curiouser and curiouser...

How can we preserve the commitment and professionalism of teachers (in terms of motivation, efficacy, etc.) in an environment where there is so much pressure to comply with accountability based agendas and external definitions of quality, progress and achievement for measuring student success?

I really liked that one. 

The problem?  What observational data, documents, student work, etc. will answer this hugely important (HUGE!) question?  I am sure there is a more seasoned researcher out there with a wonderful methodology to conduct that research, to whom I say, “have at it!” (although I cannot imagine I will not find a way to work this question in somewhere)

Over the weekend, my new question became:  How can I whittle this down to a more manageable, focused project, marked by the organization and clarity necessary to conduct professional research?

New answer: Use my resources.  Luckily, I have a friend/colleague/former professor who happens to be a master at all things action based research related and who didn’t mind spending the afternoon's dwindling daylight patiently helping me narrow my topic to what interests me most… (I cannot thank you enough, Tom!)

New, focused subtopic: Performance Based Indicators and Ongoing Daily Assessment

Impetus: The nationally adopted Common Core Learning Standards are comprised of specific performance-based indicators articulated by grade level and discipline.  As part of the CCLS timeline, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is in the process of creating a streamlined assessment system in order provide “teachers with regular results” and feedback to guide learning and instructional strategies[1].  

While these external assessments may provide useful data, successful teachers utilize student data and formative assessments to guide their pedagogy on an ongoing, daily basis. 

Teachers across the country will now use the performance-based indicators articulated in the CCLS to inform the ongoing assessments in their classrooms and adjust instructional strategies accordingly. 

In Finland, local curriculum has been written within the framework of national standards for decades. Teachers, who are considered pedagogical experts, are trusted with student assessment, which usually draws on students’ class work, projects, teacher-made exams, and portfolios. Because students are not assessed by national tests or examinations, teacher based assessment takes on a prominent role. What can we learn from how Finnish teachers describe and enact ongoing daily assessments within this framework?

Still needs quite a bit of polishing, but I do see a question at the end here that both addresses a subtopic of my original idea (with much more specificity) and which relates directly to my professional and academic experiences. 

---

[1] http://www.parcconline.org/

moving from the abstract to the concrete...

I spent some time this afternoon in the back of a musty auditorium, which was shared with a group of students learning salsa dance movements, engaged in a hastened, but productive idea bouncing session with the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction in my district. As we discussed the potential direction of my research, several questions emerged which have provoked my thinking:

How can we preserve the commitment and professionalism of teachers (in terms of motivation, efficacy, etc.) in an environment where there is so much pressure to comply with accountability based agendas and external definitions of quality, progress and achievement for measuring student success?

What steps can be taken to encourage teachers, as professionals, to become more engaged with curriculum development and classroom action research?  

What effect might this heightened engagement have on teaching efficacy?

In terms of manageability (and perhaps, viability) there is obviously still a great deal of funneling that needs to occur, but things are starting to come together...

Why Finland?

During my initial research, a crucial difference emerged between Finnish Education and American Education: the breadth and influence of political agenda in education.  In America, too often the agents of change are policy makers, not practitioners.  Take assessment for example, American schools continuously outsource standardized student testing and increasingly practice arduous inspections of schools and teachers in order to comply with mandated legislation. Political proponents of standardized testing claim that such assessments serve as a measure to bridge achievement gaps, hold schools accountable, help communities identify failing students (and teachers!) and dictate the allocation of funding.  The fact that private constituents, such as the corporations that manufacture and grade the tests reap enormous profits from such a practice is just one indicator that the politicians that drive these agendas may have ulterior motives.  One unintended result of the overuse of standardized tests in the American school system is the implication that teachers are not capable enough to use their own student data to assess student progress in their classrooms.  
The Finnish educational system, on the other hand, relies on the professionalism and competency of educated teachers who are intrinsically motivated by their commitment to both their students and their school communities.  Teachers, who are considered pedagogical experts, are trusted with student assessment, which usually draws on students’ class work, projects, teacher-made exams, and portfolios. Teacher-based assessment, then, takes a prominent role because students are not assessed by national tests or examinations.  When studying to be a teacher, a comprehensive teacher prep curriculum ensures that “newly prepared Finnish teachers possess balanced knowledge and skills in both theory and practice.”[i]  Pre-service teachers are taught that a successