007; Tienken, 2008; Zhao, 2014, 2016b). Second, there are many other worthwhile education outcomes that schools are responsible for cultivating in students (Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Labaree, 1997; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Wagner, 2008, 2012; Zhao, 2015, 2016a). Such outcomes include the socalled twentyfirstcentury skills (Kay & Greenhill, 2013; Metiri Group, 2003; World Economic Forum, 2011), creativity and entrepreneurial mindset (Wagner, 2012; Zhao, 2009, 2012b), resilience and grit (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015), growth mindset (Dweck, 2008), and other human attributes that have been called soft skills, noncognitive skills, or nonacademic skills (Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Gardner, 2007; Levin, 2012; Zhao, 2016a). These other outcomes have become increasingly more important in the twentyfirst century when technology threatens to replace human workers in many traditional fields (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Schleicher, 2010; Schwab, 2015). Third, academic outcomes, measured by test scores, do not necessarily correlate strongly with the growth of the other more important outcomes. In fact, internationally, they show a significant negative correlation (Loveless, 2012; Zhao, 2012a, 2012b, 2016b). Furthermore, an excessive focus on shortterm academic outcomes can have a negative impact on the development of longterm outcomes such as creativity, curiosity, entrepreneurial mindset, and motivation by narrowing students’ educational experiences, stifling individuality, and fostering

learned helplessness (Bonawitz et al., 2011; Buchsbaum, Gopnik, Griffiths, & Shafto, 2011; Green, 1982; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Tienken & Zhao, 2013; Zhao, 2014, 2016c). Consequently, there have been rising calls for redefining education outcomes (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Schleicher, 2010; Wagner, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2016; Zhao, 2015, 2016a). If and when the outcomes of teaching are redefined to be the development of human attributes and skills instead of mastery of prescribed content, teacher quality will be redefined because content knowledge and knowledge of transmitting content may become much less important for teachers. If the outcome measures change, it could possibly invalidate the research findings that teacher content and pedagogical knowledge is strongly associated with student learning, which has been measured by mastery of content.

25.2.2 Process of Teaching Another assumption of teaching that supports the current definition of teacher quality is that teachers are at the center of the teaching process. Teachers in the classroom are not only the primary source of the content and master of the skills to be transmitted, but also the primary agent of such transmission. As such teachers must possess knowledge of the content and skills as well as of ways to teach the content. This assumption is no longer valid today. Information and communication technologies have advanced so much that students now have ubiquitous access to experts and content beyond their immediate classrooms. Besides the generic content widely available on the Internet, a vast amount of content aligned with school curriculum and presented by expert instructors has become available for little or no cost. These content materials are accessible at the fingertips of students and they can often be more relevant, more engaging, more personalizable, and more ondemand than what typically is provided by teachers in classrooms (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Bonk, 2011; Khan, 2012; Mitra, 2012). Likewise, students can access content experts, tutors, and fellow learners through social media and other forms of rich media communication tools such as Google Hangout and Skype. Research shows no significant difference in academic learning outcomes between online and facetoface instruction (Russell, 2003; Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai, & Tan, 2005). Moreover, research suggests children are capable of selforganizing their learning without being directly instructed by an adult (Elmore, 2011; Mitra, 2012). Children are naturally born learners (Smilkstein, 2011). They are motivated and are able to learn on their own, given the opportunities and materials (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999; Meltzoff, 1999; Smilkstein, 2011). In fact, research suggests that children learn more effectively without being directly or explicitly instructed. They learn from their peers through collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999; Hamada, 2014; HmeloSilver, 2013). They learn by doing through authentic project based learning (Bailey, 2016; J. Dewey, 1938/1998; Diffily & Sassman, 2002; Thomas, 2000). They construct knowledge, test hypotheses, and formulate new ideas through exploring and experimenting socially and individually (Bransford et al., 2000; Harel & Papert, 1991; Papert, 1993; Piaget, 1957).

If teachers are no longer the primary source of content or master of skills in the process of teaching, does content and pedagogical knowledge remain the core qualification of teachers? If students learn more effectively through approaches other than direct instruction, and they have access to experts and content, do teachers still need to know the content of the subject as previously conceived? The answer seems to be “no.” There is mounting evidence that teachers do not need to know something in order to teach it. Perhaps teachers should move away from being the “sage on the stage” and become the “guide on the side.”

25.2.3 Conceptualization of Teaching The third assumption that supports the definition of teacher quality as content and pedagogical knowledge is related to the traditional conceptualization of teaching. In this conceptualization, an individual teacher is responsible for instructing a group of children. Typically, teachers teach their students independently in isolation (Davis, 1986; Lortie, 1975; Pomson, 2005). They are solely accountable for teaching their students what is prescribed by the curriculum or standards. Such is the assumption of the dominant view of teacher evaluation and teacher education, which results in the practice of holding teachers individually responsible for their students’ achievement and improving the quality of teachers as individuals. This assumption has been questioned on two levels. First, while teaching alone in isolated classrooms remains the modus operandi of schooling, it has been found to be a problematic arrangement for both teachers and students (Davis, 1986; Heider, 2005; Lortie, 1975; Pomson, 2005). There are more desirable ways to make teaching less isolated. For example, collaborative teaching or team teaching has been found to be more effective, especially for inclusion classrooms with students of special needs (Bakken, Clark, Thompson, & Thompson, 1998; Chu, Tse, & Chow, 2011; Jang, 2006; Robinson & Schaible, 1995; Tajino & Tajino, 2000; Thousand, Nevin, & Villa, 2007; YorkBarr, Ghere, & Sommerness, 2007). Teaching is viewed as the collective responsibility in the school systems of many countries such as China, Japan, and Finland (Cerbin & Kopp, 2006; Isoda, Stephens, Ohara, & Miyakawa, 2007; Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010; Lee & Smith, 1996; Sahlberg, 2011; Welch, Brownell, & Sheridan, 1999). In these instances, teachers work as a group instead of individuals. Student learning is thus not the result of one individual teacher but the sum of the entire community of teachers. It is the collective capacity and efficacy of teachers (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Goddard & Skrla, 2006) that make a difference in student learning. Second, putting a group of students based on biological age before one adult teacher is an outdated legacy of the Industrial Age. This onesizefitsall model of teaching has been criticized for a long time for not being able to meet the needs of all children. Many different arrangements have been proposed and practiced over the past century. The Dalton Plan (E. Dewey, 1922), the Montessori method (Lillard, 1996), the Summerhill School (Neil, 1960), the Sudbury Valley School (Greenberg, Sadofsky, & Lempka, 2005), the Reggio Emilia approach (Hewitt, 2001), and many other programs have experimented with different arrangements of teaching. In recent years, there is increasing appeal for a more personalized approach to learning (Department for Education and Skills [UK], 2004; Zhao, 2012b; Zhao & Tavangar, 2016), which requires schools to personalize education pathways for each student.

If teachers were not teaching as individuals and were not solely responsible for instruction, would content and pedagogical knowledge of each individual teacher be the same? If they worked as members of a community, would we look for diverse and complementary qualities instead of homogeneous and similar sets of skills in all teachers? Furthermore, if students are not put in one group based on the same age and instead are treated as individual learners with unique needs, would we want teachers to have the same content and pedagogical knowledge that is currently required?

25.3 Reconceptualizing Teaching The assumptions that undergird the traditional conceptualization of teaching and consequently the definition of teacher quality face serious challenges, some of which are new, while others have been in existence for a long time. They have become increasingly untenable in the face of massive societal changes and educational innovations. When the foundational assumptions become untenable, they can no longer support the conceptualization built upon them. Thus we need to have a new conceptualization that better reflects the new realities in society and education. First, the new conceptualization must be able to produce newly defined education outcomes. The need to redefine education outcomes has gradually but surely become widely accepted. Increasingly, government bodies, businesses, and educational institutions have begun to realize that the traditional education outcomes are no longer sufficient for future generations to live successfully in a world being drastically altered by technology. Technology has already led to massive displacement of human workers and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Some traditionally valued skills and content knowledge have been rendered obsolete and others are being challenged (Wagner, 2008). In the meantime, technology has created exciting new opportunities for traditionally undervalued talents and skills (Florida, 2012; Pink, 2006; World Economic Forum, 2011). Thus, there is a rising call for cultivating individual talents that are entrepreneurialminded, creative, innovative, resilient, and socially and emotionally healthy (Aspen Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy Group, 2008; Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Dweck, 2008; Rose, 2016; Wagner, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2009, 2012; Zhao, 2012b). The traditional conceptualization of teaching is not able to deliver the new outcomes because it was designed and evolved in a world that has been transformed. Built to prepare massive numbers of employees for the Industrial Age, the traditional conceptualization aims to instill homogeneous content and skills in all students. It is about teaching prescribed content and skills to all students at the same pace in agebased groups. It pays little attention to the individual talents and passions of students. It attaches little value to nonacademic outcomes and generally stifles creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit. In order to deliver the new outcomes, teaching needs to be reconceptualized. Instead of transmitting prescribed homogeneous content and skills to all students, teaching needs to be more about supporting the growth of individual students. Instead of focusing on fixing students’

deficits as identified by curriculum standards or testing, teaching should be about identifying and enhancing individual strengths. Instead of transmitting knowledge and skills in specific subjects, teaching should be more about developing socialemotional qualities, nurturing creativity, and fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. Second, the new conceptualization must take advantage of the new possibilities brought about by technological advances and new discoveries of learners and learning. We know children are capable learners and they learn best when engaged in relevant, authentic, and challenging experiences. We also know that children today have ready and easy access to a vast range of learning opportunities through technology beyond their teachers. Thus, teachers no longer need to teach in the traditional sense, serving as the sole source of knowledge and the only organizer of learning. These changes relieve teachers from repetitive and mechanical instructional duties so they can focus more on the human aspects of teaching (Zhao, Zhang, Lei, & Qiu, 2015). They do not need to teach the same content to each group of students. They have more flexibility with how classes are organized. They also can focus more on the development of nonacademic qualities of students. More importantly, they can work more with individual students. In other words, teachers no longer need to continue the traditional stand and deliver paradigm of teaching, making it possible to reconceptualize teaching in a way that can deliver the new educational outcomes as discussed previously. Third, the new conceptualization should address problems of the traditional approach. One of the most persistent and significant problems in education has been the failure to meet the diverse needs of individual students. For a host of reasons, children come to school with vast differences academically, cognitively, physically, socially, and emotionally. They have different strengths and challenges, different passions and interests, different perspectives, different attitudes, and different experiences. As a result, they have very different needs. Although there have been different attempts to address individual differences, these needs cannot be met in the traditional arrangement of teaching, where one teacher is responsible for a group of students for a number of reasons. First, one teacher cannot have all the expertise required to meet the needs of a group of students, even when the group is relatively small. Second, one teacher cannot accommodate the diverse learning styles of all students in a class. Third, one set of lectures, classroom tasks, homework, and assessments cannot be appropriate for all students in a class. To truly meet the needs of all students requires personalized learning and teaching. In light of the changed context of society and education, we can imagine a different paradigm of education (Zhao, 2012b). In this paradigm, education is not the imposition of a homogeneous set of skills and knowledge on all individual students. Instead, it is to develop individual talents. Learning is a highly personalized experience. It is driven by students instead of curriculum or teachers. Students learn through engagement in creating authentic products to address worthwhile problems and create value to others. They explore and pursue their interests in a wellresourced ecosystem of learning opportunities with the support of teachers.

In this paradigm, teaching does not start with prescribed content and skills, but with the children’s passion and talent. Teaching is not to instruct, but to create opportunities for individual students. Teachers’ primary responsibility is not to transmit knowledge but to help individual students pursue their interest and enhance their abilities. Teachers also help students identify and access resources from within and outside the school. In this paradigm, teachers are masterful lifecoaches who help students identify and achieve personal learning goals. They inspire students to have high aspirations, to explore possibilities, to try out their ambitions, and to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. They create opportunities and possibilities for individual students’ passions and talents. They are deeply concerned about students’ social, emotional, and psychological wellbeing. They challenge and encourage students to continuously improve. They help students understand and teach them how to handle success and failure. Teachers are curators of opportunities and resources for learning. They critically examine, thoughtfully select, and carefully construct a “museum” of learning opportunities to expose students to different possibilities and resources. These opportunities and resources are curated in response to each student’s needs. They guide students through these opportunities and help them develop individualized pathways of learning. They provide necessary support to help students make use of these opportunities. In this paradigm, teachers work collaboratively in a community. They do not teach a group of students in the classroom. Instead, they work with individuals as consultants in areas in which they are experts and about which they are passionate. Teachers in a school have complementary talents, expertise, and passions. They are not mutually replaceable mechanical instructional machines but unique human educators with different profiles of expertise and talents. In this paradigm, teachers are community organizers and project leaders. Individualized learning does not mean students always learn alone. Instead very often students learn through authentic projects that involve other students. Meaningful and significant projects necessarily require the participation and contribution of many students with different and complementary talents and interests. They need to work together in communities. Teachers are responsible for organizing these communities, facilitating the development of rules that make these communities operate effectively, and ensuring these communities are beneficial to all members. Teachers are project leaders and managers. In the new paradigm, students are engaged in authentic projects all the time. Thus, teachers work with students to identify problems worth solving, facilitate project teams, and manage the progress with students. They need to mediate student teams, lead a process of quality control and constant feedback, and motivate students along the way.

25.4 Rethinking Teacher Quality When teaching is reconceptualized, so is the role of the teacher. When teachers play a different role in the process of learning, their tasks and responsibilities change accordingly. As a result,

the characteristics that best support their new role should change as well. As the role of the teacher shifts from the primary sole source of knowledge and instruction to one that mentors, coaches, and supports individual growth of students in a community, a certain set of qualities becomes more important than knowledge of content and pedagogy.

25.4.1 Ability to Identify Strengths and Passion One of the most fundamental assumptions supporting this new paradigm is that every student has strengths and passion. That is, every child, regardless of his or her background, has something that is worth developing. The child cannot be defined by prescribed standards or testing. It is the teacher’s responsibility to help students explore and identify their strengths instead of fixing their deficits. Thus, teachers must have the ability to look beyond the weaknesses and find strengths in students. They must also be able to create opportunities for students to develop their strengths and encourage them to follow their passion.

25.4.2 Ability to Inspire and Challenge In the new paradigm of learning, every student is assumed to be uniquely extraordinary and exceptional in his or her own way. Teachers need to have high expectations of all students. Thus, teachers must have confidence in their students and can pass that confidence on to their students. They are able to inspire great confidence in their students. They hold a growth mindset (Dweck, 2008) for their students. They motivate their students to tackle difficult tasks and persevere in the face of setbacks.

25.4.3 Empathy Empathy is the ability to identify and understand others’ feelings and situations. In the new paradigm of education, students are considered unique individual human beings with a diversity of experiences and backgrounds rather than homogeneous recipients of instruction. To reach each and every unique student and help him or her grow, teachers need empathy. They should be emotionally intelligent. Teachers can identify with students and understand their passions, motivations, concerns, worries, hopes, and expectations from the students’ perspective. They do not impose their perspectives and feelings on their students.

25.4.4 A Broad and LongTerm Perspective of Education In this new paradigm, teaching is more about the development of human qualities than the immediate acquisition of knowledge. Thus teachers need to hold a broad perspective of education, focusing more on longterm educational outcomes than shortterm instructional outcomes (Zhao, 2016a). They do not use one set of criteria of success or value to judge their students. Instead, they understand that education is much more than the transmission of knowledge. They focus more on educating the whole child than teaching the content.

25.4.5 Resourcefulness and Collaboration To teach in the new paradigm of education may not require as much knowledge in content and

pedagogy in the traditional sense, but it does require teachers to be much more resourceful than before. They need to become knowledgeable of opportunities, tools, and other resources that can be made available to students. They need to be able to identify, scrutinize, and organize these resources. Teachers also need to be able to help students develop the ability to create their own learning ecosystem. Furthermore, when teaching as a community, teachers need to have strong collaborative skills to work with other teachers and experts outside the school.

25.4.6 Management and Leadership Skills In the new education paradigm, teachers need to move beyond classroom management. Instead of maintaining discipline in the classroom, teachers need to manage many projects, individual learning plans and pathways for each student, and lead projectbased learning communities. Thus teachers need an extensive set of management and leadership skills that includes planning, communication, delegation, evaluation, and motivation, to name just a few.

25.5 Summary As technology continues to transform the human society, we need to transform education from preparing a homogeneous workforce to preparing entrepreneurial and creative individuals (Zhao, 2012b). This transformation means a different conceptualization of teaching and hence of the role of teachers. When the role of teachers is transformed, so are the characteristics that make good teachers. This chapter outlines some of the forces that are shaping the educational transformation. It presents a possible scenario of transformed teaching and qualities that may be required for teachers to operate effectively in the new arrangement of teaching. This new definition of teacher characteristics has significant implications for teacher education and teacher evaluation. In terms of teacher education, we need to reconsider the criteria we use to recruit teacher candidates as well as the curriculum of teacher education programs. If content and pedagogical knowledge becomes less important, should we continue the policies and practices that prioritize teacher candidates’ content knowledge and instructional skills? Likewise, we need to reconsider teacher evaluation. If student individual growth and the development of human attributes such as creativity and grit become more important than the acquisition of prescribed knowledge, should we continue to measure teacher effectiveness by their students’ mastery of content? This new definition also calls for different lines of research. So far, much of the existing research on teachers and teacher education is based on teachers’ ability to impart preset content. However, when different educational outcomes become more important, we will need to look for different sets of skills and characteristics in teachers. For example, if we examined the growth of students’ creativity, we might find that many of the conclusions about teacher quality in the existing literature are invalid. Paradigm shifts do not happen very often in human history and thus are extremely difficult even to imagine. The proposed redefinition requires a paradigm shift in education, which has not happened before in modern history. It can be easily rejected on many grounds by the

establishment. Schools that are interested in making the shift lack teachers with the characteristics to do so because the traditional teacher preparation programs have not been preparing teachers to work in these new arrangements of learning. At the same time, individuals who are interested in developing or possess such characteristics may not become teachers for fear of not being able to find accommodating schools in which to teach. This “chicken and egg” situation makes the paradigm shift even more difficult. But it has to start somewhere for the sake of our children.

References Aspen Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy Group. (2008). Youth entrepreneurship education in America: A policy maker’s action guide. Retrieved from http://www.entre week.org/eweek_files/YouthEntrepreneurshipinAmericaYESG_report%5B4%5D.pdf Bailey, N. E. (2016). The power of projectbased learning: Helping students develop important life skills. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Baker, K. (2007). Are international tests worth anything? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 101–104. Bakken, L., Clark, F. L., Thompson, J., & Thompson, J. (1998). Collaborative teaching: Many joys, some surprises, and a few worms. College Teaching, 46(4), 154–157. Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2012). Oceans of innovation: The Atlantic, the Pacific, global leadership and the future of education. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/09/oceansof innovation_Aug2012_9543.pdf Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The doubleedged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120(2), 322–330. Bonk, C. J. (2011). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1–27. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Brunello, G., & Schlotter, M. (2010). The effect of non cognitive skills and personality traits on labour market outcomes. Retrieved from

http://www.epis.pt/downloads/dest_15_10_2010.pdf Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies (1st ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Buchsbaum, D., Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P. (2011). Children’s imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence. Cognition, 120(3), 331–340. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: Macmillan. Cerbin, W., & Kopp, B. (2006). Lesson study as a model for building pedagogical knowledge and improving teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 250–257. Chu, S. K. W., Tse, S., & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project based learning to help primary school students develop information literacy and information skills. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), 132–143. CochranSmith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2015). CAEP accreditation standards. Washington, DC: Author. DarlingHammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. DarlingHammond, L. (2012a). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. DarlingHammond, L. (2012b). Teacher preparation and development in the United States: A changing policy landscape. In L. DarlingHammond & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Teacher education around the world (pp. 130–150). New York, NY: Routledge. DarlingHammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (2012). Teacher education around the world. New York, NY: Routledge. Davis, J. B. (1986). Teacher isolation: Breaking through. High School Journal, 70(2), 72–76. Department for Education and Skills (UK). (2004). A national conversation about personalised learning. Retrieved from http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DfES 0919 200MIG186.pdf Dewey, E. (1922). The Dalton laboratory plan. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton.

Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Education and experience: The 60th anniversary edition. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Diffily, D., & Sassman, C. (2002). Projectbased learning with young children . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (1st ed.). New York, NY: Pergamon. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for longterm goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237– 251. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Elmore, R. (2011, May 18). What happens when learning breaks out in rural Mexico? Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/futures_of_reform/2011/05/what_happens_when_learning_breaks_ou Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658. Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class: Revisited (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. Goddard, R. D., & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school social composition on teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216–235. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn (1st ed.). New York, NY: William Morrow. Green, L. (1982). A learned helplessness analysis of problems confronting the Black community. In S. Turner & R. Jones (Eds.), Behavior modification in Black populations (pp.

73–93): New York, NY: Springer. Greenberg, D., Sadofsky, M., & Lempka, J. (2005). The pursuit of happiness: The lives of Sudbury Valley alumni. Framingham, MA: Sudbury School Press. Hamada, M. (2014). Active and collaborative learning: Practices, problems and prospects. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w6691.pdf Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. New York, NY: Ablex. Heider, K. L. (2005). Teacher isolation: How mentoring programs can help. Current Issues in Education, 8(14), n14. Hewitt, V. (2001). Examining the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 95–10. HmeloSilver, C. E. (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Huberman, M. (1983). The role of teacher education in the improvement of educational practice: A linkage model. European Journal of Teacher Education, 6(1), 17–29. Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (Eds.). (2007). Japanese lesson study in mathematics: Its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific. Jang, S.J. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, 48(2), 177–194. Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2013). The leader’s guide to 21st century education: 7 steps for schools and districts. Boston, MA: Pearson. Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. New York, NY: Twelve. Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in crosscultural context. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(4), 464–486. Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 103–147. Levin, H. M. (2012). More than just test scores. Prospects: The Quarterly Review of

Comparative Education, 42(3), 269–284. Lillard, P. P. (1996). Montessori today: A comprehensive approach to education from birth to adulthood (1st ed.). New York, NY: Schocken Books. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Loveless, T. (2012). The 2012 Brown Center Report on American education: How well are American students learning? Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2012/0216_brown_education_loveless/0216_bro Meltzoff, A. N. (1999). Born to learn: What infants learn from watching us. In N. F. J. G. Worhol (Ed.), The role of early experience in infant development (pp. 1–10). Skillman, NJ: Pediatric Institute Publications. Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills for the 21st century learners. Retrieved from http://www.metiri.com/21/MetiriNCREL21stSkills.pdf Mitra, S. (2012). Beyond the hole in the wall: Discover the power of selforganized learning. New York, NY: TED Books. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (1989). What teachers should know and be able to do. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/what_teachers_should_know.pdf Neil, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How highstakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why rightbrainers will rule the future . New York, NY: Riverhead. Pomson, A. (2005). One classroom at a time? Teacher isolation and community viewed through the prism of the particular. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 783–802. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Robinson, B., & Schaible, R. M. (1995). Collaborative teaching: Reaping the benefits. College Teaching, 43(2), 57–59. Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperOne. Russell, T. L. (2003). The no significant difference phenomenon. Retrieved from http://teleeducation.nb.ca/significantdifference/index.cfm Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schleicher, A. (2010). The case for 21stcentury learning. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3746,en_2649_201185_46846594_1_1_1_1,00.html Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S., & Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher education matters: A study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schwab, K. (2015, December 12). The fourth industrial revolution: What it means and how to respond. Foreign Affairs. Smilkstein, R. (2011). We’re born to learn: Using the brain’s natural learning process to create today’s curriculum (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Tajino, A., & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and nonnative: What can they offer? Lessons from teamteaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 54(1), 3–11. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on projectbased learning . Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/index.php/site/RE/pbl_research/29 Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A. I., & Villa, R. A. (2007). Collaborative teaching: Critique of the scientific evidence. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 417– 428). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tienken, C. H. (2008). Rankings of international achievement test performance and economic strength: Correlation or conjecture? International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 3(4), 1–15. Tienken, C. H., & Zhao, Y. (2013). How common standards and standardized testing widen the opportunity gap. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 113–122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479. Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need—And what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books. Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York, NY: Scribner. Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. M. (1999). What’s the score and game plan on teaming in schools? A review of the literature on team teaching and schoolbased problem solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 36–49. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R., & FerriniMundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (A research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education). Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrepWFFM022001.pdf

World Economic Forum. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GEI_EducatingNextEntrepreneurs_ExecutiveSummary_2009.p World Economic Forum. (2011). Unlocking entrepreneur capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century: Final report on the entrepreneurship education work stream. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GEI_UnlockingEntrepreneurialCapabilities_Report_2011.pdf World Economic Forum. (2012). Global entrepreneurship. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/issues/globalentrepreneurship World Economic Forum. (2016). New vision for education: Fostering social and emotional learning through technology. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf YorkBarr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A threeyear urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 301–335. Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of

globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Zhao, Y. (2012a). Flunking innovation and creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(1), 56–61. Zhao, Y. (2012b). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Zhao, Y. (2014). Who’s afraid of the big bad dragon: Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Zhao, Y. (2015). A world at risk: An imperative for a paradigm shift to cultivate 21st century learners. Society, 52(2), 129–135. Zhao, Y. (Ed.). (2016a). Counting what counts: Reframing education outcomes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Zhao, Y. (2016b). Numbers can lie: The meaning and limitations of test scores. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Counting what counts: Reframing education outcomes (pp. 13–30). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Zhao, Y. (2016c). Shifting the paradigm: Assessing what matters. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Counting what counts: Reframing education outcomes (pp. 169–180). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference: A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884. Zhao, Y., & Tavangar, H. S. (2016). World class learners: Personalized education for autonomous learning and studentdriven curriculum . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., Lei, J., & Qiu, W. (2015). Never send a human to do a machine’s job: Correcting the top 5 mistakes in ed tech. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

26 Rethinking the Intersection of Instruction, Change, and Systemic Change Barrie Bennett and Stephen Anderson Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

26.1 Introduction Few occupations are as simultaneously complex, demanding, and important as teaching effectively. Engaging 20 to 30 students (meaningfully) for six hours a day over approximately 200 days to cover 300 plus educational outcomes is a “big ask.” Obviously, to engage in this delightfully complex occupation demands a relentless and seemingly endless rethinking and reexamination of the processes that make up that complexity. In this chapter, we touch respectfully on five areas that are worth rethinking when working to extend and refine the instructional practices of teachers. We start with the conceptual and shift to the more practical, from simple to complex, and with that shift to appreciate the interactive complexity of merging current wisdom related to the concepts of curriculum, assessment, how students learn, change, and systemic change. In section 26.2 we discuss the interactive nature of instruction through David Perkins’s (1991) lens of knowledge as design. We then connect that to what we think is a rarely considered relationship between instruction and thinking. This represents a broader idea first discussed in an earlier conceptual piece by Bennett, Anderson, and Evans (1996). That piece was then explored more deeply in a chapter on instructional integration (Bennett, 2010) and in the book Beyond Monet: The Artful Science of Instructional Integration (Bennett & Rolheiser, 2000). Our argument in this first section is that we seldom discuss the interactive complexity of instruction and its relationship to thinking in the design of a powerful learning environment. In section 26.3 we explore the idea of maximizing the power of instruction to impact student learning. Here we focus on effect size (ES) research, including the earlier conceptualization of ES by Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981) and the later practical applications of ES to instruction by Marzano, Pickering, Pollock, and Stone (2013) and Hattie (2012). Currently, the discussion about effect size unintentionally (and unwittingly) pushes us into a singular way of thinking about instruction; the effect of A on X, rather than the effect of A, B, C, and D on X. Our purpose here will focus on the unintentional misrepresentation of effect size research. That misrepresentation of effect size will illustrate both the positive and negative aspects regarding the use of Gene Glass’s (1976) effect size statistic. In section 26.4 we illustrate the importance of attending to the skillful use of instructional innovations. Here we employ concepts and findings from research by Hall and Hord and their colleagues’ work since the 1970s on the concernsbased adoption model (CBAM, most

recently synthesized in Hall & Hord, 2015). We focus more specifically on two components of that model known as Levels of Use of an Innovation and Innovation Configurations. We argue the importance of understanding why teachers must attend not only to the interactive complexity of their instructional repertoire but also to their (and their students’) level of skill in the enactment of instructional activities within that interactive complexity. As a subset, we integrate the research on peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1982, 2002; Showers & Joyce, 1996) with the findings from CBAM research. Our rationale for this section is to provide a cautionary note related to calculating effect size when a teacher’s level of use is somewhat mechanical or becomes routinized in less than ideal patterns of implementation. In section 26.5, we shift into an example of what happens when we mistake a label for a course of action. In this case, we’ve selected a specific rethink of the instructional practice known as cooperative learning and the missing think around how we interpret the idea of cooperative learning as a specific strategy. We could have taken team teaching or direct instruction or problembased learning or any number of common instructional practices to illustrate the same problem. In this section we illustrate our thinking by reconnecting with the first section on instruction and the application of effect size research to cooperative learning. (See Bennett, 2016, for a more indepth analysis of the connection between cooperative learning and assessment.) Finally, in section 26.6, from our work and research on change in teaching practices at the education system level and understanding of how systems “learn,” we discuss the limitation of Level II research and why we need to shift to Level III research. Level II research refers to the effect of an innovation on student learning in a classroom or school; Level III refers to effects of widespread use of that same practice in a system (Ellis, 2001). Level III research is rare, but critical if you are concerned about impacting all students instructionally (Fullan, 2011).

26.2 The Design of Instruction In 1974, Jerome Bruner, in his text, Toward a Theory of Instruction, argued that we have not developed a theory of instruction in order to more thoroughly understand pedagogy. In response to Bruner’s argument, we are proposing a theory somewhat structured by the work of Perkins (1991). Perkins provides four questions in his text, Knowledge as Design; he posits that we must be able to respond to these four questions to shift from the idea of knowledge as information (where the concept “owns” the student) to knowledge as design (where the student “owns” the concept). 1. What is the structure of the concept (its essential attributes)? 2. What is the purpose of the concept? 3. What are model cases (examples) of the concept? 4. What is its value? Perkins illustrates this with the concept of a screwdriver.

1. Structure: a handle, a shaft, and an end that allows it to be inserted into screws. 2. Purpose: put in screws. 3. Model cases: flat head, Phillips, Robertson. 4. Value: mechanical advantage. For the last 34 years, we (the authors) have been trying to “play” with a more precise and practical way of thinking about the interactive nature of instruction. For us this responds to Bruner’s request to more deeply understand instruction. Below is a sample of how we’ve applied Perkins’s ideas to Bruner’s question to instructional concepts. Instructional concepts are one of five groupings of instructional ideas and methods that differ in behavioral specificity and in complexity, including instructional skills, tactics, strategies, organizers, and concepts (see Table 26.1). Table 26.1 Design of instructional concepts. 1) Structure: Qualities of effective teaching and learning that teachers seek to enact through the application of a variety of instructional skills, tactics, strategies, and organizers 2) Purpose: To provide lenses to understand how, when, and where to guide teachers’ enactment of their instructional repertoire 3) Model cases (examples): Safety, accountability, relevance, novelty, meaning 4) Value: increase the chances that a teacher more effectively selects and integrates those instructional skills, tactics, and strategies that make a difference in learning Key here is that teachers cannot directly “do” these concepts. A teacher does not do safety or novelty. That said, however, they can provide wait time (a skill) and Think Pair Share (a tactic) to increase the chances students feel safe (the concept) in the classroom. By employing a variety of instructional methods, a teacher can invoke novelty. This would apply to the concept of differentiated instruction as well. Differentiated instruction, like the research on motivation, is a bigger framework (an instructional organizer) for guiding how a teacher selects and integrates a variety of instructional methods. In summary, all skills, tactics, and strategies are examples of concepts; but instructional concepts in our case are a genre of concepts that cannot be directly enacted. The same can be said of instructional organizers (research on students at risk, gender, the brain, thinking etc.); they cannot be enacted. With most things we do, most of us realize that less complex processes interact and assist in the implementation of more complex processes. We learn the skills of hammering, sawing, and measuring so that we can square up the foundation of a house. We square up the foundation so that we can precisely match the installation of the walls and roof—each level gets somewhat more integrated and complex, and depends on what went before it. So, although the blueprint (or strategy) guided the overall merging of those processes, the blueprint was also dependent upon how well all the other less complex processes were implemented. In addition, we have larger frameworks that guide that complete process such as safety standards, building codes, and so on.

Instruction is no different. We have less complex skills such as how we frame questions, and we intersect the skill of framing questions with another less complex skill such as giving students time to think (wait time). We then intersect both of those with the skills of distributing our responses to maximize the involvement of students, followed by applying a variety of skills to respond to a variety of ways students might respond (e.g., correct, incorrect, partially correct, or a no response). We may now shift the complexity upwards to have those skills drive the more complex instructional tactic of Think Pair Share. We may then use Think Pair Share to drive the second core step of the more complex instructional strategy known as concept attainment. In addition, we have larger frameworks such as research on the brain, or on students with autism, or on thinking such as Bloom’s taxonomy. Even bigger are the philosophies such as constructivism and behaviorism. Again, we see the less complex skills and tactics driving or supporting more complex strategies. All of that is guided by larger frameworks. In terms of strategies, the most thorough and thoughtprovoking compendium of complex strategies was originally presented in the work of Joyce and Weil in their text, Models of Teaching (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2014). Concept attainment, mentioned above, is one of the approximately 25 complex strategies in that text. A classroom example might look like this: Think to yourself, for about 15 seconds, how do you construct a Stem and Leaf chart from data, and from that the mode, median, and mean? (15second wait time). Okay, now share with your elbow partner; make sure you both get a chance to share. In exactly one minute, I will randomly select four of you to share what you and your partner were sharing. In one minute the teachers says: “Okay, Marlene, what were you and Marcos sharing?” Of course, other more subtle concepts were also being invoked in this example. For example, the concepts of active participation, accountability, and safety were experienced by students through the teacher’s application of those skills and tactic. That task also pushed application through analysis in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. In this last piece in this section, we take Bloom’s taxonomy to illustrate how all instructional methods can unequivocally be divided into two groups related to the idea of “thinking.” Table 26.2 has two lists. How are the methods on the A side the same in regards to thinking and how are all the B side methods the same in regards to thinking? You should focus on Bloom’s taxonomy as you complete this exercise.

Table 26.2 Connecting instructional methods to thinking. Side A Mind Maps Venn diagrams Ranking ladders

Side B Framing questions Think Pair Share Teams Games Tournament

PMI (Plus Minus Interesting) KWL (know, want to know, learned) Concept attainment Mini lecture Academic controversy Jigsaw Group investigation Picture word inductive model Fishbone diagrams Time lines Synectics

Lesson design Place Mat Brainstorming Johnsons’ 5 basic elements Wait time

Where would you put instructional practices like Concept Maps, Sharing the Objective and Purpose, EBS (Examine both sides of an issue), Six Hat Thinking? All the methods on the A side push a predetermined level or levels of thinking; the methods on the B side do not push any predetermined level of thinking. What happens when teachers invoke methods on the B side and have little to no grasp of thinking? If one teacher employs Place Mat and pushes recall and another pushes analysis, or uses Venn diagrams as the Place Mat, where is the most power to impact student learning? How many teachers “get” thinking in relation to their choice of instructional methods for particular learning objectives? Could you fill in a fourcircle Venn diagram that overlaps inferences, predictions, and inductive and deductive thinking? What levels of Bloom’s taxonomy do those types of thinking push? If you had to identify, say, four instructional methods that push analysis and inductive thinking, could you? Does it matter? In this section we are reminding educators that when they play with instructional methods, they must understand that those methods range from simple to complex. If you prefer, you can classify them into skills, tactics, and strategies to denote low complexity, mid complexity, and high complexity. We push this more deeply in the next section.

26.3 Selecting and Integrating/Stacking Instructional Methods: Searching for Power (Effect Size) This section connects to and extends the preceding section, where we argued that instructional skills enhance instructional tactics, and skills and tactics enhance the application of instructional strategies. We understand that strategies are the most complex and usually the most powerful in terms of affecting student achievement. In Table 26.3, we provide examples of concepts, instructional skills, tactics, strategies, and organizers.

Table 26.3 Instructional classification. Least complex Instructional Instructional Instructional concepts* skills tactics Safety Framing questions Think Pair Share

Instructional strategies Concept Maps

Accountability Wait time

Venn diagrams

Mind Maps

Most complex Instructional organizers* Multiple intelligence Learning styles

Interest

Ranking ladders

Academic controversy

Research on autism

KWL charts

Jigsaw

Authentic Novelty

Meaningful

Sharing the objective and purpose Probing for clarification Suspending judgment

Six Thinking Hats

Responding to an EBS—Examine incorrect response both sides of an issue

Research on gender Concept attainment Research on atrisk students Picture word Brain research inductive model (PWIM)

* Cannot be enacted directly; they depend on the application/intersection of a variety of instructional skills, tactics, and strategies.

People attempting to calculate effect sizes on something like the effects of multiple intelligence (MI) or learning styles (LS) on student learning are going to be consistently disappointed. MI and LS are not strategies. This calculation would be as illogical as researching the effect of hammers on cutting wood. This failure to grasp the design power of an instructional area is enacted by even skilled researchers when they argue that instructional methods with low effect sizes should be shelved when in fact they are doing exactly what they were designed to do, that is, provide a low effect size. When we calculate the effect of an instructional skill such as wait time on student achievement, for example, we will get a low effect size; but what would happen if we researched the effect of wait time on students’ feeling of safety and, tangentially, willingness to speak in the classroom? If we want to positively impact student learning, it would be wise to develop an extensive repertoire of instructional strategies to meet the diverse needs of the learners and desired learning objectives. Of course a teacher would also have to have a corresponding extensive repertoire of skills and tactics to enact the strategies. Shifting to the idea of impacting student learning, each of the skills, tactics, and strategies has an individual effect size on student learning. Logically, one would think that by integrating instructional methods (using them somewhat simultaneously) or stacking those methods (using them one after another), one would increase the power to affect student learning. Hattie’s (2009, 2012), Marzano’s (1998), and Marzano et al.’s (2013) metaanalyses of research on

the effects of different teaching methods illustrate the impact of single innovations on student learning. In our view, however, their analysis of effect of single innovations fails to represent the complexity of the classroom and the enactment of instruction. Teachers, especially more effective teachers, often integrate and or stack multiple instructional innovations. As an example of possibilities, one of our doctoral students (Feng, 2011) completed his research on intersecting the Johnsons’ approach to cooperative learning with Calhoun’s work on the picture word inductive model (a strategy) to enhance English literacy learning in Taiwan. In that study our student merged a strategy from social theory with a strategy from informationprocessing strategy. Calhoun’s ( 1999) strategy is fundamentally an extension of Hilda Taba’s concept formation strategy (Joyce et al., 2014). The teachers involved in this study were just beginning to learn how to implement these strategies, equivalent to what Hall and Hord (2015) characterize as the Mechanical Level of Use. Calculating effect size impact at this level of use and mastery would be naïve since the users (both teacher and students) were still not skilled in their application. We discuss the idea of Level of Use (LoU) and variation in expertise in more depth in the next section. Instructional integration is central to challenging the contemporary expectation for teachers to differentiate their instruction. As mentioned earlier, the problem is that without an extensive repertoire of instructional methods that can be wisely selected, integrated, and enacted at a sophisticated Level of Use, the process of differentiated instruction and the prospects for positive effects on student learning are diminished. The concern is that if one researches the effect of differentiated instruction without first assessing the integrative power and teacher expertise in the use of the innovation, then one is at risk of rejecting an excellent idea/process. Do you think the teacher’s (and students’) ability to intersect multiple instructional methods connects to the concept of differentiated instruction? Well, if we take the strategy Learning Together (the five basic elements of effective group work) and merge it with students working in partners to complete a Mind Map or Concept Map or Fishbone diagram on a math unit they just completed, we would simultaneously attend to five of Gardner’s nine intelligences (Gardner, 1985). Do you know which five? If not, then you either do not understand Gardner’s work, or you do not understand the Johnsons’ five basic elements (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a), or you do not understand Mind Maps, or Concept Maps, or Fishbone diagrams, or perhaps you don’t deeply understand any of the above. To differentiate, you have to select and integrate something. To do it effectively and maximize the effect on student learning and the diversity of student needs, you need to develop and acquire both skill and understanding of the instructional things that are being integrated and how they work together.

26.4 Expertise in the Implementation of Instructional Innovations Whenever we attempt something we have not previously attempted, our skill level is usually low, at least at the start. Skill comes with practice and with deeper understanding of the design and uses of the practice to accomplish specific objectives. The concernsbased adoption

model (CBAM) offers researchvalidated concepts and frameworks for understanding how teachers shift progressively from a lower level (less effective application) to higher levels (more effective application) in their use of instructional innovations. (The ideas in CBAM are applicable to professional behavior more generally, though we will direct our comments to change in teaching practices.) Two key components of CBAM are most relevant to the arguments we present here, Levels of Use and Innovation Configurations (see Hall & Hord, 2015, for a comprehensive overview of CBAM and references to related manuals, instruments, and research applications). Levels of Use is a framework that provides a generic (i.e., noninnovationspecific) developmental conceptualization of teacher expertise in the use of new instructional programs and practices that points to variability in three key dimensions: use versus nonuse, the kinds of modifications that the teacher is making in their use, and whether the teacher is working independently or in collaboration with other teachers who are also users of the innovation. Teachers at NonUse, Orientation, and Preparation Levels of Use are all defined as non users because they have not yet actually begun to implement the innovation into their classroom practice. The remaining Levels of Use (Mechanical, Routine, Refinement, Integration, and Renewal) refer to the implementationrelated behaviors of teachers who are using or attempting to use the innovation in their practice. As depicted in Table 26.4, each Level of Use is distinguished by the kinds of changes that the teachers are currently making in their use of the innovative program or practice. Teachers at a Mechanical Level of Use are typically beginners in their use of the innovation. Their use is clumsy and disorganized and they report that they make teachercentered changes in the innovation and its use primarily to make it easier to use. Table 26.4 Levels of Use and behavioral indicators for that level*. Renewal User is seeking more effective alternatives to the innovation Integration User is making efforts to work with others re the innovation Refinement User is making changes to increase outcomes Routine Mechanical Preparation Orientation NonUse

User has established patterns of use: making few changes User is using the innovation; makes changes to increase ease of use User has definite plans to begin using the innovation User is taking the initiative to learn more about the innovation User has no interest in learning/taking action

* For more information on Levels of Use, see Hall & Hord (2015).

At a Routine Level of Use a teacher has incorporated use of the new program or practice into their instructional repertoire on a regular and ongoing basis. They report that they are making little change in their use of the innovation (it is no longer an innovation for them) on a daily basis other than the normal adjustments teachers might make, for example, in response to a new group of students or minor revisions in curriculum. Teachers at a Refinement Level of Use have also incorporated the new program or practice

into their ongoing instructional routine. At this level, they are formally and informally gathering information and reflecting upon the impact of its use on students and their learning. Based on this information, they are making refinements in their use of the program or practice for the purpose of improving student outcomes associated with its use. Teachers at the Integration Level of Use are actively collaborating with colleagues in assessing student outcomes and making further refinements in their innovation use. Table 26.4 depicts each of the generic Levels of Use. Even at this generic level of characterizing variability in teacher expertise in the use of a new program or practice, the CBAM developers pose a key question. At what point should researchers, program developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders begin inquiring into the effect of an innovation in program or practice on student learning? Certainly, one would need to establish that the intended users are indeed making some use of the innovation in the classroom. Is it fair to judge the quality of implementation and its impact on student learning when the users are fumbling around at a Mechanical Level of Use? Should we establish that a teacher or group of teachers have reached a Routine Level of Use before assessing and judging the impact of use on student learning? How should we take into account the possibility that teachers are independently or collegially engaging in evidencebased processes of continuous improvement and refinement in their use of the program and practice? This generic image of developmental progress in teacher expertise in the use of innovative programs and practices is further complicated by the reality that most all changes in instructional programs and practices are multidimensional. In broad terms, educational innovations for teachers may involve changes in materials (e.g., curriculum content, textbooks), practices (e.g., teaching or assessment strategies, grouping practices, classroom management), and beliefs (Fullan, 1982). The exact nature and extent of change within each of these dimensions, however, is innovation and context specific. Leithwood (1981) proposed a generic framework of 10 dimensions that could be used to describe any change in teaching and learning, though not all changes necessarily affect all dimensions (e.g., curriculum content, learning objectives, materials, teaching methods, assessment methods, and grouping of students). CBAM captures this idea in the concept of Innovation Configurations (Hall & Hord, 2015), though in contrast to Leithwood’s generic proposal, the specific components of practice implicated in the use of an innovation are uniquely specified for each new program or practice. They further propose that for each innovation component, there can be variability in teacher implementation from less to more ideal or expert patterns of use (hence the idea of configurations of use of an innovation across multiple dimensions). In terms of Levels of Use, a teacher might be a nonuser for some components and innovation and a Mechanical, Routine, or Refinement user for others. To further complicate the possible implementation scenario, a teacher might settle into a Routine Level of Use overall with variations in practice that do not coincide with expert use! Without taking into account the kind of variability in skill and expertise in teacher implementation of programs and practices described by CBAM theorists and researchers, we

risk making judgments about the benefits of those programs and practices that are more due to the quality of their actual use by teachers, which may in turn be highly dependent upon the quality of implementation training and support provided, rather than due to the attributes of those programs and practices themselves. The appropriate unit of analysis for assessing the impact of a pedagogical innovation on student learning is the program or practice as implemented by a teacher or group of teachers. Clearly, teachers can differentiate their instruction and still be less than competent even if those methods are deemed (say by effect size research) as powerful. Logically, the amount of practice and assistance required to move teachers beyond Mechanical and ineffective Routine Levels of Use varies with the complexity of the innovation, which in terms of this chapter refers to the instructional methods—skills, tactics, and strategies. Research on expert behavior tells us that we need about 10 years of intensive effort before we are considered an expert in anything that is even reasonably complex (see the 1993 text, Surpassing Ourselves, by Bereiter and Scardamalia). So as teachers and students shift through progressive levels of expertise, we most likely achieve limited impact on student learning while teachers and students are struggling through the initial learning phase, which Fullan characterizes as the implementation dip (Fullan, 2001), and/or settle into adequate but inexpert patterns or variations in their use of practices. If we now insert the research on peer coaching, based on the work of Beverley Showers and Bruce Joyce (Joyce & Showers, 1982; Showers & Joyce, 1996), we find a way to get out of the initial implementation dip to help teachers shift beyond Mechanical and ineffective patterns of use by working with others both at the workshop and back at the school. The missing think in peer coaching is that although transfer of learning is clearly enhanced by the process of peer coaching (Bennett, 1987), it fails to attend to the complexity of different levels and variable patterns of use of the innovation. Conversely, a missing think in the CBAM framework is that collaboration among teachers in their use of a new program or practice is positioned as a developmental phase further up the Level of Use sequence. Our experience working with teachers learning new instructional methods indicates that, indeed, teachers are often reluctant to open up to collaboration until they have achieved some degree of comfort in their use of those methods. Contemporary practice in the enactment of schoolbased professional learning communities, however, suggests that teacher–teacher collaboration such as peer coaching can occur as a normal part of an implementation support system, not simply as something that follows routinization of use at the individual level. Furthermore, the prospects of a teacher shifting to a Refinement Level of Use and expertise are enhanced through peer coaching and other forms of joint work associated with professional community (Little, 1990).

26.5 Cooperative Learning—Not an Instructional Method Pants are to clothing as Jigsaw is to cooperative learning. Clothing and cooperative learning are labels under which specific items are classified. Concomitantly, one would not do research

on the impact of clothing on hypothermia no more than one would research the impact of cooperative learning on student learning. Cooperative learning is an instructional organizer (a large body of research in a specific area of inquiry); it is not a specific strategy. Note that cooperative learning has well over 200 separate instructional approaches that range from simple (and less powerful) to complex (and more powerful). For example, Jigsaw and Teams Games Tournaments are specific cooperative methods that are somewhat complex. Think Pair Share and Place Mat are also cooperative methods, but they are far less complex. Although a researcher can calculate the effect sizes on those specific methods, combining the effect sizes of more and less complex methods under the “guise” of cooperative learning is wrong; you get caught in the statistical dilemma of “regression toward the mean.” Cooperative learning is a belief system that kids can learn effectively when working in effectively structured groups. That misthink related to cooperative learning being a specific strategy (or that we can treat it like a specific strategy in terms of effect size research) layers onto the concerns or imprecisions described in the earlier sections of this chapter. We start to sense the domino effect related to researching the impact of innovations on student learning. In section 26.2 we discussed the complexity of instruction to illustrate an interrelationship between less and more complex instructional methods. We also illustrated that “pushing thinking” is often not considered when enacting instructional methods. Earlier in this chapter we worked to clarify how less complex innovations drive more complex innovations and that dynamic interplay between processes is rarely researched even though intersecting innovations is how most effective teachers teach. Section 26.3 was designed to communicate that although less complex innovations have lower effect sizes, they are key to implementing those methods with higher effect sizes. You don’t want to eliminate less complex methods simply because their effect size is lower. Hattie’s research (Hattie, 2012) unwittingly communicates “stay away from lower effect sizes.” In section 26.3, we also pushed into the implications of integrating instructional innovations merged with the effect size statistic. In section 26.4 we argued the importance of the relationship of Levels of Use and of variations in patterns of more and less effective enactment of an innovation and effect size research. When we conceptually misrepresent an instructional area, we argue then that effect size research is of questionable use for those involved in evaluating the impact on instructional practice through the professional development of teachers. Marzano’s (1998, 2007) and Hattie’s (2009, 2012) research provides the effect sizes (standard deviations) for cooperative learning as around 0.6. Their results focus on the label, not the specific approaches. In contrast, several syntheses of the cooperative learning literature, one by David and Roger Johnson (1989b) and the other by Robert Slavin (1980/1995, 2006), provide the specific effect sizes for well over 100 studies. The concern, however, is that currently, more educators are attending to the work of Marzano and Hattie, which, to be fair, is for the most part an impressive and useful synthesis of the research. Nonetheless, the effect size work of Slavin, the Johnsons, Marzano, and Hattie does not adequately take into account the genuine complexity of instructional practice as we have argued in the preceding sections. Research that reports the effect of cooperative learning on student learning will suffer from regression toward the mean. Less complex cooperative learning tactics such as Think Pair

Share and the 2/3 Person Interview will look somewhat more powerful, whereas the more complex methods such as Academic Controversy and Group Investigation will appear less powerful. Teachers who lack an understanding of effect size and the range of complexity within the cooperative learning literature will think they will be getting that “averaged” effect size when they use less complex methods that often have no research whatsoever on their impact on student learning. Going back to the first paragraph in this section, a key issue is effectively structured. From our experience in classrooms, most teachers do not structure group work effectively. They get away with it because they are effective teachers and kids respect them as teachers. Consider this example. Lyman’s Think Pair Strategy (TPS) appears to be somewhat easy. The teacher puts students in pairs, asks a question, gives them time to think, and then has students share with a partner. Finally, they have a few students share their thinking with the class. Interestingly, our Bachelor of Education students come back from their practicums and say, “We thought Think Pair Share would be easy … but we really struggled trying to get students to get into groups and to get them both to talk,” and so on. As a result of our students’ comments, we took the time to have them deconstruct the application of a TPS. Below are some of the questions or comments they made. 1. What if you have an odd number of students? Who does that person work with because it always seemed to be the person no one wanted to work with? 2. Even if we had an even number of students, some students were not picked—they had no partner. So when we tried to put them with another pair we experienced pushback from that pair being asked to take an additional student. 3. We put the boys with girls but the boys just grunted. 4. How do you make sure they both talked? 5. How much time do you give them to think first? 6. What happens if we pick a student and they say nothing? 7. We had a student that refused to work with anyone. 8. The student with autism really struggled. 9. What do we do with ESL learners—who do they talk with? In addition to the students’ comments, you could add issues such as being able to frame questions effectively and matching the wait time with the level of thinking from Bloom’s taxonomy. Now add in the specific social, communication, and/or critical thinking skills students require to effectively engage in TPS. To personalize this complexity, can you identify three examples of social, communication, and critical thinking skills? Do you understand the interactive complexity between those three genres of skills? If you’re interested, see Chapter 2 in Bennett’s Effective Group Work: Beyond Cooperative Learning (2016). The point to consider regarding this genre of skills is that taking turns, equal voice, attentive listening, suspending judgment, disagreeing agreeably, accepting and extending the ideas of others all

assist in the skillful implementation of Think Pair Share. Table 26.5 identifies what CBAM developers refer to as an Innovation Configuration Map for TPS. On the left it depicts key components of teacher behavior in implementing TPS. To the right it depicts variations in the enactment of TPS from lesser to higher or ideal levels of implementation skill. What we have labeled Variation 1 likely captures what a beginning user at the generic Mechanical Level of Use would be doing. One could have further variations; we are not suggesting a perfect variation. We are suggesting progressively more complex and possibly more powerful and skillfully implemented variations in use. Table 26.5 Rubric Think Pair Share implementation. Component

Variation 1

Variation 2

Variation 3

Need to have the teacher explain Think Pair Share

Yes, at first—students do not understand why the teacher is applying TPS; the process comes across as a bit clunky.

No, but the teacher may need to briefly remind students; teacher and students are now smoother users.

Teacher’s ability to frame questions and apply wait time while being sensitive to factors such as the complexities of thinking Teacher’s ability to respond to students’ responses

Teacher is not that skilled in framing questions and the use of wait time; has a limited understanding of complexities of thinking (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy) when framing questions.

Teacher is framing questions, often thinks of/applies wait time; still does not skillfully attend to the different complexities of thinking. Teacher is just starting to Teacher is more consider the different ways skilled at responding students respond but seldom to student responses takes this into consideration. and how that affects student participation/safety. Application of the Teacher is beginning to Teacher and students collaborative skills consider and teach are becoming more (social, appropriate social skills skilled at attending to communication, and such as equal voice and appropriate critical thinking communication skills such collaborative skills. skills) appropriate as attentive listening. to the task

No explanation or reminder—students understand the TPS process; teacher easily applies; students understand how it works. Teacher frames questions effectively; applies wait time, being sensitive to the complexities of thinking (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy). Teacher is skilled at responding to the different ways students respond; knows when to suspend judgment. Teacher and students easily and appropriately apply a range of social, communication, and critical thinking skills.

How the teacher applies/integrates

Beginning to use TPS to enhance other instructional

Easily and effectively integrates

More consistently connects TPS with

TPS with other instructional methods

methods such as corners, concept attainment.

How effectively the The teacher is working on teacher enacts IA, but not always that individual effectively implemented. accountability (IA)

other instructional methods.

TPS with other instructional methods.

Becoming more consistent in enacting IA; students taking more responsibility.

Teacher effectively and consistently enacts IA; students also realize that IA is their responsibility.

In addition to the ideas in Table 26.5, remember that teacherstructured pairs are often going to be more effective (and more connected to the students’ eventual work experience outside of school) than friendship pairs. Also, the students’ application of collaborative skills such as equal voice, attentive listening, paraphrasing, suspending judgment, seeking clarification, and disagreeing agreeably increases the power of Think Pair Share. In our own observations of classroom practice, we consistently see kindergarten and grade 1 students enacting TPS when they are taught how to do it effectively. We have classified cooperative learning into three dimensions that stack one on top of another like a tiered wedding cake, as shown in Figure 26.1.

Figure 26.1 Organizer for the three dimensions of cooperative learning. On the bottom you find the safe classroom and the literature that assists educators to create safe learning environments in classrooms, schools, and districts. Jeanne Gibbs’s (1995) Tribes program fits into this first layer. The middle layer focuses on the research on how groups

function that guides teachers in the design of structuring and analyzing, and evaluating group work. The work of David and Roger Johnson (1989a) and their five basic elements of effective group work fit into this layer. As an example, see the implementation rubric in Table 26.6 designed for teachers to selfassess their application of those five basic elements, and Table 26.7, which is designed for students to selfassess their efforts. The top layer represents the 200 plus group tactics and strategies that provide a variety of ways to differentiate one’s cooperative learning repertoire. The work of Kagan and Kagan (2008) illustrates this top layer.

Table 26.6 Implementation rubric (teacher): five basic elements of group work. Component Teacher’s skill at invoking individual accountability

Variation 1 Realizes this is important and works at invoking this concept. That said, often leaves it too late; or invokes it incorrectly (e.g., having the role of the reporter—so others off the hook). Teacher’s skill at Teacher is working at structuring in this; group size is facetoface usually appropriate interaction (this although sometimes includes how they too large (e.g., 5 structure student instead of 3 or 4; or 4 groups) instead of 2 or 3); uses friendship groups too often. Teacher’s skill at Teacher usually teaching/reviewing remembers to teach or the appropriate review a skill; usually collaborative uses T chart or Y skills chart. Skills taught are basic skills. Teacher’s skill at processing the academic and collaborative objectives

Teacher’s application of the appropriate types of positive interdependence (PI)

Variation 3 Effectively invokes the concept with all forms and complexities of group work; also senses how noncooperative learning processes also demand individual accountability (e.g., framing questions). Teacher and students understand and effectively attend to appropriate group size; almost always teacher selected; that said, students will also put themselves into appropriate groups. Teacher almost always Teacher effectively teaches or reviews a teaches/reviews skill; uses T and Y appropriate skills; charts as well as students also selfselect concept attainment; and review skills; also teachers more teacher also teaches complex skill. more complex skills. Teacher often forgets Teacher always Teacher effectively and to process the processes the consistently processes collaborative skill, but academic; will still the academic and does process the forget to process the collaborative skills; academic skill; collaborative skill; students take most of the struggles having all most students involved. responsibility. students involved. Teacher invokes goal of positive interdependence but still struggles with the others; for example, may confuse incentive and outside force PI.

Variation 2 Effectively invokes the concept as part of the group work but does not sense how to invoke it with processes outside of group work (e.g., how to frame questions to involve all students). Teacher is effective in structuring groups; group size usually appropriate; uses random assignment to groups; could use teacherstructured groups more often.

Teacher invokes the appropriate types of positive interdependence; at times may overuse or underuse.

Teacher effectively applies the appropriate types of positive interdependence.

Table 26.7 Implementation rubric for student selfassessment of group work. Variation 2 A few to most students take responsibility for being involved; a few understand why it is important.

Variation 3 Most students take responsibility for being involved; most students understand why it is important.

Variation 4 All students take responsibility for being involved; they all understand why it is important; they use the concept to assess their own group work.

Students beginning to interact with one another; a few starting to apply the skills that will facilitate them interacting. Applying the A few students appropriate will apply the collaborative collaborative skills skill taught or reviewed; will need to be reminded during the lesson. Processing the Students academic and beginning to take collaborative academic task processing seriously; a few are taking the collaborative processing seriously. Positive Most students Most students interdependence will not will understand (PI) understand this some of the types concept; the of PI; the types types of PI were explained. were not

Most students interact with each other; most effectively apply the skills that will facilitate them interacting.

Students are effective in interacting with one another; they effectively apply the skills that assist them to interact with one another.

Most students apply the collaborative skill taught or reviewed; will often need to be reminded during the lesson. Most students take the academic processing seriously; most take the collaborative task seriously.

Most to all students apply the collaborative skill taught or reviewed and do not need to be reminded; they apply this to assess their own group work. Most to all students take both the academic and collaborative task processing seriously; they apply this to assess their own group work.

Most students will understand most of the types of PI; the types of PI were taught.

All students will understand most to all of the types of PI; the types were taught and the teacher checked to make sure all students

Individual accountability (IA)

Facetoface interaction

Variation 1 Students take little to no responsibility for being involved; they were also not taught this concept. Students struggle to interact with one another; they also lack the skills that facilitate them interacting. Most students don’t think of applying the collaborative skill taught or reviewed— even when reminded. Most students will do it but do not take processing the academic or collaborative task that seriously.

explained.

understood them.

Table 26.7 is a rubric for assessing the students’ efforts; or for students to assess themselves. In studying and measuring the effects of instructional innovations, researchers often ignore the reality that changes in instructional practice for the teacher often require students to change and learn new learning behaviors as well. You can sense that calculating one effect size for cooperative learning is unwise. If we also look at transfer and fidelity and quality of transfer, we run into lenses of Levels of Use and variations in patterns of use from CBAM and transfer of learning from peer coaching, which further complicate the interpretation of effect size research.

26.6 Shifting to Widespread Use of an Innovation In this final section we discuss how the ideas in the preceding four sections impact our thinking related to taking innovations to scale, that is to encourage widespread use of innovations (shifting from a few teachers or schools to most teachers and schools). Logically, this requires having an understanding and skill set related to how to initiate and implement change that takes into account the complexity of instructional change as explained in the preceding sections of this chapter, as well as the organizational and political dimensions of achieving that systemically on a large scale. Here we are arguing that the unit of analysis for effectiveness has to be what most or all teachers are doing, rather than on what a few teachers in a school or a few schools in a district are doing in regards to instructional practice. When we talk about the system, we refer to schools within a defined area of governance. This would include a smaller district like the Lakeland Catholic District in Canada with seven schools, the state of Western Australia with 856 schools, and the country of Ireland with over 3,000 schools. Each of those districts has one chief executive officer, often called a Superintendent or Director or Minister of Education. As a way into positioning the idea of systemic change, Ellis (2001) identified three lenses for understanding three genres of educational research. He labeled them Level I, Level II, and Level III. Although this classification of genres of research is useful, it is the inferences that evolve out of that classification that become critical. Level I research refers more to grounded research that takes hunches or hypotheses and collects data to find patterns and relationships. Section 26.2 in our chapter was an example of Level I research. Gardner’s work on multiple intelligences, the research on students with autism, and the implications of brain research in the design of learning environments would be other examples. In section 26.2, we described our inquiry into a more interactive and integrative understanding of instruction. The first inference from our work is how this research provides a sense of wisdom in making instructional decisions. If we fail to grasp the interactive complexity of instruction, then what happens at Level II is somewhat suspect. Level II research refers to specific innovations and their impact in a few classrooms or a few schools within a system. For example, the classroom use of Mind Maps, or Concept

Attainment, or Think Pair Share would be examples of Level II research. The effect of single innovations on student learning is where we find virtually all research related to instruction and student learning. The effect size research discussed in section 26.3 focused on Level II research. That said, the problem now compounds itself if we fail to understand instructional complexity, and in addition, if we fail to take into account the work on CBAM (Levels of Use of an innovation and Innovation Configurations) that refer to how effectively teachers and students apply those innovations. This is especially concerning when it comes to making assessment decisions from data about student learning. The concern further compounds itself when we shift into Level III research on how systems change. Level III research refers to the investigation of the widespread use of programs and practices; concomitantly, implementing compounding problems systemically seems unwise. Level III research is often discussed in terms of taking it to scale (Coburn, 2003; Elmore, 1996; RincónGallardo, 2016). With Level III research we are looking at the effects of an innovation or group of innovations across organizational contexts. According to Ellis, Level III research is the rarest type of research. Although systemic change research is rare, school systems at various levels of jurisdiction (e.g., district, state, networks) often say they are engaged in systemic change efforts. The authors have been involved in largescale systemic change for almost 30 years in multiple contexts across Canada and internationally. The “thinking piece” about systemic change indicates that one has to understand educational change (e.g., the research on peer coaching and transfer of learning, Levels of Use and variations in patterns of enactment of an innovation from CBAM, professional learning communities) in order to effectively enact systemic change. Systemic change is as much an innovation to be implemented as the innovations being implemented. Education system leaders themselves should expect to experience Mechanical Levels of Use when they begin to play in the world of systemic change and they should not presume the effectiveness of the strategies they enact. Focusing specifically on the process of change over time, Huberman and Miles (1984) in their seminal text, Innovations Up Close: How School Improvement Works, shared findings from their research concerning the factors that guide the initiation, implementation, sustainability, and extension of change efforts. Their work provided and continues to provide practical insights into the inner workings of change and factors system thinkers should consider if they want to avoid that progressive shift from failure to failure. For example, in our systemic change project in Ireland, which now, after nine years, involves teams of teachers/administrators from 40% of the secondary schools in Ireland, we employ “change” rubrics to get a sense of our change efforts. Table 26.8 illustrates how we are applying systemic change research to guide our thinking and actions. (See O’Murchu, Russell, & Bennett, 2014, for a more detailed description of that project.)

Table 26.8 Rubric on the factors affecting implementation. Factors Power of the innovation(s) (this refers to the effect size of each innovation on student learning)

Level 1 little to no attention paid to power; most innovations have low power

Level 2 beginning to think about power— and some innovations are more powerful

Level 3 working at understanding power; a clear shift occurring toward selecting more powerful innovations

Level 4 clear understanding of power and educators consider power when making instructional decisions

Learning process/quality (effectiveness of workshops etc. re learning and transfer of learning) Attention to Levels of Use (from the CBAM research) Building connections with stakeholders

little to no attention paid to process of teacher learning and transfer of learning little to no understanding of Levels of Use little to no connection with other stakeholders

some attention paid to the process of how teachers learn and transfer learning—still a bit sporadic beginning to talk about Levels of Use but not really acting on it beginning to make those connections and sense their importance Building internal little to no talking about it capacity to consideration but not sustain change consistently (continuation) acting on it Researching the little to no talking about process and attention paid doing research; a impact to research few simpler action research studies being done

attention consistently paid to most variables related to how teachers learn and transfer learning

attention consistently paid to most or all variables at a more sophisticated Level of Use

talking about Levels of Use, beginning to use it to understand implementation making connections, understand the importance of the connections

understand and act on Levels of Use— use it to understand implementation continuing to expand the connections; deeper understanding of the importance understand the created and importance; continuing to expand beginning to create internal capacity to opportunities sustain change research is action research, occurring, some graduate research graduate work and and external more done on action research being research; beginning completed; to present at presenting at conferences conferences; publishing

Rubrics, such as the one in Table 26.8, are not to be sensed as “the” rubrics, but rather, as lenses that one can employ to guide “action”—to get a sense of whether or not you are moving

in a direction that is more considered, intentional, and wise.

26.7 Conclusion The authors of this chapter have been involved with longterm systemic change for over 30 years as attheelbow consultants (Bennett) and as observers (Anderson). We have learned that when system educators focus on what we know works over a sustained period of time, districts can become more effective. For example, our current work with secondary teachers in Ireland is now in its tenth year; we now have about 40% of secondary schools involved in the project. We see this as a 15year project in order to build in the internal capacity to deal with systemic change. What works needs to consciously address the complexities of integrated and skillfully implemented instructional practice as discussed and illustrated in this chapter. And it needs a support system whose actors, resources, and policies take that into account. Key in our work is that systems do change and can learn from and support one another. One of the districts with whom we worked from 1987 to about 2000 (the Durham Board of Education) won an international award as one of the top school districts in the world with its focus on instructional change. That project was based on an earlier systemic change project focused on instruction with Edmonton Public Schools from 1982 to 1987. Bennett’s current collaborative systemic teacher development projects in Western Australia with the Teachers’ Union and Ministry of Education (from 2001 to 2016) and with the Ministry of Education in Ireland were similarly influenced by the earlier efforts of the Edmonton and Durham districts, a time frame of 34 years. Pauline Lang, a former superintendent of the Durham Board of Education, stated that our challenge as educators is to make sure we became consciously competent, as a district, and not simply accidentally adequate. Students are worth the effort of collectively “doing it right.”

References Bennett, B. (1987). The effectiveness of staff development training practices: A meta analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Bennett, B. (2010). “The artful science of instructional integration.” In R. Marzano, On excellence in teaching. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Bennett, B. (2016). Assessment and cooperative learning: The missing think. In S. Scott, D. Scott, & C. F. Webber (Eds.), Leadership of assessment, inclusion, and learning. New York, NY: Springer. Bennett, B., Anderson, S., & Evans, M. (1996, April). Towards a theory of instructional acquisition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Bennett, B., & Rolheiser, C. (2000). Beyond Monet: The artful science of instructional

integration. Ajax, Ontario, Canada: Bookation. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Bruner, J. S. (1974). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calhoun, E. (1999). Teaching beginning reading and writing with the picture word inductive model. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. Ellis, A. K. (2001). Research on educational innovations (3rd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26. Feng, C. C. (2011). The cooperative classroom: Scaffolding EFL elementary learners’ English literature through the picture word inductive model—The journey of three teachers in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Seminar Series Paper No. 204). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education. Gardner, H. (1985). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gibbs, J. (1995). Tribes: A new way of learning together. Sausalito, CA: Center Source Systems. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and metaanalysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8. Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Metaanalysis in social research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hattie, J. (2009). A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement . New York,

NY: Routledge. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Huberman, M. A., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovations up close: How school improvement works. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989a). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Edina, MI: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989b). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MI: Interaction Book Company. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982, October). The coaching of teachers. Educational Leadership, 10(4), 4–10. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2014). Models of teaching (9th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2008). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning. Leithwood, K. (1981). Dimensions of programme innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 25–36. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536. Marzano, R. (1998). A theorybased metaanalysis of research on instruction Mid Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

. Aurora, CO:

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., Pollock, J. E., & Stone, B. (2013). Classroom instruction that works: Researchedbased strategies for increasing student achievement . Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson. O’Murchu, F., Russell, J., & Bennett, B. (2014). Five years into a systemic change project: A focus on classroom practice in secondary schools. Paper presented at the School Improvement School Effectiveness conference, Zug, Switzerland. Perkins, D. (1991). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. RincónGallardo, S. (2016). Large scale pedagogical transformation as widespread cultural

change in Mexican public schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 411–436. doi:10.1007/s1083301692864 Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12. Slavin, R. (1980/1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Slavin, R. (2006). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 231–243.

27 CRITIQUE: On the Limits to EvidenceBased Learning of Educational Science James G. Ladwig University of Newcastle, (Australia)

27.1 Introduction There is little question that the demand for evidence in education has become ubiquitous. The appeals to having an “evidence base” for professional decisions seems to apply to nearly every major area of educational work these days: evidencebased learning, evidencebased practice, evidencebased policy, the list goes on in just about every Englishspeaking advanced economy. For scholars of educational research, at first glance it is not clear just what is new about the current ubiquitous evidencebased appeals. Before we focus specifically on evidencebased learning , it is important to understand the origins of that appeal. After all, at least since the open identification and deployment of different “paradigms” of educational research, the question of evidence and the recognition of its centrality for “mainstream” educational research has been a regular topic of debate, at least among theoretical methodologists (Gage, 1989). In the sphere of research funded by U.S. federal educational reform initiatives at the time of the “Paradigm Wars,” the dominance of evidencebased logic never really waned. Dating well back into the early days of the Paradigm Wars (Apple, 1971; Giroux, 1979), the rise of the current obsessions with randomized control experimental methodologies, meansends systems reasoning, and simple causal models, evidencebased reasoning has certainly increased its hegemony, it seems to me. If there ever really was a time when the appeal of evidence in educational research was not dominant, it was surely near universality in the United States by the time George Bush, Sr. authorized Goals 2000—often seen as the precursor to the establishment of the What Works Clearinghouse, the No Child Left Behind legislation, and the plethora of other institutional apparatuses either designed or refocused on the development of evidencebased educational policy. In the rubble of the British Empire (the Commonwealth of Nations, from 1959 to today—the former British Commonwealth), the specific phrase, evidencebased , would immediately hark back to the policy regimes and rationale brought to public eye under the Blair administration in the UK. Thus, aside from the specific label, it is difficult to say this general disposition and logic is new. New or not, however, in the future, what has occurred in educational research and policy over the past few decades, throughout the Englishspeaking world, will probably be seen as historically unprecedented in terms of the degree to which the hegemony of the culture of positivism (Giroux, 1979) has come to govern schooling and the lives of the vast majority of children in the United States (and in some places abroad). While the extent of this hegemony

will surprise very few, this critique is focused on the nature of the evidencebased phenomenon and attempts to identify the “limits” of evidencebased learning using the analytical tools of the sociology of science within an overall pragmatic framework (Ladwig, 1996). That is, in both the philosophical tradition of American pragmatism and the more sociohistorical sense of pragmatic reasoning, what I hope to do is illustrate what I take to be inherent paradoxes of the current empiricist orthodoxy and how they are navigated and sometimes overtly exploited by those deploying a strict evidencebased logic. The analysis of the interactions between the structure of reasoning and the people who use that reasoning itself carries its own wellnoted limits, most especially here known through the distinction between the “epistemic” and “empirical” individual. That is, while I will be using the names of individual authors, this analysis is by necessity limited to the epistemic individual—those known through analysis of (often secondary) evidence—one of the necessary components of the “epistemological break” required of any sociology (Bourdieu, Chamboredon, & Passeron, 1991).1 Whether or not any of the characters in this everunfolding drama are anything like the real people behind the public stance is beyond the scope of this analysis. The reason for framing this analysis within a sociology of science is very simple and direct. As much as we may want to identify the current formulations of evidencebased learning in education with individuals, it is very important to see this as a social phenomenon because its public justification has been overtly social and political. While it is indeed possible to analyze and critique methodological debates in education from a more purely philosophical perspective, questioning the ontological, epistemological, and ethical questions implied in this or that methodological position, contemporary visions of evidencebased learning are overtly about the deployment of science within policy networks, governments, and institutions. If ever there was an example of science being a social and political phenomenon, evidencebased pushes explicitly have been about declaring what and whose knowledge claims are to be legitimated, followed, and implemented. In other words, evidencebased learning is an archetypical exercise in the sociology of science, and the overt use of science as rhetoric (Ladwig, 1996). To structure this discussion, I would first like to more specifically define the recent appeals to evidencebased education by recalling articulations and examples of that general appeal in the UK, United States, and Australia. Beginning from these formulations allows a relatively direct view of the basic conceptual structure of these arguments, in addition to signaling the relevant historical and political contexts from which these appeals are being generated. In this overview I will show how proponents of the evidencebased mantra have taken a fairly direct path from the “conceptual” to the “technical” to the “political.” This framing will then allow me to analyze each of the relationships among these three forms of knowledge claims in both philosophical and sociological perspectives. From there I will draw out what I take to be the implications of our current archetypical paradigm battles with specific reference to the more recent appeal to socalled evidencebased learning .

27.2 The Points of Departure Within the UK and its former colonies, the notion of evidencebased policy typically refers to the framework for policy development advocated and established by the Blair administration in their 1999 White Paper entitled Modernising Government (Cabinet Office, 1999). In essence this document presented Blair’s vision of improving how government worked in the UK. The appeal to evidence was embedded in a broader set of government virtues pegged to outcomes of government policy based on what that government said were new demands of the public: People are becoming more demanding, whether as consumers of goods and services in the market place, as citizens or as businesses affected by the policies and services which government provides. To meet these demands, government must be willing constantly to reevaluate what it is doing so as to produce policies that really deal with problems; that are forwardlooking and shaped by the evidence rather than a response to shortterm pressures; that tackle causes not symptoms; that are measured by results rather than activity; that are flexible and innovative rather than closed and bureaucratic; and that promote compliance rather than avoidance or fraud. To meet people’s rising expectations, policy making must also be a process of continuous learning and improvement. (Cabinet Office, 1999, p. 15)

The language of this appeal will no doubt be familiar. This extended formulation, however typical of contemporary Anglo policyspeak—with all its foibles and sleights of hand, does remind us that at the core of this appeal to evidence is a declaration of what previous policies were. According to Blair and his cabinet, previous policies did not deal with real problems but dealt with symptoms, were shortterm, bureaucratic, and promoted fraud. (I will leave the ironies of these statements coming from that government to the reader.) Evidence here, it seemed, was meant to be a prophylactic against shortterm pressures, presumably political pressures. The positive thesis or “new” alternative was to be policymaking based on “a process of continuous learning and improvement.” This last turn of phrase was by no means an accident, and can be directly linked to the influence of educational policy in the hands of Michael Barber, then a Special Advisor to Blair’s Secretary of State for Education and Employment, a former teacher and more recently the author of several books, lectures, and policy statements telling governments how to do their job (see, e.g., Barber, Moffit, & Kihn, 2010). Anyone schooled in the history of curriculum in the United States will immediately recognize the framework for Barber’s “deliverology” as being nearly identical to the most simplistic version of Tyler’s rationale (Tyler, 1949)— determine your outcome, measure it, establish the actions needed, put it in a scope and sequence, measure again, evaluate, modify, and repeat. This process is what was meant by continuous learning and improvement. For those familiar with Barber, it won’t be a surprise that he has most recently expanded his claim to now literally telling us how to run a government (Barber, 2015). Perhaps predictably, following the White Paper, it wasn’t long before the academic responses

and criticisms of this shift in policy formulation began piling up with entirely new journals dedicating special issues to this task (e.g., David, 2002). Responses varied from those who were critical but saw a need to take up the challenge such a call for evidence posed for the development of social research (Young, Ashby, Boaz, & Grayson, 2002), to those who were critical and raised alarm bells for the implications this posed to educational research specifically in Australia (Blackmore, 2002). The terms of the UK debates were applied across all social professions with little or no contextualization. For example, in social work, “hierarchies” of evidence placed systemic reviews and metaanalyses at the “gold standard,” supported by randomized control trials most immediately and with qualitative studies in the “unreliable” basement (Gray, Plath, & Webb, 2009; McNeece & Thyer, 2004). All of this has its wellknown counterpart in the United States, of course, where the call for more “scientific” educational research was building through the 1990s. There the push for metaanalyses and randomized control trials was as presumptuous as it was in the UK, with equally heated debates made all the more weighty with the call to direct federal research funding being politically and ideologically linked to the funding structures of the No Child Left Behind legislation and the obsession—still active today—with valueadded analysis and its variants. Within the field of educational research, these were by no means new debates—albeit with increasingly “sophisticated” statistical models developing to this day. For example, the origins of valueadded analysis can be traced at least to Bryk and Weisberg’s ( 1976) application in a quasiexperimental design. (The same Bryk now of the Carnegie Foundation.) However overtly political those debates became in the United States, one distinct advantage the U.S. field of educational research maintains is a substantially larger community of researchers with (I would say) a conversant and educated understanding of the methodological and technical issues at play, as exemplified in, e.g., Shavelson and Towne (2002). This is particularly evident in the quickness with which the responses narrowed the focus on the difficulties in defending transportable causal claims and designing research which might test the logic underriding school reform initiatives (e.g., Schneider, Carnoy, Kilpatrick, Schmidt, & Shavelson, 2007). This pursuit of replicable and transportable causal claims for school improvement, as part of the larger search for scalability, was never done purely for the pursuit of truth. Nor was it entirely about making the lives of schooling students more productive (however defined). In fact, the aspirations of those making this push carried a very clear and unambiguous professional collective and individual selfinterest. Of course, it was the collective interest that was most publicly advanced by advocates of evidencebased reforms, such as Robert Slavin. According to Slavin (2002),

Evidencebased policies have great potential to transform the practice of education, as well as research in education. Evidencebased policies could finally set education on the path toward the kind of progressive improvement that most successful parts of our economy and society embarked upon a century ago. With a robust research and development enterprise and government policies demanding solid evidence of effectiveness behind programs and practices in our schools, we could see genuine, generational progress instead of the usual pendulum swings of opinion and fashion…Whatever their methodological or political orientations, educational researchers should support the movement toward evidencebased policies and then set to work generating the evidence that will be needed to create the schools our children deserve. (p. 20) Here the generalized claim to have the interest of children at heart is something of an educational given, but the positioning of robust research as being above, or insulated from, “the usual pendulum swings of opinion and fashion” clearly carried the same appeal to U.S. bureaucrats and politicians in much the same manner as does Barber’s ongoing reconstitution of the disinterested civil servant. After all, it was at this time that Assistant Secretary for Research and Improvement testified before Congress, claiming: There is every reason to believe that, if we invest in the education sciences and develop mechanisms to encourage evidencebased practice, we will see progress and transformation in education of the same order of magnitude as we have seen in medicine and agriculture. I believe we are at the dawn of exactly that process, and it is very exciting. (Whitehurst, 2002, para. 11)

Thus the appeal to develop evidencebased policy in the United States was overtly an attempt to push educational research to be “above” politics, focusing on technical issues of effect detection, just like (supposedly) medicine and agriculture. The reference to agriculture was no doubt alluding to Sanders’s work in the development of his valueadded models from Tennessee (Sanders & Horn, 1998). All of this, it should be noted, was declared to be transformative and progressive. For the purposes of this analysis there is one more turn in this reassertion of the culture of positivism. We can see that by the turn of the twentyfirst century, the ground for anything evidencebased being seen as good medicine was well and truly toiled by the time educational researchers folded this into a focus on evidencebased learning. The turn to focusing on learning, as opposed to policy, only took one more added ingredient. The articulation of the hopes and dreams of evidencebased learning has been very much part and parcel of a global and corporate interest in the now ubiquitous and wellfunded “learning sciences,” with a strikingly similar recapitulation of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century developments in educational testing. As Kerry Hempenstall (2006), an Australian advocate of this view, put it:

More so than any generation before them, the child born today should benefit from rapid advances in the understanding of human development, and of how that development may be optimised. There has been an explosion of scientific knowledge about the individual in genetics and the neurosciences, but also about the role of environmental influences, such as socioeconomic status, early child rearing practices, effective teaching and nutrition. However, to this point, there is little evidence that these knowledge sources form a major influence on policy and practice in education. There is a serious disconnect between the accretion of knowledge and its acceptance and systematic implementation for the benefit of this growing generation. Acceptance of a pivotal role for empiricism is actively discouraged by advisers to policymakers, whose ideological position decries any influence of science. There are unprecedented demands on young people to cope with an increasingly complex world. It is one in which the sheer volume of information, and the sophisticated persuasion techniques to which they will be subjected, may overwhelm the capacities that currently faddominated educational systems can provide for young people. A recognition of the proper role of science in informing policy is a major challenge for us in aiding the new generation. This perspective does not involve a diminution of the role of the teacher, but rather the integration of professional wisdom with the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about how to deliver instruction. (p. 88) Not all policy agents would agree with Hempenstall’s application of the ideas behind evidencebased learning with his clear argument about the point of this work being to provide teachers with a more solid grounding for their professional decisions. After all, the days of teacherproof curriculum and scripted teaching interventions are far from over. But this framing of the issue does round out the overall argument at hand. The turn to learning, and the idea that our understanding of learning can and should be based on our understanding of neurons, does indeed return us to the same constellation of ideas that generated the twentieth century formulations of eugenics, operant conditioning, and indeed “progressive” education, and the rest of those pendulum swings against which advocates of evidencebased policy struggle. As Allan Luke has reminded us in his 2011 Distinguished Lecture to the American Educational Research Association (Luke, 2011), these are indeed not entirely new, but they do force us to address, again, fundamental questions of our field: This interpretive community, this educational research association (AERA), has been here before. The question is not one of a binary of science or superstition, measurement or chaos, quantitative or qualitative truths. It is a question of what will count as science— whether and how a generalizable educational science is possible, what its principled uses and grounds are, what it can teach us, and what that science ignores and places at risk. (p. 376) The task at hand now, here, is to show just how the current forms of science are put to use, in the name of evidencebased learning.

27.3 Deployments of EvidenceBased Learning in Educational Policy: The Australian Case In the previous section I sought to draw out the basic conceptual structure to the publicly known arguments which undergird the current interest in evidencebased learning. From policy to the classroom, schooling’s institutional site of learning, the notion of building our normative frameworks from evidence has been overt. We are now regularly told that decisions about what we should do must be based on evidence. Philosophically, this argument is risky in as much as it comes close to violating David Hume’s mandate (and Kant’s subsequent formulation of the need for an analytically based development of morals) that we cannot derive normative statements from statements about what “is.” In philosophical parlance, this is the “you cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’” position. The more simplistic versions of evidencebased reasoning are risky, if the push for evidence does end up attempting to build claims of the form we know to be logical nonsense (in a Kantian sense). In the hands of adept researchers and policymakers this is not, however, the full story. We have already seen that most advocates of evidencebased work are coming from a much more pragmatic sense, which turns the characteristics of the argument into more of a strategic, historical one, and an argument about attempting to build a strong (and perhaps even more wise) community of educational professionals. The characteristics of this more strategichistorical move from the “is” to the “ought” can be quickly noted. Emulating something of an archetype view of the history of medicine, we have the idea of a collective of professionals learning, over time, from prior experience—in a manner that is independent from ideological hegemony, political interests, or personal biases. The core of this learning includes what critical theorists (and Max Weber) would identify as technical knowledge applied to human institutions—decontextualized knowledge of causes and effects built from the ideal of being universally applicable to all humans. However, again—in the hands of adept researchers—this isn’t the full picture. Philosophically, as students of Dewey would well know, learning from experience is a far cry from simple knowledge accumulation, with historical attempts to divorce knowledge from our interactions with each other and nature being the prime target of what Dewey called “the philosophic fallacy” (Dewey, 1925). In this view, then, the risks of the current push for evidencebased educational norms (including both policy and learning) lie in their use—just as Wittgenstein argued in relation to language’s meaning (Wittgenstein, 1953). To illustrate these risks and their implications, in this section I would like to provide examples from outside the main centers of educational research hegemony—from Australia. Like most other Englishspeaking advanced economies, educational policy in Australia has been busily attempting to focus school reform on teacher reform. Additionally, in Australia, the links between developments in neuroscience, attempts to link the human genome to complex social behaviors, the reach of technology into teaching and assessment, and the rising influence of “the learning sciences” are hard to miss. Thus, examples of the use of evidencebased rhetoric are both public and carry direct consequences for educational researchers, teachers,

and schools. In other words, the arguments in Australia are both very easy to see and much more than simply academic debates—systems actually do respond to some of these arguments (but not all, of course). The question of which forms of evidencebased arguments get taken up is precisely the question at hand here. The turn to focusing on teachers in Australian educational reform initiatives has been literally institutionalized, at least since a wave of statebased teacher institutes were established in the first decade of this century (Ladwig & Gore, 2009). While there is nothing especially different about the shift to focusing on teachers and teacher professional development in Australia, as compared to the United States or UK for example, it is very easy to see how the conceptual foundation of evidencebased learning is put to use in a country with a population only marginally bigger than the State of New York and a land mass the size of the lower 48 states. Here, the public perception would be that the pinnacle of evidencebased learning can be found in the work of New Zealandborn John Hattie. No doubt this is in part due to his significant undertaking in producing the commercially successful Visible Learning (Hattie, 2009), but also because his work (including public appearances and media statements) has been directly used to justify the establishment of what is now known as the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), first created in 2010, later established as a public company in 2013, and responsible for the development of teacher (and principal) accreditation standards and processes. Hattie was appointed Chair of the Board of AITSL in 2014 soon after its establishment. With his now regularly recurring advocacy of the assessment of learning and the pedagogical application of that in feedback, the notion of evidencebased learning has very fertile ground in Australia. This focus didn’t come out of a historical vacuum, of course. After a long history of avoiding standardized testing and mandated curriculum in many states, both a national standardized, censusbased testing regime and a mandatory national curriculum were pushed onto states by the first female Prime Minister, then Minister of Education, Julia Gillard, in 2008. (States who were not in agreement complied simply because federal funding was made contingent on that compliance.) The details of this history aren’t really important here—however interesting, ironic, and paradoxical that story is—but the establishment of these bodies does help explain how the focus on what national bodies, like AITSL, have to say has become dominant in Australia. Although public school teachers are employed by each state and territory (all public jurisdictions are quite centrally controlled by state bureaucracies relative to U.S. systems— there are variations on this from state to state), teachers in Australia must now adhere to the national standards developed, advocated, accredited, and sold by AITSL. With their historical legacy of being built in the legal traditions of the British civil service, it is also important to note that in most (perhaps all) state jurisdictions, teachers of public schools are also restricted from publicly criticizing governments and their policies. At national and state policy levels, aside from the highly predictable uses among politicians, the more entrenched (and slower to change) appeals to evidencebased educational rhetoric can be found in the bureaucracies charged with delivering and implementing policies. What is interesting about many of these offices is that their official appeals to evidencebased analysis, and the forms of evidencebased policy and learning they advocate, are much closer

to a Deweyan pragmatic understanding of evidence than you might imagine from the public political discourses. For example, in the largest state of New South Wales (NSW), the evidencebased educational policy agenda has become instituted (following Barber) with the establishment of the Centre of Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) in 2012. The purpose of the CESE, in its own terms, is “to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of education in New South Wales. CESE is focused on supporting decisionmaking in education delivery and development with strong evidence” (CESE, n.d., para. 1). Whatever expectation readers might have from a center with such a title, the notion of evidencebased analyses being necessary but insufficient comes front and center in much of their work. Perhaps the most clear expression of this disposition from the CESE can be found in their publication intended to address the question “Which forms of PD improve student outcomes?” in a document attributed to the late Paul Brock (a wellknown NSW educator within Australia). In that document, the placement of evidencebased research is clear: It is certainly true that evidencebased research must underpin any authentic response to the fundamental question posed above, and this will be the principal [sic] focus of this paper. But from a broader policy perspective, evidencebased research is an example of when what is “necessary” may not be “sufficient.” Already completed and published research is but one of at least four interdependent and interrelated fundamental sources of information and understanding that need to be heeded. (Brock, 2016, p. 1)

The other three “sources of information and understanding,” for Brock, were scholarship, wisdom, and nous. So while strong empirical work is valued, it clearly is not given the final say in Brock’s formulation. To be fair, not all of the publications of the CESE carry this disposition; but all of them are dedicated, officially, to providing the best quality information they can for the larger decisionmaking processes required in running a large school system (around 800,000 students across the entire state—it’s a very centralized system). Nationally, similar intent is clear from both AITSL (and Hattie himself—who regularly notes his own Popperian disposition toward fallible knowledge growth) and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), which runs the national testing program alongside developing a national curriculum (see www.acara.edu.au/). For all of these institutions, the point of their commitment to evidencebased work is to provide knowledge and information for the profession to be used by systems, school leaders, and teachers in their work. How they use this information is explored below. In the case of ACARA, however, that role has been fulfilled by a quite simple and widely criticized policy architecture and its by now notorious national test, the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), and the public website on which all school level results from this test are reported annually, the My School website (www.myschool.edu.au/). Begun in 2008, the policy architecture of this testing program is evident from its routine practices—the NAPLAN test is a census test (given to all students) in the nation in grades 3, 5, 7, and 9 every year with the results reported on that website at the

school level, alongside a host of other schoollevel information—inclusive of, inter alia, overall budget figures, attendance rates, demographic indicators, and a narrative typically drafted initially by the school principal. The website is designed to provide public comparisons of schools of similar socioeconomic contexts in the nation—using statistical reporting developed for this purpose. The test itself is designated to test “the sorts of skills that are essential for every child to progress through school and life,” in reading, writing, language conventions (spelling, grammar, punctuation), and numeracy (ACARA, 2016). The test is also designed to be done reasonably quickly—so each component is not large, with the year (grade) 3 reading test being composed of fewer than 40 items, for example. The same is true across domains, with the test expanding slightly at higher year levels. As the overall suite of tests is intended to provide estimates on a calibrated equivalence scale across year levels in each domain, the estimates it does provide are not precise. In fact the standard errors on this test at an item level would probably be best described as big. Margaret Wu has estimated the percentage of that individual studentlevel error to be roughly 12% of the raw individual student scale scores, supporting her positon that the tests are really not well designed for the purposes of individual student diagnostic purposes (Wu, 2010). ACARA’s own technical report confirms this position. As is common in such tests, standard errors of scale scores per student here range from 20–100 points depending on the number of correct responses. The upper and lower limits of number correct responses have larger standard error, with midrange scores being the most accurate. Mean schoollevel results range from the mid400s to the upper 500s at years 3–9 (ACARA, 2014). Just to further complicate ambiguities, student results are also reported as “Band” scores—in 10 bands, also scaled to cover the years 3–9 spectrum—a process known to increase error (Reardon & Ho, 2015). Despite the roughness of these estimates, both parents and teachers are told this test can be used diagnostically on an individual level. That advice appears ubiquitously, on official websites, in public declarations from bureaucrats, and from principals and teachers to parents. Schoollevel sampling error has been reported differently over the years. Standard deviations are reported to be roughly 80–90 points on domain scores, and recent schoollevel comparisons of the My School website are presented as a color code based on proportions of that standard deviation (shades of green if above the comparison cohort and shades of red if below, of course). Not surprisingly, this results in estimates at the school level being reported publicly that have substantial margins of error. Schools themselves are given raw gains scores, including only those students with complete data, but these gains scores are shown graphically on the website for the public. Further addresses of error in the NAPLAN data are not readily available in public, but recent sophisticated modeling of growth that takes into account both measurement error and (quite substantial) missing data by Cumming and Goldstein (2016) suggests that there are significant policy consequences of not addressing any other sources of error, besides sampling error, in relation to understanding the achievement growth of Indigenous students. This Australian work extends what Goldstein has already been able to show in relation to UK analyses of socioeconomic analyses (Feinstein et al., 2015).

Taken together with the risk/limiting factors related to individual studentlevel characteristics obtained from this testing regime, this brief outline should make it clear that the Australian national educational testing (and by fiscal fiat, states) has been designed to serve simultaneously two quite distinct purposes: a public accountability function and a systems’ information function. This is a clear result of a tradeoff: the test’s technical capacity to accurately function on an individual diagnostic level of individual student learning has been traded off for its capacity to serve its public, political function. Additionally, how well NAPLAN can serve its policy functions is a continuing debate.

27.4 Uses of EvidenceBased Learning Research Above I described three manifestations of evidencebased learning research in Australian educational policy. At a national level Australia has deployed the metaanalyses of Hattie (2009) as the basis of its national institute for teacher (and principal) professional learning, AITSL, and developed a national assessment program based largely on its national testing regime, NAPLAN. At a state level, in NSW, there is now a new center (the CESE) within the Department of Education set up to develop and provide advice based on evidencebased learning research. In this section we turn to the way in which this work is being used and what that shows us about the risks and limits of evidencebased learning in Australia. Below are admittedly selective examples of how this work has been taken up by teachers, educational academics, and the systems themselves.

27.4.1 Teachers Using NAPLAN The debates stirred by the development of NAPLAN in Australia are similar to those experienced in the United States with the development of its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, and its supplanter, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Picking up on the discourses around NCLB/ESSA, and their critiques, it is now quite common to find academic literature describing NAPLAN as a highstakes assessment (Klenowski & WyattSmith, 2012), while at the same time the official position of ACARA is that NAPLAN is and should not be highstakes (cf. the NAPLAN website). Whether or not that characterization is fair remains an open debate, but the way in which that clear dispute occurs can be demonstrated from the professional development material proffered by AITSL itself. One of the standards designated by AITSL for seniors (“lead”) teachers is about getting teachers to use data to “improve learning programs” (aka curriculum units). To illustrate what the standards are supposed to look like in practice, on the AITSL website are small videos of practice for the standards. The video for this standard, “using data to improve learning programs,” is a video of a departmental discussion of one (real) school English department reviewing the learning of its year 10 cohort.2 The discussion amongst these teachers began by asking what evidence they had of the year 10’s performance, leading to the observation that it was early on in the school year (according to the lead teacher on the video in this case), so little inschool evidence was available. The lead teacher then proceeds to point out that they do have the prior year NAPLAN results for these students and in those, apparently, the

percentage of students scoring in Band 10 of spelling was lower than other schools in the region (around 2% compared to around 10%—in a school with fewer than 50 students per year). Subsequent observations concerned the distribution of scores in bands in other areas being similar in other domains (reading and writing) and the interpretation that the school was doing reasonably well “in the middle” but not well for “gifted” students at the top of the distribution. On the surface of it, this might seem like a reasonable way to discuss crosssectional NAPLAN results, but here is where not knowing about, or ignoring, the inherent error of such scores becomes technically problematic. (For the time being I will assume the fact that these aren’t gain score discussions hasn’t been missed by readers.) Without knowing exactly which year’s test is being discussed in the video (and without any public technical report available for all years), though, there are some observations that should be made. From the technical report of 2013 noted above (ACARA, 2014), we can see that in 2013 the spelling portion of the test included 30 items and the band scores for Band 10 ranged from 686 to 770—with standard errors in that range from 24–58 points. In other words, the 95% confidence intervals of a perfect score (30 out of 30) overlap the lower ends of the next band below. Thus, the notion that the school is not doing well for students “at the top” might not actually be true—and the NAPLAN score is not really evidence of it one way or the other. Nevertheless, this group of teachers proceeds with a firm belief in that conclusion, and that example is in the material illustrating how AITSL believed lead teachers should use data. Even if it is true, we are talking about correct answers to a very small set of spelling test questions—potentially four items, possibly only one, in fact. Thus, we have a clear technical problem for teachers. From the literature that has documented the manner in which NAPLAN has been used as a highstakes test, irrespective of the official intent, it is also clear that these technical problems are ignored when the test scores have been used for schoollevel accountability and for trackplacements (Klenowski & WyattSmith, 2012; Lingard, Thompson, & Sellar, 2016).

27.4.2 Academics Using “BestEvidence” Syntheses Within the educational research community, the response to Hattie’s “megaanalysis” has been striking. On the one hand, there have been very strong and sound criticisms of this work on purely technical grounds, concerning Hattie’s overall arguments about how to interpret effect sizes from his syntheses, and how they could or should translate into policy actions or teaching (see, e.g., Higgins & Simpson, 2011; Terhart, 2011). This has included several researchers pointing out that the form of effect sizes used in the book is not appropriate to the task to which they have been put. Perhaps the strongest criticisms have come from his homeland, New Zealand (Snook, O’Neill, Clark, O’Neill, & Openshaw, 2009), where the relationship between academic researchers and ministry policy can sometimes be quite direct. Like Australia, with a parliamentary government system of ministries in small countries, direct contact with individual leaders in government is not uncommon, and the rightful concerns of Hattie’s New Zealand critics lie squarely around the question of just how his “evidence” is being put to use. On the other hand, as noted above, it isn’t only teachers who are susceptible to partial uses of evidence, and the metaanalyses produced by Hattie seem to have become a regular source of

ammunition for the educational crusades of some academics. For example, in an article ostensibly developing a holistic model of valueadded practices for gifted students in selective schools in New South Wales (these are a small number of academically selective schools—entry determined by a test, of course), Hunt and Merrotsy (2010) make the following claim to defend and propose the use of ability grouping for gifted students: “Hattie (2009) quotes an effect size of 0.49 for ability grouping for gifted students (anything greater than 0.4, he claims, is significant)” (Hunt & Merrotsy, 2010, p. 42). If you accept Hattie’s work is worthy of further circulation, this use of his analyses might seem reasonable, bar one small problem: it isn’t accurate. Hattie (2009) does quote one study of ability for gifted students as having that effect size, but his overall metaanalytic estimate from the larger set of studies is actually 0.3, very low on his overall list and well below his 0.4 cutoff (see Hattie, 2009, p. 99). In fact, those figures come from the very same page as the one Hunt and Merrotsy report. Of course academic publications are not free from the misuse of evidence; the uses of Hattie’s work have abounded and journal editors don’t always pick up all details like this. However, in a peerreviewed article ostensibly from a community of scholars interested in gifted education, one might expect accuracy. Without further information, it would be difficult to know whether or not this error was intentional; but note, again, whatever uncertainty might actually accompany Hattie’s evidence is left by the road side on that march.

27.4.3 Systems Begetting More Systems Lastly it is important to also note how official bureaucracies and systems are responding to the search for evidencebased learning and the known limits of their current measures. Here we can return to the NAPLAN debates and raise an issue no doubt well known across the measurementobsessed Englishspeaking world. That is, one of the most obvious and standing criticisms of NAPLAN mirrors that heard regularly in relation to the testing within NCLB/ESSA—that the tests really only cover a small part of the overall range of outcomes schools address. Literacy and numeracy, in the case of NAPLAN, clearly are not a full coverage even of the national curriculum in Australia. Befitting the bureaucratic expansionist logic identified more than a decade ago by Weber (1978) and extended in Habermas’s (1984) analysis of “the colonialization of the lifeworld,” Australia has sent its assessment and curriculum agency in search of tests for a range of other school outcomes named in the national policy goals for schooling (MCEETYA, 2008), including “Science Literacy, Civics and Citizenship and ICT Literacy” (see www.nap.edu.au/about). Further, individual states are developing instruments to assess non academic areas often seen as important factors and outcomes of schooling, such as the NSW CESE development of measures for engagement and wellbeing (CESE, n.d.). Whether or not this is a defensible line of development is debatable—but it is certainly predictable and predicted (Ladwig, 2010). Wherever these new testing regimes lead in Australia, our experiences of NAPLAN surely give some hints as to the path already followed.

27.5 Where Does This Leave Us? On the Limits of EvidenceBased Learning In the last section of this critique, I provide three brief example of the “takeup” of the push for evidencebased learning. While I make no claim to some generalized view of how representative these examples are in the Australian context, they are all very public and really not hard to find. In fact, I am confident they are common—based on my own work with teachers and schools, my teaching aspirant school leaders, and my reading of Australian scholarship claiming to address evidencebased policy and learning. Judging from U.S. reports, I am also confident similar examples are not hard to find there either. I have selected these examples for the specific task of illustrating the nature of what I take to be a very widespread problem for all social researchers (and perhaps even more broadly than that). That is, to me, these examples illustrate core problems of all empiricisminuse that educational researchers would do well to keep in mind. To organize this portion of the discussion I would like to return to what I earlier named as the links between our conceptual understandings, technical questions of research, and the political implications of our work.

27.5.1 The Conceptual–Technical Link In the example of teachers discussing NAPLAN test score results, we saw a good illustration of how technical estimates of educational measurement interrelate with conceptualizations teachers hold independently of those technical measures. That is in the shortterm sense at least. It may well be that the history of educational measurement carries a lot of responsibility for commonsense concepts of teachers, but in this case it is evident teachers had plenty of presumptions before talking about the NAPLAN test results. First and foremost, to me, is that any notion of test results being estimates is almost completely lost the instant direct comparisons begin without reference to any error. That is, it is clear that however much the development of twentiethcentury measurement has advanced in understanding and modeling error, when turned into test scores used to analyze students in schools, it is very common for all notions of error in our evidence to be left at the schoolhouse door. When this occurs, the conflation of a technical measure with the concept it is intended to represent seems highly probable. In the example above, it was but a moment between discussions of test scores and very certain notions of students’ learning capacity being a given quantity that was readily ranked and sorted—and added to. This conceptualization of students and learning is well known among critical and mainstream educational researchers as the centerpiece of stratification and rationalized inequitable distribution of educational quality, and the object of critique for literally thousands of studies, and yet it is alive and well and nourished by evidence that is taken to be certain. Philosophically, this is a complicated set of relationships to which I’ll turn in a moment, but before that let us not miss a crucial contextual understanding.

27.5.2 The Technical–Political Link

Recall that many take NAPLAN to be a highstakes test, even though the official position is that it shouldn’t be. The reason for this is simply that it has been used and was created overtly for the sorts of accountability and organizational assessment Sir Michael Barber often applauds. Even if we accept that appeal for accountability (precisely the same form discussed with the NCLB/ESSA), it is also clear that these mechanisms have a direct impact on the degree to which teachers and school leaders experience insecurity (Ball, 2008). Given the creation of systemic insecurity, is it really any wonder that we find educators reaching for certainty in the data by which they will be judged? The dynamics of this are well known, at least since Beck’s (1992) Risk Society documented the global extension of such logic. In the United States, where postglobal financial crises governments have faced significant budgetary problems at local and state levels, and where this type of accountability has been concurrent with overt threats to job security for teachers, it is really any wonder that a need for certainty in “evidence” is readily apparent amongst teachers? In the Australian context, in part because the nation successfully managed to avoid the worst of the 2008–2009 global financial crisis (so far), the overt threat to entire systems of teachers has been far less plausible. When times were good for government budgets, along with the implementation of NAPLAN, AITSL, and the turn to focusing on individual teacher development (and teacher education, of course), the former federal Labor government began plans to analyze and redress an historically unequal distribution of federal funding by which private schools received more funding than public schools from the federal government. Although currently under threat, since 2009 there has been a significant increase in school funding from the federal government. At the moment, roughly 25% of overall primary and secondary budgets come from federal money, with the majority of funding for public schools coming from states. The proportion of the federal money going to private schools is now roughly 60% (to a much smaller proportion of students in private schools as compared to public, about 35%3). The current public funding amount puts Australia in the midrange of OECD comparisons by percentage of GDP.4 However, in the most recent times, following the slowdown of the Chinese economy and the subsequent scaling back of the Australian mining boom based on exporting massive amounts of coal and iron ore to China (since Australia also exported its steelmaking capacity during that boom), budgetary pressures have returned for governments. In this context, the tightening of budgets, coming as it has just after increases in educational funding, has become interwoven with educational policies pushing for evidencebased accountability at both the school and teacher level, and an overt classbased funding debate about schooling. In short, the politics of teaching has returned to the frontline of class warfare in Australia. In the current context, the use of technical knowledge and evidencebased learning seems little different to that identified by Mike Apple in the 1970s and 1980s (Apple, 1979, 1982). Except, of course, the community of educational researchers has indeed been here before, as Allan Luke reminds us. At least some of us know the stakes are high, not just for teachers and students —but also for the nature of our future societies.

27.5.3 The Political Back into the Conceptual

The current interest in evidencebased learning in Australia shows all the signs of a political struggle over this larger political future. It is clearly a struggle, evident in the many ways in which basic concepts are used in the public, political discussions about schooling. That is, at the same time as the need for security and the “quest for certainty” are remarkably similar to those analyzed by Dewey in his 1929 Gifford Lectures (Dewey, 1929), our technical and political understanding of the profession has grown. Our knowledge may be but a drop in the bucket of the universe of the knowable, but we are more experienced. We know, for example, that there is truth in Hattie’s position that the quality of teaching is our strongest known lever of impact on student learning within schools. That is, of the things schools themselves can influence, the quality of teaching is indeed a central lever for increasing test scores on a variety of conventional tests. But we also know how much context matters—to schools and individual students—and that those tests do not fairly represent what schooling is all about. So how public messages are drawn from our knowledge and experience becomes all the more important. Subtlety now matters in a way we can attend. We also know that when politicians and media personalities leave off subtlety and search for simple certainties, saying that teachers are the main impact on student learning, that is too simple and simply false.

27.6 Toward Socially Recognizable Evidence To illustrate the folly of proclamations that overly imply certainty, and the search for universal causal claims, given the current context, it is not surprising the more subtle distinctions needed for sensible statistical modeling get lost—even among modelers. By way of making a broader argument about how we understand evidence, allow a brief discussion of how we link our knowledge claims to “reality” in conventional, statistically based research (including in experimental designs). My own view is that even our most sophisticated statistical models cannot, and do not, resolve perennial questions of uncertainty in empirical knowledge claims. Nor should they. To demonstrate, consider the crude (and simplified) illustration of a statistical modelers’ world in Figure 27.1.

Figure 27.1 Pathways of evidence construction. In Figure 27.1, I’ve drawn a relatively simple, if meandering, pathway from a researcher or reader to the reality research claims. Along that path, there are (at least) five points of reference or “actors” (in actornetwork parlance) needed to discuss how a single researcher or reader of research might understand and talk about whatever it is we might call reality. From left to right, we have (1) the researcher or reader herself; (2) her conceptual world or cosmos (inclusive of concepts like “ability,” “achievement,” and the like); (3) the methods of recording or capturing data (note it doesn’t really matter if this is qualitative or quantitative); (4) the data itself; and (5) the “real” world—whatever we think that is. In the NAPLAN example this would include the testers and teachers, whatever is being tested (including the statistical model), the test, the scores, and the world (presumably the students). From these five points of reference we can note four relations (the person–concept link, concept to method, method to data, data to “world”). In this illustration, for simplicity, I have conflated the method of recording with the model being studied (in statistical work this would be the equation or sets of equations being studied, in qualitative work this would be the theoretical understanding or explanation developed). In the practice of statistical modeling, and educational testing (as one form of statistical modeling), only two of these relationships are ever actually open to scrutiny. First, we have ample ways to assess the degree to which our models represent the concepts we think they do —in classical measurement theory this is the “True” and “Observed” score distinction. Second, we also have ample ways of assessing the relationship between those mathematical models and the data (otherwise known as model fit in statistics). We do not, nor can we, have access to the question of whether or not the linguistic articulation of concepts really relates to whatever is in the mind (or whatever you want to call an “essence”) of the research and/or reader. This is precisely the source of the postmodern interrogation of the “interior” self. Similarly, we do not, and cannot really ever, assess the relationship between our data and whatever we think lies beyond that in reality. Herein lies one crucial source of Popper’s

fallibilism, the crux of Descartes’s cogito ergo sum argument in his Second Meditation, and the unresolvable problem that led to so many philosophers being so concerned about the subject–object dichotomy in the late twentieth century. In short, however strong our epistemological claims, our grasp of ontology can be no more certain than Descartes’s. So how can we operate in this sea of the unknowable? My own position on this question is not unlike classic American pragmatism. As far as I can tell, whatever we take evidence to be depends on us. That is, the construction of evidence carries with it a host of questions about how that evidence is framed in construction, how that evidence is said to be usable in contexts other than that in which it was constructed, and how that evidence might relate to some normative direction we decide to take. That is to say, evidence isn’t evidence until we socially recognize it as evidence. (I have said some of this in different terms before, admittedly [Ladwig, 1996].) In saying this, I am well aware that the readership of this critique will not be a general public, but a very welltrained and specialized audience of professionals. In We Have Never Been Modern (Latour, 1993), the historian and social analyst Bruno Latour recalls an important event in the history of science: the role and construction of demonstration in the historical development of science as we know it. In his work, Latour relied on the sociological account of how Robert Boyle developed and defended his now classic Boyle’s Law (P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2))—taught in high school chemistry and physics to this day. The history of how Boyle developed and literally demonstrated his Law, and how that played into debates with Hobbes, is now one of the more wellknown events in the history and sociology of science, well documented and studied by Steven Shapin and Simon Shaffer (Shapin, 1984, 1989; Shapin & Schaffer, 1985). What is typically not taught in high school, and what was crucial for Latour’s interest in nonhuman actors, is how Boyle advanced his theory by a series of public demonstrations. Those demonstrations, not uncommon in the Royal Academy of Science in the late seventeenth century, required the creation of a good approximation of a vacuum. These days we know a true vacuum doesn’t exist, even in space (where it is pretty close to a true vacuum, but never entirely devoid of matter). In Boyle’s time, however, creating such a vacuum in which to conduct his demonstration required a vacuum within a vacuum, dependent on a pump akin to today’s bicycle pumps (designed and built by Sydney Hooke), which was operated by a weary assistant who was hidden from view during demonstrations. For Shapin and Shaffer, this history provided a solid basis for their analysis of the nature of knowledge claims being constructed (in debate with Hobbes), the creation of the scientific lab (and the very idea of a controlled environment), and an illustration for how the development of science was intertwined with political theory and institutions of power (including the Church at the time). For Latour, this illustration of the interrelationship between technology, humans, and our knowledge claims is a grounding point for his insistence that we now must include nonhuman “actors” in our understanding of who we are, and his argument that modernity never really existed. For our purposes, these analyses (Shapin’s, Shaffer’s, and Latour’s) serve as a crucial reminder that our knowledge claims are always based on a background framing, and that

framing is not purely a question of ideas and concepts. How knowledge claims relate to the social context in which they are made is the bread and butter of a sociologist of knowledge. In our examples above we must question how evidence is being used to promote a specific agenda—be that an expanding bureaucracy, a push to advocate for “gifted” children, this or that reading program, or a broader political push to privatize education even more than it already is. There is little question that any pushes to use the rhetoric of evidencebased learning to claim certainty, or to act as if evidence can tell us what to do on its own, is purely classic false consciousness. The degree to which that temptation relates to our individual and collective commercial interest is something with which educational research communities most now grabble, just as has the medical community. The notion that evidence depends on us is not merely descriptive. It is also a statement of ethical obligation, for which I see no better grounding than the fundamental ideals of our institutional homes—the careful, slow, humble search for truth, beauty, and justice is not merely a corporate slogan. As we collectively build our understanding of learning and schooling based on evidence, we can’t know where that will lead us, but we can attend to how we get there. Currently in Australia, the push to turn university education programs into little more than practical training is near complete, and entire universities are now being managed with the same rudimentary and false use of metrics that are the currency of many corporate publishers. If ever there was a time for educational researchers to collectively defend the traditional scholarship, wisdom, and nous so incisively declared by Brock, it is now. If we are to take most advantage of our evergrowing technical expertise, our systems of schooling must not be based on the blind pursuit of evidence, but on the professional judgment of the teachers and educators best placed to make its use truly educative (Shulman, 1998).

References Apple, M. W. (1971). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict. Interchange, 2(4), 27– 40. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1982). Education and power. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014). National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy 2013: Technical report. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/NAPLAN_2013_technical_report.pdf Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). NAPLAN. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Barber, M. (2015). How to run a government: So that citizens benefit and taxpayers don’t go crazy. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Barber, M., Moffit, A., & Kihn, P. (2010). Deliverology 101: A field guide for educational leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blackmore, J. (2002). Is it only “what works” that “counts” in new knowledge economies? Evidencebased practice, educational research and teacher education in Australia. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 257–266. doi:10.1017/S147474640200310X Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J.C., & Passeron, J.C. (1991). The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries (R. Nice, Trans.). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter. Brock, P. (2016). Which forms of PD improve student outcomes? Sydney, Australia: Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/ExpertPaper_Brock_July2016.pdf Bryk, A. S., & Weisberg, H. I. (1976). Valueadded analysis: A dynamic approach to the estimation of treatment effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 1(2), 127– 155. doi:10.3102/10769986001002127 Cabinet Office, Minister of State. (1999, December 9). Modernising Government White Paper. HC Deb 09 December 1999 vol 340 cc281–326WH. Centre of Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE). (n.d.). About CESE. Retrieved from https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/aboutcese/prioritywork Cumming, J., & Goldstein, H. (2016). Examining educational progress of Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australian school students from year 3 to year 5 in Queensland NAPLAN outcomes. Learning Sciences Institute Australia. Brisbane, Queensland. Retrieved from https://lsia.acu.edu.au/2016/03/15/examiningeducationalprogressofindigenousand nonindigenousaustralianschoolstudentsfromyear3toyear5in queenslandnaplanoutcomes/ David, M. E. (2002). Introduction: Themed section on evidencebased policy as a concept for modernising governance and social science research. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 213– 214. doi:10.1017/S1474746402003056 Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York, NY: Minton, Balch. Feinstein, L., Jerrim, J., Vignoles, A., Goldstein, H., French, R., Washbrook, E.,…Lupton, R. (2015). Comment and debate: Social class differences in early cognitive development. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies: International Journal, 6(3), 46. doi:10.14301/llcs.v6i3.361 Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research

on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10. doi:10.2307/1177163 Giroux, H. A. (1979). Schooling and the culture of positivism: Notes on the death of history. Educational Theory, 29(4), 263–284. doi:10.1111/j.17415446.1979.tb00859.x Gray, M., Plath, D., & Webb, S. (2009). Evidencebased social work: A critical stance . Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Street Press. Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hempenstall, K. (2006). What does evidencebased practice in education mean? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(2), 83–92. doi:10.1080/19404150609546811 Higgins, S., & Simpson, A. (2011). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. By John A. C. Hattie [Review]. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 197–201. doi:10.1080/00071005.2011.584660 Hunt, I., & Merrotsy, P. (2010). Adding value and value adding: The concept of “value added” in partially and fully selective schools. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 19(2), 37– 48. Klenowski, V., & WyattSmith, C. (2012, February). The impact of high stakes testing: The Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 1, 65–70. Ladwig, J. G. (1996). Academic distinctions: On the theory and methodology of the radical sociology of school knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge. Ladwig, J. G. (2010). Beyond academic outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 113–141. Ladwig, J. G., & Gore, J. M. (2009). Rereading the standards agenda: An Australian case study. In M. Simons, M. Olsen, & M. Peters (Eds.), Rereading education policies: Studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 755–768). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishing. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lingard, R., Thompson, G., & Sellar, S. (Eds.). (2016). National testing in schools: An Australian assessment. New York, NY: Routledge. Luke, A. (2011). Generalizing across borders: Policy and the limits of educational science. Educational Researcher, 40(8), 367–377. doi:10.3102/0013189x11424314 MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.

Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_fo McNeece, C. A., & Thyer, B. A. (2004). Evidencebased practice and social work. Journal of EvidenceBased Social Work , 1(1), 7–25. doi:10.1300/J394v01n01_02 Reardon, S. F., & Ho, A. D. (2015). Practical issues in estimating achievement gaps from coarsened data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(2), 158–189. doi:10.3102/1076998615570944 Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee ValueAdded Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256. doi:10.1023/a:1008067210518

Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs: A Think Tank white paper. Retrieved from http://people.oregonstate.edu/~flayb/MY%20COURSES/Adv%20Eval%20%26%20Res%20Design% Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520. doi:10.2307/284940 Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77(6), 554–563. doi:10.2307/27856006 Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the airpump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life: Including a translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus Physicus de Natura Aeris by Simon Schaffer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511–526. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidencebased education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21. Snook, I., O’Neill, J., Clark, J., O’Neill, A., & Openshaw, R. (2009). Invisible learnings? A commentary on John Hattie’s book: Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 44(1), 93–106. Terhart, E. (2011). Has John Hattie really found the holy grail of research on teaching? An extended review of Visible Learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 425–438. doi:10.1080/00220272.2011.576774 Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: Chicago

University Press. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Whitehurst, J. R. (2002). Statement of Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement, before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/director/speeches2002/06_25/2002_06_25.asp Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans., 3rd ed.). London, UK: Macmillan. Wu, M. (2010). The inappropriate use of NAPLAN data. Professional Voice, 8, 21–26. Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidencebased policy movement. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 215–224. doi:10.1017/S1474746402003068

Notes 1 Thus our first paradox—to conduct any empirical analysis of evidence, within the logic of evidentiary claims, necessitates the deployment of the object of analysis within the analysis itself. 2 Video retrieved August 12, 2016, from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australianprofessional standardsforteachers/illustrationsofpractice/detail?id=IOP00109 .

3 See http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs 2013/schoolfunding#table9 4 See https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/publicspendingoneducation.htm

Epilogue: Reflections of the Co-Editors Serving as editors of this Handbook has represented a special opportunity and been an honor. It also has been a too long multiyear process. We have been fortunate to have had an exceptional set of authors take on chapter writing assignments. Some authors have been colleagues and friends for many years. Several are newfound acquaintances. All graciously accepted the task and have made significant contributions. As editors, one outcome of reviewing chapter drafts has been a deep appreciation for the knowledge, intellect, and passion of each of the authors. Their works have provided us with a significant opportunity to learn more about the many strengths, challenges, and opportunities that affect teaching and learning. We also have had our thinking challenged at numerous points, which always is a good thing. Communication is at the center of all teaching and learning as each of the chapters in this Handbook demonstrates. Any type of reform requires communication. Any type of teaching requires communication. Any type of learning requires communication. The more often and the more thoughtfully we communicate with one another regarding the complex problems faced in schooling, the more likely we are to be capable of solving them. And the more likely we are to understand clearly the challenges facing teachers and learners in the twentyfirst century. Editing this Handbook has reaffirmed our faith that educators can successfully face these challenges as they seek new solutions to the existing problems related to teaching and learning. The contributions to this Handbook cover a broad range of topics with a focus on the impact of education reform, and especially the accountability movement, on students and teachers. Many authors reminded us of how change occurs in schools and the importance of the role of teachers and principals in that process. Authors raised concerns about the widespread use of standardized testing for inappropriate purposes, the strengths and weaknesses of accountability systems, and the application of brainbased research in education. At the same time, they predicted that assessments can be used effectively to improve learning, teachers can have opportunities to be authentic school leaders, principals can become effective instructional leaders, and technology can become an integral component in the learning process. Closing the teaching gap and programs such as restorative justice show promise in serving more effectively a larger portion of the student population. We are optimistic that educators will soon be able to use their best professional judgment and students’ cultural “funds of knowledge” to help all students learn as described in these chapters. We want to express our deepest appreciation for all of the authors taking on the tasks, submitting terrific manuscripts, and being patient about the time it has taken to get this Handbook to completion. Now, you the readers have the opportunity to benefit significantly from their writings and especially their challenging us to think more deeply. As you read each chapter and think further, feel free to contact any of the chapter authors and/or us coeditors. All are ready and interested in extending the conversations about how their ideas and works can contribute to our continuously improving teaching and learning.

Gene E. Hall, Linda F. Quinn, and Donna M. Gollnick

Index Page numbers in italics refer to figures and those in bold refer to tables. academic potential 124 Academies 12 Accelerated Schools 341 accountability/accountability measures; see also assessments; evaluation; standardsbased reform (SBR); specific measure access to/exclusion from funding 10, 200, 202, 292, 484–485, 554, 580, 586, 653 criticisms assessment and support, separation of 35 child agency, delimiting 260 child development conflicts 268 demands on educators 11, 12–13 deprofessionalization/disempowerment of teachers 15, 203–205, 260, 475, 652 ineffectiveness 34 neglecting purpose of education 34 stratification 204 external agencies/actors 11 principal instructional leadership 513 schoolcentered  35 shared between school and community 86, 98 special education students 292–293 teacherled  23 universal and fair 40–41 waivers 553, 554, 586, 587–588 Accountable Talk see dialogic learning acetylcholine 186–187

achievement factors, student academic potential 124 anchor 124 collaborative teaching 481–482 discipline 537 efficacy 124 family engagement/support 19, 90, 93, 94–95, 96, 360–362 feedback 565–566 formative assessment 558–559, 565 learning capacity 122, 123 race 18, 537 resilience 123–124 school culture 517 studentcentered teaching  201, 327–328, 329, 355–356 teacher quality 283, 288 adaptation 17, 165, 166, 191–192 advocacy organizations 12, 83, 311, 491, 555 aesthetic activities 270; see also arts, the aesthetic response 401 aesthetic sensibility 396 agency agentic capacity 140–141, 250–251 collective 141 defining 419 personal 140–141 proxy 141 relational 419, 427 student 396 teacher 14, 205, 418, 419; see also CASE STUDY: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY LEARNING; teacher leadership, U.S.

ambidexterity 133 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 8, 11 American Educational Research Association (AERA) 325–326, 590 American Psychological Association (APA) 340, 342, 590 amygdala 186, 187–188 anchors, individual 124 Anywhere Anytime Learning (AAL) program (Microsoft) 239 Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) 225, 239 argumentbased language  324 Arizona, U.S.A. 215–216 Arts and the Creation of Mind, The, (Eisner) 403 artsbased educational research (ABER)  411–412 arts, the applications to teaching and learning 400–405 artsbased educational research (ABER)  411–412 core to education 400 disciplinebased art education (DBAE)  405–406 educational assessment and evaluation art as dissonant lens 408–409 constructive criticism 410–411 educational criticism 408 need for artful teacherresearchers  409 need for artful teachers 409 individuality and creativity 392 lessons from 412–413 visual culture art education 406 assessments; see also accountability/accountability measures; classroom assessment; evaluation; standardsbased reform (SBR) ; specific measure; specific policy aesthetic alternatives 402–405, 409, 410

criticisms big business link 293, 554 conceptual–political link 653 conceptual–technical link 651–652 coverage of school outcomes 651 disabled students, impacts on 292–293 high teacher turnover rates 487 negative impact on longterm outcomes  605–606 onesizefitsall approach 

456, 609

studentcentered teaching, lack of  203, 204–205 technical–political link 652–653 curriculumintegrated  570 and decisionmaking  578 defining 408, 577 early childhood education (ECE) 259–260, 262 educator assessment literacy 588–591, 596 feedback strategy 565–566 formative see formative assessment generalizability 563 history in the United States; see also classroom assessment, evolution in United States assessment as learning 568–570 assessment consortia 586 assessment for learning (A4L) 565–568 assessment of learning (AOL) 561–564 behaviorist learning theories 579 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) 557 commercial testing companies 554, 558, 559–560 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (2008) 551 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (2010) 585 constructivist learning theories 580–581

criticisms of assessments 556, 558 early accountability uses 578–579 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965) 552 ESEA waivers 587–588 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) 555, 556, 588 formative assessments 558, 559, 560–561, 582–583 Growth Model Pilot Program (2005) 554, 585 Improving America’s School Act (IASA) (1994) 553, 581 largescale assessments  552–556 A Nation at Risk report 552–553 National Education Goals 553 No Child Left Behind Act (2001) 553–554, 584 objective testing 579–580 optout movement  555, 558 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) (2010) 551, 554–555, 555–556 performance assessments 551, 556–558, 581–582 purposes/uses of assessments 560–561 Race to the Top directive 554–555, 586–587 recommendations for future 571 Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) (2010) 551, 554–555, 555–556 sociocultural learning theory 583–584 source of assessments 559–560 standardsbased reform and accountability  581 state grants 586–587 Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 587–588 summative assessments 560, 561 technology, use of 554–555 themes 551–552, 570 timing and sequence of assessments 560

vocabulary, creation of common 559–561 waivers to ESEA 554, 587–588 individualized 568 largescale assessments  36, 551, 552–556, 561, 562, 568, 569, 570, 571 objective tests 579–580 in opposition to evaluation 408 performance assessments 69, 409, 551, 557–558, 569, 581–582 questioning strategy 566 reliability 563 response types 569 studentdriven  355–356 summative assessments 555–556, 560, 561–564, 570, 578, 579 and support 35–36 use of results 36–37 validity 563 validitybuilding process  563–564 vocabulary of 559–561 assetbased pedagogy  65–67 Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE) 201 attrition rates, teacher 13, 15, 458–459

Australia Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 647, 648 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 646, 647, 649–650 Centre of Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) (New South Wales) 646–647 contemporary learning 241 deprofessionalization of teachers 268 early childhood education (ECE) 257, 259, 261, 265, 267, 268 educator assessment standards 589 evidencebased learning evidencebased research, use of  648–651 implementation 645–648 limitations 651–653 field experiences, teacher 380 funding 652–653 National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) 647–648, 649–650, 651–652 systemic change 635 autonomy, teacher 13, 41, 48, 203–205, 213–214, 260, 267, 271, 456–457 backward mapping 10 backwards design approach 208, 354, 403 Banathy’s threedimensional model of change  127–128 Bandura, Albert 122, 140, 250–251, 350 Barber, Michael 641, 642 behavior, expert 438–440, 627

behavior, student; see also discipline behavioral relevancy 186–187 levelsofanalysis issue 

178–180, 179

positive incentivization 355 sociocultural theory 531–532 studentauthority/responsibility  352, 359, 537 theory of applied behavior analysis 531 behaviorism 395, 398–399, 579–580 Belgium 35, 46–47 beliefs about knowledge and learning 332 Belize 378 Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia, 265 Berkeley High School Slang Dictionary (CAS) 210 Best Evidence Encyclopedia 30 big business, education as 293, 554 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) 11, 476 Black, Paul 558, 565, 584 Blair administration 640, 641–642 blended learning model 244–245 Bloom’s taxonomy of objectives 403, 622–623 braincarnation 175 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) approach 245 Brookhart, S. M. 208 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 61, 279, 293, 531 Bush (George H.W.) administration 553 Bush (George W.) administration 10, 260, 553–554, 585 California, U.S.A. 210, 228, 305, 306, 512, 515, 516 Call Me MISTER program, Clemson University 69–70 Canada 264, 265–266, 493, 589–590

capacities absorptive capacity 125 agentic capacity 140–141, 250–251 ambidexterity capacity 133 change capacity 419 continuous change 123 crosscultural capacity  365–366 defining 108 effectiveness capacity 133 enhanced capacity 133–134 forecasting capacity 134 foundation capacity 131–133 higherorder capacity  134 holonomous ability 138–140 human capacity 131 innovation capacity 134 intracognitive ability 137 leadership capacity 341, 351 learning capacity 122–126, 135–136 levels 132 material capacity 131 metacapacity  134 organizational capacity 131 proficiency capacity 136–141 schoolfamily partnerships  92 solution finding capacity 134 stage theory 131 structural capacity 131 sustainability capacity 133–134

capacitybuilding initiatives aim 109 characteristics 141–142 defining 108 individual 114–115 learning capacity 122 individual 122–124 organizational 124–126 measuring capacity 108–109 multidimensional approach (MDA5) see multidimensional approach (MDA5) to capacity building organizational 109–114 reciprocity 116–117 support, continuum of 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 teaching and learning context 115–116

CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION background 301–302 demographics 304–306, 305, 306 English language learners (ELLs) Education Commission of the States recommendations 302 federal law 301 state variation 301–302 Nevada 2008 Recession, impact of 306–307 educational context 306–307 English language learners (ELLs) 301 Nevada Hispanic Legislative Caucus 311, 312 reading and math results 307 student demographics 306, 307 Nevada ELL challenges 312, 313–314, 314 district leadership 315–316 navigating policy and political terrain 316–317, 316 partial year implementation 314–315 program framing 315 Nevada ELL lessons learned 317–318 Nevada ELL policy implementation challenges and lessons 312, 314 English Mastery Council (EMC) 310–311, 312, 316–317, 316, 318 Nevada Zoom schools 311–312, 313–314 previous policies 307–309, 308 tempered radicals 309–311 policy implementation research 302–304

CASE STUDY: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE action plan 542–543 vs. applied behavior analysis 531 classroom activities 539 brief restorative interventions 542 community circles 540 restorative circles 540 restorative language and conversations 539–540 culturally sustainable practices 542 evidence from research culture of care 538 disciplineachievement link  537 disciplinerace link  537 need for change 537–538 race and schooltoprison pipeline 

537

right to learn in the classroom 537 examples 543–545 ongoing and future research  545 move towards 529 nonclassroom activities brief restorative interventions 541–542 restorative conferencing 540–541 principles and practices 530, 535–536 relationshipfocused  535, 536–537, 539 and sociocultural theory 531–532 studentauthority/responsibility  537 talking circles 536–537, 544–545 theoretical framework 530 vs. traditional model of discipline 534–535, 534

CASE STUDY: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY LEARNING conceptual framework 418–420 future research 428 Harold: U.S. case 420–423 Henry: Singapore case 423–425 limitations of study 427–428 methodology 420 practical implications 427 research questions 418 strengthsbased practices  425–427, 426 transformative discourse 426 Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) 473, 477, 483, 484, 486, 493, 494 Centre of Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) (New South Wales, Australia) 646– 647, 651 change agents, teachers as 19, 206, 249, 418, 419, 425–426, 426, 427; see also CASE STUDY: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY LEARNING change competencies gap 139–140 change, individual 114–115, 128, 130, 184–185 change, learning defined as 184

change, organizational adoption process 115 Banathy’s threedimensional model  127–128 and capacitybuilding  109–111 individual change and capacitybuilding  114–115 MDA5 approach see multidimensional approach (MDA5) to capacity building proactive organizational change 111–112 readiness, change and capacitybuilding  112–114 teaching and learning context 115–116 change drivers 112 complexity 115–116 context of change 115 continuous 112 diffusion process 114–115 goaloriented  112 impact monitoring 112 models 110 readiness 112–114 types disruptive 112 expected/planned 110–111 purposeful/designed 111–112 unexpected/unplanned 110 change, systemic 634–635 charter school study see Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN) Chicago Grassroots Curriculum Taskforce (CGCT) 212–213 Chicago Teacher Education Pipeline (CTEP) 71 China 330, 653 cingulate gyrus 186, 188 Civil Rights Act (1964) (U.S.) 301

Civil Rights Movement (U.S.) 279 classification, instructional 624 classroom assessment; see also formative assessment adaptation and modification 568–569, 569–570 bridge between learning and teaching 591–596, 592 defining 577–578 educator assessment literacy 588–589 future research 596 meeting the standards 590–591 standards for assessment literacy 589–590 evolution in United States 578 behaviorist learning theories 579 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (2010) 585 constructivist learning theories 580–581 early accountability uses 578–579 ESEA waivers 587–588 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) 588 formative assessments 582–583 Growth Model Pilot Program (2005) 585 Improving America’s School Act (IASA) (1994) 581 No Child Left Behind Act (2001) 584 objective testing 579–580 performance assessments 581–582 Race to the Top directive (2010) 586–587 sociocultural learning theory 583–584 standardsbased reform and accountability  581 Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 587–588 future directions 596–597 classroom management 536 Cleveland’s Continuum of Understanding 138

Clinton administration 553 Cloud computing 245 coteaching  288–289 coaching; see also mentoring, teacher cognitive 120, 139 collaborative 120 consultative 118, 120 peer coaching 435–436, 443, 627–628 Coalition for Community Schools 86–87 Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education 340 Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered (Eisner) 401 Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) 329 cognitive development 137–138, 479 collaboration administrators–teachers 349, 352 collaborative coaching 120 iGeneration trait 231, 232 researchers–teachers 177, 190, 191–192, 215 school–community 80–87, 97–98, 610, 611 school–family 87–96, 97–98 student–student 66, 68, 73, 606 teacher–student 201, 205, 209, 326; see also studentcentered teaching teacher–teacher 30, 46, 288, 292, 354, 481–482, 564, 607, 611, 627–628 universities–schools 341, 373–376 Collaborative Reasoning 330 collaborative school culture 462, 481–482 collective classroom efficacy (CCE) 350 college and career readiness 278, 285, 287, 585 college and career standards 284, 287–288, 476, 587

Colorado, U.S.A. assessment vignette 591–596, 592 Colorado Growth Model 554 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) 557 graduation rates and demographics 532 population growth 305 restorative justice study 539, 543–545 sociocultural practices 532 teacher leadership 487–489 commodification of education 293, 402, 554 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (U.S.) 9, 13–14, 202–203, 251, 287–288, 486, 585 communication assessment for learning culture 567 importance of 661 international field experiences 373, 374, 376 online distance education 606 organizational 127 principal instructional leadership 512 school–community agencies 81, 82, 87 school–families 89, 91, 92–94 special education 354–355 community circles 540 community immersion 70–71

community–school collaboration advocacy organizations 83 challenges to developing 96–97 community agencies 81–83 communitybased organizations  83 community foundations 83 community institutions 80 community schools 86–87 coordinated services for schools 84 success/failure factors 81–83 systems of care 84–86 community members and families 4Cs 92 communication and outreach  92–94 cultural competence 90–91 athome support  94–96 public engagement 88–90 school–family partnerships 90–92 cultural competence 97 failure to form 79, 80 future 97–98 identification of needs 82 importance 79–80 international field experiences 381 networks 81–82 public agencies 83

community–school issues attitudes 79, 82, 88, 96 cultural incompetence 91 distrust 89 athome tensions  96–97 inequitable outcomes 81 knowledge deficit 81 past failures 89 power struggles 89, 96 risk 79 skills deficit 79, 80, 81 socioeconomic status 91 structural and cultural factors 79, 87–88 time deficit 81 community schools 86–87 competencybased education (CBE)  293 complexity, neural 182, 183–184 complexity theory 115–116, 269 Conant Report (1963) (U.S.) 459 concepts 432–433, 435 concepts, instructional 438, 439 concernsbased adoption model (CBAM)  128, 129, 132, 436, 440–441, 462, 625; see also Levels of Use (LoU) consciousness 139, 401, 402, 412–413 constructionism 229 constructivism 229, 398–399, 580–581 continuous learning and improvement 641 Continuum Improvement approach 37 cooperative learning 433–435, 628–630, 631, 632, 632 core practices of teaching 17–18

Costa Rica 373, 379, 382–383 Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), 10, 11 criteria, defining 400 criticism, educational 408, 410–412 CRITIQUE: EFFECT SIZE background of author 431–432 concept types 435 concepts and facts assessment insights/misconceptions 435 conceptual insights/misconceptions 432–433 practical insights/misconceptions 433–434 research/data insights/misconceptions 434–435 effect size trap 434 expert behavior assessment insights/misconceptions 440 conceptual insights/misconceptions 438–439 practical insights/misconceptions 439 research/data insights/misconceptions 440 interactive nature of instruction assessment insights/misconceptions 438 conceptual insights/misconceptions 435–437 practical insights/misconceptions 437 research/data insights/misconceptions 437 level of use assessment insights/misconceptions 443 conceptual insights/misconceptions 440–441 practical insights/misconceptions 441–442, 442 research/data insights/misconceptions 442

CRITIQUE: EVIDENCEBASED LEARNING Australian case evidencebased research, use/misuse of  648–651 implementation 644–648 limitations 651–653 demand for evidencebased practice  639 evidencebased research, use/misuse of  648–651 evidence construction pathways 654 framing 640–641 history 639–640 limitations 651–653 conceptual–political link 653 conceptual–technical link 651–652 technical–political link 652–653 policy motivations 642–643 risks and implications 645–648 socially recognizable evidence 653–656 UK policy 641–642 US policy 642–643 crosscultural awareness  365–366, 367 cultural competence 20, 71–72, 90–91, 92, 97, 344, 372 culturalhistorical psychology  345–346 cultural modeling 67 cultural norms and values 60–61, 261 cultural perspective 41 culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) 66–67 culturally responsive teaching 19–21, 23, 210, 365–366, 368–369, 372, 530

culture and teaching gap defining 59 defining “culture” 60 issues 60 feelings of inadequacy 371 inequitable treatment of students 63–64 lack of experience 371 misconceptions 371 race, importance of acknowledging 63 racial demographics 61–62, 62, 62 recruiting teachers of color 64 student interests, understanding/utilizing 64–65 teaching approaches 65 “whiting out” curriculum 63 racial demographics in U.S. students 61–62 teachers 61, 62, 62 teacher education impacts 65, 68 community immersion 70–71 cultural competence 71–72 international field experiences see international field experiences misperception disruption 71–72 pedagogies, assetbased  65–67 pedagogy, hiphop  67–68 professionalization 68–70 student voice/experience, centering 70 technology 72 culture, defining 60 culture of care 530, 533, 538, 542–543 deeper learning 478

deficitbased school practices/policies  66 demographics, U.S. changes, recent 18–21, 304–306 English as second language 306 fastestgrowing cities  305 general population 369, 369 students 61–62, 62, 307, 346, 370, 370, 371, 478–479 teachers/administrators 61, 62, 371–372, 371 deprofessionalization/disempowerment of teachers 13–16, 40, 203–205, 260, 267, 268, 475, 476, 652 depth of knowledge (DOK) 351 design power 623 development cycle, organizational 107–108 Dewey, John artistic consciousness 412–413 change, educational 339 criticism as building up 408, 410 equity 204 experiential learning 229, 344–345, 645 flexible purposing 404 growth 402 standards vs. criteria 400 teacher agency 205 thought 393–394

dialogic learning Accountable Talk 326 Collaborative Reasoning 330 effects 323–324, 326 evidence for improved learning 326 logic and reasoning 329–330 math and science 328–329 reading comprehension 326–328 interest in, growing 323 Junior Great Books program 328 overview, historical 324–325 Philosophy for Children 329–330 Questioning the Author approach 327–328 recommendations 333 research 325–326 resistance 331–332 beliefs, public/professional 332 teacher knowledge/skills 332–333 testscore focus  333 success factors 330–331 differentiated instruction 160, 289–290, 350, 354, 621

discipline; see also behavior, student achievement link 529, 537 assertive model 531 racially inequitable treatment 63–64, 529, 531, 537 restorative justice see restorative justice school–community partnerships 83 theory of applied behavior analysis 531 traditional vs. alternative approaches 532–533, 532 traditional vs. restorative justice approaches 534–535, 534 zerotolerance policies  63–64 disciplinebased art education (DBAE)  405–406 dissatisfaction, teacher 13 Don’t Smile Until Christmas (Ryan) 459 dopamine 186, 187–188 Dreyfus model of skill acquisition 122–123

early childhood education (ECE) childcentered/direct instruction tension  268 “early childhood” defined 258 Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN) 353, 357 literacy development 357 play and learning 264–266 responsibility 257–258 systematization and standardization 257–258 equity 262–264 future 269–270 globalization, human capital theory, neoliberalism 259–261, 263–264 learning and equity 266–267 OECD 261–262 play and learning 264–266 standards 259 systems 258 teacher learning 267–268 teacher education 267–268 ecological systems theory 79–80 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) (1975) (U.S.) 280 Educational Imagination, The, (Eisner) 403–404 effect size (ES) research 619–620, 623–625, 628–629, 630, 650; see also CRITIQUE: EFFECT SIZE effective schools movement 506 effectiveness capacity 133 efficacy 124 Eisner, Ellie 398 Eisner, Elliot as academic 399 alternative measures of assessment and evaluation 397

American pragmatism 393–394 arts’ applications to teaching and learning 400 assessing what matters 402 challenging reductive conceptions of mind 400–401 educational aims 404–405 embodied learning 401 expressive outcomes 403–405 flexible purposing 404 forms of representation 401 training vs. learning 402–403 the arts as core to education 397, 400 artsbased educational research (ABER)  411–412 arts education curricula 405 art education as core 406–407 disciplinebased art education  405–406 visual culture art education 406 educational assessment and evaluation 408–411 educational criticism 404 growth mindset 402 individualized education 397 intelligence and diversity 391 lessons from 412–413 null curriculum 397, 404, 408 paradigm shifts in educational psychology 398–399 personal development and career 397–398 pragmatic classroom 407

standardsbased reform, criticism of inequity 392, 394, 396 motivation to learn, loss of 393 processfocus, lack of  395–396 student agency, lack of 396 as teacher 399 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965) (U.S.) 552, 554, 580, 587–588; see also Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) (U.S.); Improving America’s School Act (IASA) (1994); No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) (U.S.) emergentist epistemology 269 emotions 39–40, 41, 187–188, 393, 400, 406, 611 empowerment of parents/families 95, 351 of students 216, 289, 341, 350–351; see also studentcentered teaching ; student voice/experience of teachers 118, 341, 342, 351–352, 409, 426; see also CASE STUDY: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY LEARNING EngageNY 587 England see United Kingdom English language arts (ELA) in dialogic learning 326–328 English language learners (ELLs), U.S. see CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION English not home language Singapore 157 United States 306, 369, 370, 371, 543 environmental scans 8–13 equal opportunity principle 30

equity assetbased pedagogies  65–66 early childhood education (ECE) 262–264, 267 in opportunities to succeed 394 policies promoting 30, 202, 257, 263, 277, 282, 283, 291 vs. sameness 392 special education 277, 282, 283, 291 ethic of care 530 ethnic studies movement 215–216 evaluation; see also accountability/accountability measures; assessments; standardsbased reform (SBR); specific policies academic outcomes 605 artistic lenses 408–409 assessment in opposition to 408 as barrier to teacher leadership 493 constructive criticism 410–411 data uses 36–37 defining 408 and diversity 402 external 34–36 Flanders studies 35, 46–49 formative 582 judgment 410 principal instructional leadership 513 qualities vs. objectives 410–411 school selfevaluation  35–36 Evans, Rachel 473–474, 478, 479, 480, 481, 492, 494, 496–497 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) (U.S.) 12, 277, 284–285, 286, 293, 294, 555, 556, 558, 588 evidencebased learning see CRITIQUE: EVIDENCEBASED LEARNING evidencebased practice  181, 283, 284, 285

evidencedemonstrated practice  182, 191, 192 expert behavior 438–440, 627 expressive outcomes 403–405 “Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective” (Zhao and Frank) 225 facts and concepts 432–433 faddism 31–32 families; see also parents communication and outreach  88–90, 92–94, 360–361 community schools 86–87 engagement in children’s education 19, 90, 351 funds of knowledge 66, 347 athome support  94–96 school–family collaboration 87–88, 90–96 school–family collaboration, challenges to 96–97 systems of care 85–86 Families and Schools Together (FAST) program 95 feedback to preservice teachers 375, 380–381, 382 to students 565–566, 567, 568, 579, 580, 582 to teachers 36, 72, 117, 350, 353, 482, 488, 513 Flanders 35, 46–47 flexible purposing 404 flipped learning 245–246 Florida, U.S.A. 305, 306, 460 forecasting 134 forethought 140

formative assessment assessment for learning (A4L) 565–568 growth of 558–559, 582–584, 589 process 560–561 responsive teaching 209, 210 teacher induction 453, 456, 461, 465 technologybased  479 forms of representation 401 Freire, Paolo 200, 201 funding, assessmentlinked  10, 200, 202, 292, 484–485, 554, 580, 586, 653 funds of knowledge concept 66 gamification 246 general intelligence (g) 391 Generation Next 230, 233 globalization 259–261 goals, educational 278, 393, 403, 404 Good Start, Grow Smart policy (U.S.) 260 grade scale (U.S.) 579 Grossman, P. 16, 18 group work 73, 156, 433, 629, 632, 632, 633 growth mindset 231, 331, 402, 567, 611 Growth Model Pilot Program (2005) (U.S.) 554, 585 Gutstein, E. 209 Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning (Bloom) 582 happiness 404 Hattie, John 249, 646, 650 Hawaii, U.S.A. 305, 306 hierarchy of needs 343–344 highleverage practices (HLPs)  289, 290 hiphopbased education (HHBE) 

67–68

holacracies 495 holonomous ability 120, 138–140 Honduras 71–72 Hong Kong 267, 374, 375 Hudson, Will 214–215 human capital theory 259–261 humanistic psychology 343–344 identity, professional 39–40 iGeneration 230–232, 233 Illinois, U.S.A. 71, 83, 203, 212–213, 214–215, 306 iMaker Generation “Digital Natives” myth 227 future 248 curriculum and pedagogy 250–251 educators 249–250 learners 248 learning environment 248–249 tools 250 identifying and understanding 226 Maker Mindset 232–233, 233 Maker Movement 228–229 profile 228, 229–230 Improving America’s School Act (IASA) (1994) 553, 581 incentivizing students 355–356 Indiana, U.S.A. 71, 375, 485, 491 individualcultural approach to reform  38–39 individualized education programs (IEPs) 280, 291, 292–293, 355 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1990) (U.S.) 280–283, 281, 291 induction see teacher induction innovation capacity 134

Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN) applications and implications 359–361 global curriculum 347 guiding student classroom learning 356 early childhood literacy development 357 intermediate teacher strategies 357–358 special education 358 technology proficiency 356–357 incentivizing and rewarding students 355–356 individualizing mission 349 administrative accountability 351–352 classroom management approaches 353–356 research in the school 349–351 special education 354–355 participants, study 347–349 setting 346–347 student accountability software 355–356 success factors 3Rs 360 family involvement 360–361 response to instruction (RTI) teamwork 359 safe and positive learning environment 359 teacherteacher mentoring  359–360 theoretical foundations 342–343 culturalhistorical psychology and Vygotsky  345–346 humanistic psychology and Maslow 343–344 progressive education and Dewey 344–345 innovations, skillful use of 625–628, 626 Innovations Up Close (Huberman and Miles) 635 “Inside the Black Box” (Black and Wiliam) 558, 565

inspections, school 11, 35–36 institutionalization 113, 162, 166 instructional classification 624 instructional concepts 438–439, 621, 621, 624 instructional methods/practices concernsbased adoption model (CBAM)  625, 626–627 cooperative learning 628–630, 631, 632, 632, 633 effect size 623–624 Ellis’ Levels of educational research 631, 634 evidencebased  181, 283, 284, 285 innovation, widespread use of 631, 634–635, 636 innovations, skillful use of 625–628, 626 instructional classification 624 instructional concepts 621, 621 integrating/stacking methods 623–625 knowledge as design 620–623, 621, 622 Levels of Use (LoU) of an Innovation 625–626, 626 Think Pair Strategy (TPS) 629–630, 631 and thinking processes 622–623, 622 integrated service models 258 integrated subjects 8 intelligence 331, 332, 391, 399, 401, 402 intentional learning 38 intentionality 122, 140, 404 International Council for Computers in Education (ICCE) 237 International Early Learning Study (IELS) (OECD) 262

international field experiences assessment and evaluation 381–382 benefits 367 Costa Rica program 382–383 cultural responsiveness 368–369, 372 culture and teaching gap, closing 384 goals 366, 367, 372 home faculty role 375–376 home/host university collaboration and communication 373–375 level of demand 369–371, 369, 370, 371 literature review 367–368 participants choice of country and culture 377–378 classroom experience abroad 379–380 community and extracurricular involvement  381 critical reflection 380–381 cultural tours 381 duration and timing of trip 378 feedback from supervisors 380–381 funding 377 group vs. solo 377 housing and transportation 380 predeparture coursework and teaching experience  376 predeparture meetings  376 professional/personal goals 378–379 promotion challenges 367 uptake by preservice teachers 366 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 237–238 intracognitive capacity 137, 138, 139 Iowa, U.S.A. 486, 487

Ireland 635 James, William 393 judgment 13, 37, 49, 287, 404, 410, 411 Junior Great Books program 328 “JustinTime Teaching” (JITT) 

161, 162, 210

Kentucky, U.S.A. 514 knowing–doing gap 139 Knowing What Students Know (NRC) 577 knowledge as design 432, 620–623, 621, 622 Knowledge as Design (Perkins) 432, 620–621 knowledge, background framing 655–656 knowledge, emergence of 269 Kotter’s transformational change model 110 LadsonBillings, Gloria  66–67, 530 language and thought 324, 345–346; see also dialogic learning language barriers 91, 94 language, restorative 539–540 leadership capacity 341, 351 leadership, principal see principal instructional leadership leadership, strategic 511 leadership, teacher see teacher leadership, U.S. learning capacity 122–126, 135–136 learning progressions 567–568 Lee, Carol 67 levelsofanalysis 

178–180, 179

Levels of Use (LoU) 128, 129, 130, 440–443, 442, 625–626, 626, 627, 636 Lincy Institute, University of Nevada 301 literacy development 328, 357, 360 macrostructure framework 135–136

Maker Faires 228–229 Maker Movement 228–229, 246, 248; see also iMaker Generation Maker spaces 246 Martin, L. 229, 231, 232, 248, 249 Maslow, Abraham 343–344 Massachusetts, U.S.A. 328 materiality 393–394, 401, 406, 407 MBWA (Management By Walking Around) 516 McKinneyVento Homeless Education Assistance Act (2001) (U.S.)  82–83 media’s portrayal of teachers 476, 495 memory 184, 185–186, 187, 188 mentoring, teacher 8, 161–162, 353–356, 359–360, 453–455, 459, 460, 461, 462; see also coaching metacapacity  134 metaroutines 135 metaskills 136 microteaching  16–17 Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia 279 Mind, Brain, and Education, journal 182 mind frames, educators’ 249–250 minority and urban teacher education programs 20 mission, school 349–355, 511–513, 515, 516 Models of Teaching (Joyce, Weil and Calhoun) 437, 622 Modernising Government (1999) (U.K.) 641 motivation to learn 201, 231, 405, 532, 539, 579, 580

multidimensional approach (MDA5) to capacity building 126–127 capacities 130, 130 enhanced capacity 133–134 foundation capacity 131–133 higherorder capacity  134 learning capacity 135–136 proficiency capacity 136–141 theoretical foundation 127–128, 129, 130 multiple intelligences theory 399, 439–440 My Brother’s Keeper 83 My School website (Australia) 647, 648 Nation at Risk report (NCEE) 552–553, 581 National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Australia) 647–650, 651–652 National Education Goals (U.S.) 553 National Education Summit, Charlottesville, VA (1989) 553 National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) 238 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) 238 Nebraska, U.S.A. 557–558 needs, meeting basic 343, 344, 361 neoliberalism 10, 259–261, 263–264, 267, 395 Net Generation 230 neural networks 183–184, 188 neuromyths 188–189, 189

neuroscience, educational 175 analogies 180 hypotheses for practice 181–182 levelsofanalysis issue 

178–180, 179

neuromyths 188–189, 189 opposing viewpoints of authors 175–176 perils and promises 176–177 popularity and persuasiveness 177–178, 178 rationale 176 responsible translation 189–190 patience and patients 192 role of researchers 190–191 role of teachers 191–192 teacher knowledge about brain content 182–183 content: complexity 183–184 content: emotion and dopamine reward system 187–188 content: novelty 185–186 content: plasticity 184–185 content: relevancy, behavioral 186–187 necessity of 180–181 Yellow Belt Problem 188–189 Nevada, U.S.A. see CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION; Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN) New Education System (Singapore) 154 New Hampshire, U.S.A. 556 New Jersey, U.S.A. 306 New Mexico, U.S.A. 305, 306 New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF) 495 New York, U.S.A. 83, 205, 228, 306, 586–587

New Zealand 241, 530, 538, 589, 650 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) 251 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) (U.S.) 10, 12, 34, 202, 260, 283–284, 292, 553– 554, 584 Noddings, Nel 404, 530 Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline policy (2014) (U.S.) 529, 545 nonprofit organizations, teacher’s voice 476, 484, 489, 490–491 North Carolina, U.S.A. 305, 486 Norway 257, 270 novelty 185–186 nucleus basalis 186–187 null curriculum 397, 404, 408 Obama administration 10, 12, 202, 554–555, 586–588 objective tests 579–580 objectives, educational 403–404, 405 OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development)  152, 259, 261–262 Ohio, U.S.A. 591 online distance education 246, 248–249 open educational resources (OER) 247 optout movement  293, 495, 555, 558 Oregon, U.S.A. 305 organizational culture 37, 50, 315, 455; see also school culture organizational development 50 organizers, instructional 438, 439 outcomes, academic 605–606, 608 outcomes, expressive 403–405 outreach 92–94 Overseas Student Teaching Program (OSTP) 375 P21 Partnership for 21st Century Skills 239, 240–241, 241, 287

paradigms, teacher education 456 comprehensive/multifaceted 457 developmental 456–457 functional 456 personal services 457–458 reformoriented  457–458, 465–466 standardsbased  457–458, 465–466, 466 supportive 456 traditional 456 parents challenges to involvement 96–97 communication 93–94, 512 empowerment 95, 260, 351 funds of knowledge 66 involvement/engagement 15, 90, 91, 94–96, 360–361; see also families parochial education 11 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) (U.S.) 551, 555– 556, 559–560, 569, 586 Pathways for Youth 83 patience 192 pedagogical categories 16 pedagogical changes 23 peer coaching 435–436, 443, 627–628 peer teaching 346 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 279 Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 70, 71, 328–329, 382 performance assessments 69, 409, 551, 557–558, 569, 581–582 Perkins, David 432, 436, 438, 620–621 personalcultural perspective on teaching  49 perspectives 41

Philosophy for Children 329–330 physical environment of learning 248–249 plasticity, neural 180, 181, 184–185 play and learning 264–266, 270, 407 policies; see also CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION calls for equity 30–31 development 31–32 evaluation and assessment 36–37 external evaluation and support 34–36 new standards as general solution 33–34 proposals 32–33 expectations vs. experiences 38 fair accountability 40–41 identity learning and emotions 39–40 individualcultural approach  37–38 perspectives on teaching 41 rational approach 37–38, 38–39 policy borrowing 31–32

policy implementation; see also CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION evaluation and assessment 36–37 external evaluation and support 34–36 fair accountability 40–41 identity learning and emotions 39–40 implementation stairs 42 individualcultural approach  38 loci of transactions 42–43 personal concerns in implementing change 43–45 perspective 41 process 41–43 rational approach 37–38, 38–39 research 302–304 school organizational factors 45–46 selfevaluation  35–36 sensemaking process  43 success/failure factors communication between actors 49 organizational development 50 perspectives on teaching 49 professional development for teachers/principals 49–50 team stability 50–51 political perspective 41 positive reinforcements 231, 355–356 positivism 640, 643 poverty 60, 94, 205, 263, 478–479 powersharing  419, 420, 483, 535 practicebased teacher education  16–18 pragmatic classroom 407

pragmatism, American 393, 394, 395, 399, 412 prefrontal cortex 186, 188 prescriptivism 153

principal instructional leadership 505 challenges for research and practice future research topics 518–519 research designs and methods 519–520 common dimensions 508 communication 512 conceptual model of leadership and learning 508–509, 508 curriculum coordination 514 direct vs. indirect 509 feedback to teachers 513–514 giving teachers uninterrupted work time 515–516 impact of school environment 507–508 incentivizing students 517 incentivizing teachers 516 indirect effects on learning 507 organizational design decisions 515 PIMRS Model 510–511, 510 PIMRS Model in practice defining and communicating school mission 511–513 developing positive learning climate 515–517 managing instructional program 513–515 priorities 516 professional development for teachers 516–517 scholarship, growth in 505–507 strategy 511 summary of research findings 509–510 testing and student performance 514–515 Thailand example 520–521 visibility 516

principals challenges 480 instructional leadership see principal instructional leadership job approval rating 480 quality 45, 46, 49–50 and teacher leadership 487, 488, 489, 492 principles of teaching and learning 340, 342 privatization of public schools 11, 260 proactive executive control strategies 331 problemposing education  201 process of teaching 606–607 professional development (PD); see also coaching; mentoring, teacher; teacher induction; teacher leadership, U.S. capacitybuilding  142 classroom assessment 597 microcredentials  495 policy requirements 283, 284, 285, 292 professional development schools (PDS) 341 professional learning communities (PLCs) 341–342, 474 restorative justice 543–545 standardsbased reform (SBR), impacts of  15–16 STELLAR program 160–162, 164 teacher quality 49–50 professional development schools (PDS) 341 professional learning communities (PLCs) 341–342, 474 professionalism, teacher 23 professionalization 68–70 program coherence 50 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 152, 259–260, 262, 605 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 152, 260

projectbased learning  247, 473, 487, 606 Project Challenge 328 providers of teacher education 7–8, 21–22, 23 pseudoaction deceptions  139 psychology behaviorism 395, 398–399, 579–580 constructivism 229, 398–399, 580–581 culturalhistorical  345–346 humanistic 343–344 mind and materiality 399 positive 419 public agencies 83 public engagement 88–90 Public Law 94142 (1975) (U.S.) 280 public opinion 479 purpose of education/schooling 34, 212, 269, 344, 400, 412 purposing, flexible 404 quality 410–411 quality rating improvement systems (QRIS) 260 quality, teacher see teacher quality questioning strategy 566 Questioning the Author approach 327–328

race acknowledging 63 crosscultural awareness  365–366, 367 cultural competence 20, 71–72, 90–91, 92, 97, 344, 372 culturalhistorical psychology  345–346 and cultural identity 61 cultural modeling 67 cultural norms and values 60–61, 261 cultural perspective 41 culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) 66–67 culturally responsive teaching 19–21, 23, 210, 365–366, 368–369, 372, 530 culture and teaching gap see culture and teaching gap factor in school–family relationship 91 and graduation rates 532 inequitable treatment of students 63–64, 529, 537 and poverty 60 sociocultural theory 531–532 U.S. demographics 18, 61–62, 62, 62, 64 “whiting out” curriculum 63 Race to the Top directive (U.S.) 10, 14, 202, 284, 554–555, 586–587; see also Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (U.S.) rap cyphers 68 rational approach to reform 37–38, 38–39 rational perspective on teaching 49 rationalism, scientific 394–395 readiness for change 112–114, 131–132, 141–142 reasoning skills 324, 326, 327, 329–330, 331 recruitment, teacher 15, 20, 23, 64, 69, 285, 428, 461, 486, 612 reflection 17, 161–162, 231–232, 380–381

relationships community–school see community–school collaboration culturally responsive teaching 19, 66–67, 73, 368, 372 restorative justice 535, 536–537, 538, 539 sociocultural theory 530, 532, 533 studentcentered teaching  201 resilience 92, 123–124 response to instruction (RTI) teamwork 359 responsive teaching practices 66–68; see also culturally responsive teaching restorative circles 540 restorative conferencing 540–541 restorative justice see CASE STUDY: RESTORATIVE JUSTICE reticular activating system (RAS) 186, 188 rewarding students 355–356, 579 right to learn in the classroom 537 Safe Schools/Healthy Students model 84 salaries of U.S. teachers 14 SAMR Model 240, 242, 243 Say Yes to Education 83 SCALE (Stanford) 11 school culture assessment for learning (A4L) 566–567 growth mindset 402 induction component 451, 455, 462, 465, 467 leadership effects 508, 508, 515–517 relationshipfocused  529, 538 teacher turnover factor 205 school–family collaboration 87–88, 90–96 school meals 346 school reform, history of 29–31

schoolification 257, 263, 265–266, 267 Schoolteacher (Lortie) 459 security 250 Security vs. Access (Robinson, Brown, Green) 250 selfevaluation, school  35–36 selfgovernance  14 selfknowledge  418 selfreflection  20, 72, 140–141, 331 selfregulation  140 semiotics 406 sensemaking process  39–40, 43–48, 449 Singapore Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) 154 education system 151–152 English Language curriculum see Singapore, English Language curriculum; Singapore, STELLAR® (STrategies for English Language Learning And Reading) program Goh Report 154 international benchmark studies 152 New Education System 154 overview of country and population 151 teacher leadership 492 teacher technology learning study 423–425

Singapore, English Language curriculum 1959 syllabus 153, 158 1971 syllabus 153–154, 158 1981 syllabus 154–155, 158 1991 syllabus 155–156, 158 2001 syllabus 156, 158 2010 syllabus 159 English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee (ELCPRC) 157 key recommendations 157 STELLAR® reform program see Singapore, STELLAR® (STrategies for English Language Learning And Reading) program Active Communicative Teaching (ACT) program 155 CDIS packages 154–155 English as first language 155 future 167–168 localization of teaching materials 154 Primary Pilot Project (PPP) 153–154 Project to Assist Secondary Schools in English Skills (PASSES) 155 rationale for English 151, 152 Reading and English Acquisition Program (REAP) 155 review 152

Singapore, STELLAR® (STrategies for English Language Learning And Reading) program 157 aims 159 challenges 165 fidelity vs. adaptability 165–166 institutionalization, lack of 166–167 national recognition, lack of 167 rigidity, perception of 165 current status first national examination results 164 ongoing professional development and review 164 preliminary evaluation 163–164 national implementation approach 163 pedagogical approach 159–160 support 160–162 funding and resource provision 161 local facilitation 162 longterm support  162 professional development and mentoring 161–162 typical lesson 160 Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) 551, 554, 555–556, 559–560, 586 social action 95, 394 Social Action Curriculum Projects (SACPs) 213–214 social alignment 39 Social Justice Education Project (SJEP), Tucson 215–216 Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (Resnick, Asterhan, & Clarke) 325–326 sociocultural learning theory 583–584 sociocultural/socioeconomic challenges 18–21, 30–31, 60, 91, 94, 266–267, 344, 345; see also culturally responsive teaching; culture and teaching gap; international field experiences sociocultural theory 531–532

solution finding 134 South Carolina, U.S.A. 305 South Korea 376, 379 special education, U.S. accountability measures 285, 287 annual yearly progress (AYP) mandate 292 college and career readiness 287 college and career standards 287–288 instruction and specialized services 288–291, 290 college and career outcomes 293 differentiated instruction 289–290 exclusion and unequal treatment 278 federal policies Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) 284–285, 286, 293 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1990) 280–283, 281, 291 No Child Left Behind Act (2001) 283–284, 292 goals 278 history 277, 278–280, 291 inclusion 291–292 Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN) 354–355, 358 multitier system of supports (MTSS)  282–283, 285 policy/practice factors court cases 279 factors 278–280 federal legislation 280 recommendations 294–295 standardsbased reform (SBR)  278 systems of care 84–86 stage theory 114, 131

standardsbased reform (SBR); see also accountability/accountability measures; assessments; policies; policy implementation; specific measure; specific policy big business link 203, 293 as challenge to studentcentered teaching  202–206 child development conflicts 264–265 commodification of education 402 vs. criteria 400 criticism by parents 494–495 deprofessionalization/disempowerment of teachers 13–15, 40, 203–205, 267, 476 discipline, impacts on 534 disengagement, student 40, 203, 251 early childhood education (ECE) 259, 260–261 external evaluation and support 34–36 as general solution 33–34 industrial mass production 395, 402 limiting thinking 293, 402 motivation to learn, loss of 393 optout movement  293, 495, 555, 558 processfocus, lack of  395–396 schoolification 257, 265 social alignment, lack of 38–39 sociocultural inequity 266–267, 392, 396, 402 special education see special education, U.S. stratification 204 studentcentered teaching, barrier to  202–205 teacher education, impacts on 9–13 tightloose model  33 Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (UK) 264–265 STEM disciplines 287 strategies, instructional 437, 622, 623

stratification 204 strengthsbased partnerships  92, 97 strengthsbased practice  420, 425–427, 426, 539–540 student accountability software 355–356 student achievement see achievement factors, student student authority 211–212, 352, 355–356, 359

studentcentered teaching in accountability policy environment 203–204, 344 adopting 206–207, 207 Chicago Grassroots Curriculum Taskforce (CGCT) 212–213 Children’s School, Chicago 214–215 ethnic studies 215–216 five critical changes 206 interrupting teaching as usual 207–209 listening to students 209–211 realizing the power 212–216 shifting authority to students 211–212, 215–216 Social Action Curriculum Projects (SACPs) 213–215 challenges 202–206 defining 199 Dewey’s views 344–345 dialogic learning see dialogic learning early childhood education (ECE) 268 examples 209–210 highleverage practices (HLPs)  289, 290 learners’ interests 251 needs, meeting basic 344 overview 199–202 possibilities 216–217 restorative justice 535 special education 289 Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) (U.S.) 587–588 student voice/experience 70, 85–86, 209–211, 535, 536 study abroad programs 71–72, 366; see also international field experiences Supportive School Discipline Initiative 83 sustainability 133–134

symbolism 516 systems of care 84–86 tactics, instructional 437 Taiwan 373, 374, 379–380, 624 talkbased learning see dialogic learning talking circles 536–537, 544–545 task analysis 135 task decomposition 135 teachercentered instruction  13, 200, 207–208, 268, 417

teacher education change, agents of 419, 427 clinical field experiences 69, 70; see also international field experiences concernsfocus  418–419 culture and teaching gap, closing community immersion 70–71 cultural competence 71–72, 344 pedagogies 65–68 professionalization 68–70 student voice/experience, centering 70 technology 72 dialogic learning 332–333 early childhood education (ECE) 267–268 paradigms see paradigms, teacher education recruiting teachers of color 69–70 selfawareness  427 selfknowledge  427 strengthsfocus  419 study abroad programs 71–72 technology 240, 417–418; see also CASE STUDY: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY LEARNING universityplacement school cooperation  427

teacher education, U.S. complexity 7 crosscultural experiences  366; see also international field experiences cultural competence 366 demographic changes 18–21 deprofessionalization of teachers 13–16 enrolment 8, 13 environmental scan 8–9 accountability, demands of 11–12 aggressive policy environment 9–11 future 12–13 improvement, pathway to 22–23 integrated subjects 8 Net Generation and Generation Next 230 pedagogical changes 16–18 practicebased  16–18 providers 7–8, 21–22 special education 283–284, 285, 288 universities, move away from 12 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants (U.S.) 484–485 teacher induction components 451–452, 451 acculturative 452 influencing factors 455 mentoring 453–455 practical developmental 452–453 practical theoretical 453 program processes 455 school culture and organization 455 transitional 452

conceptualizations 448 concerns and needs 450 formal induction programs 450 socialization process 449 teacher development phase 448–449 continuum 447–448 defining 447–448, 450 future where it is going 464–466 where it ought to go 466–467 history in the United States 458, 463 1950s 458–459 1960s 459 1970s 459 1978 459–460 19782007, waves 14 

460–461

2007 and beyond, wave 5 461–462, 464 paradigms 456, 457–458 comprehensive/multifaceted 457 developmental 456–457 functional 456 personal services 457 reformoriented  457, 465–466, 466 standardsbased  457, 465–466, 466 supportive 456 traditional 456

teacher leadership, U.S. barriers 491–493 benefits 477–480 collaboration and influence 482 current situation 484 federal initiatives 484–485 local initiatives 487–489 state initiatives 485–487 teacher voice 489–491 enablement factors 483 evolution 474–475 future of 494–497 organizational conditions 483–484 Rachel Evans’ example 473–474, 478, 480, 496–497 reactions to hostile climate 476 recommendations 495–496 research informing cultivation and utilization 480–484 signs of change 475–476 trends favoring deeper learning 478 diversity 478–479 practitioner consensus 480 public opinion 479 technology 479 underutilization  478

teacher quality 21stcentury paradigm  608–610 21stcentury paradigm, qualities for ability to identify strengths and passions 610–611 ability to inspire and challenge 611 broad, longterm perspective  611 empathy 611 implications 612 management and leadership skills 612 resourcefulness and collaboration 611 artistry 409 assumptions, challenges to 604 conceptualization of teaching 607–608 outcomes of teaching 605–606 process of teaching 606–607 backward mapping 10 dataanalytic assessment  11 defining 603–604 performancebased assessment  11 policies, aggressive U.S. 9–10 teacher preparation 9 valueadded models  10 Teacher Transformation Centers 11 teacher turnover 60, 205, 487 teacher voice 476, 489–491 Teacher2Teacher initiative 476 Teaching Ambassador Fellowship program (U.S.) 485 teaching, conceptualization of 604, 607–610 Teaching for Change 72 team teaching 607

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra and Koehler) 225 technological perspective 41, 49 technology Anywhere Anytime Learning (AAL) program (Microsoft) 239 Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) 239 culture and teaching gap, closing 72 “Digital Natives” myth 227 early childhood education (ECE) 357 as empowerment tools 417 environmental approach 225 evolution since 1950s 233, 234–236, 237 future 248 curriculum and pedagogy 250–251 learners 248 learning environment 248–249 mind frames, educators’ 249–250 tools 250 Generation Next 233 iGeneration 230–232, 233 iMaker Generation see iMaker Generation Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN) 356–359 integration models 240 Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) Framework 240–241, 241 SAMR Model 242, 243 TPACK Framework 241–242, 242 learning about 237–238

learning anytime, anywhere through technology, 243–244 blended learning 244–245 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) 245 Cloud computing 245 flipped learning 245–246 gamification 246 Maker spaces 246 online distance education 246 open education resources (OER) 247 projectbased learning  247 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 247 learning from 238–239 learning with 239 National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) 238–239 online distance education 248–249 online testing 293 Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) 239 reconceptualizing teaching 608–610, 612 special education 358 standards 238, 239, 240 student accountability software 355–356 studentcentered teaching  210–211, 238–239, 356–357 teachercentered instruction  238 teacher education 17, 72, 417–418; see also CASE STUDY: TEACHER TECHNOLOGY LEARNING and teacher leadership 479, 494 teacher leadership initiatives 476 tempered radicals 309 Tennessee, U.S.A. 486 testfocused reform see standardsbased reform (SBR)

Texas, U.S.A. 305, 306, 307, 460 Thailand 520–521 Think Pair Strategy (TPS) 629–630, 631 thinking process, valuing the 330–331 Thorndike, Edward 395, 579 Title 6 funding (U.S.) 377 Toward a Theory of Instruction (Bruner) 620 TPACK Framework 225, 240, 241–242, 242 training vs. learning 402–403 Transformative Assessment in Action (Popham) 567 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 152 Trump administration 10–11, 14 Tyler, Ralph 395, 403 “Ulysses” (Tennyson) 413 Understanding by Design (UbD) 403 Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe) 403, 562 understanding continuum 138 unions, teacher 489, 490, 491, 493, 496 United Kingdom Assessment Reform Group 582 cognitive abilities test 330 Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) 329 dialogic learning 329 early childhood education (ECE) 261, 263, 264–265, 267 educator assessment standards 589 evidencebased policy  641–642 Philosophy for Children 330 schoolification 263, 265

United States; see also specific states assessment history see assessments, history in the United States; classroom assessment, evolution in United States Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 61, 279, 293, 531 communityschool partnerships see community–school collaboration culture and teaching gap see culture and teaching gap demographics see demographics, U.S. dialogic learning 328–329 early childhood education (ECE) 260, 266, 267, 268 educator assessment standards 589–590 English language learners (ELLs) see CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION English not home language 306, 369, 370, 371, 543 government policies 1, 9–11; see also CASE STUDY: POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION; specific initiative; specific policy grade scale 579 Mills v. Board of Education 279 optout movement  293, 495, 555, 558 pedagogical changes 16–18 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 279 race and poverty 60 special education see special education, U.S. Student Bill of Rights 70 studentcentered teaching see Innovations International Charter School of Nevada (IICSN); studentcentered teaching systems of care 84–86 teacher education see teacher education, U.S. teacher induction see teacher induction, history in the United States teacher leadership see teacher leadership, U.S. teacher technology learning study 420–423 waivers to ESEA 553, 554, 586, 587–588

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 247, 290 Urban Renewal or Urban Removal? (CGCT) 213 urban youth culture (UYC) 64–65, 67–68 Utah, U.S.A. 305 validity 433, 563–564 valueadded models  10, 12, 476, 490, 513, 585, 642 Vermont, U.S.A. 557 video technology 72 Visible Learning for Teachers (Hattie) 249, 646 Vygotsky, Lev 137–138, 324, 345–346, 583 waivers to ESEA (U.S.) 553, 554, 586, 587–588 Washburne, Carlton W. 203 Washington, U.S.A. 479, 496–497 We Have Never Been Modern (Latour) 655 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 283 Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model 84 Why Don’t Students Like School? (Willingham) 185 Wiliam, Dylan 482, 558, 565, 582, 584 Winnetka Plan, Chicago 203 working hours of teachers 14, 492 wraparound system of care 85–86, 344, 346, 479 Yellow Belt Problem 188–189 youth culture 64–65, 67–68 youth participatory action research (YPAR) 215–216 zone of proximal development (ZPD) 137–138, 345, 583–584

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.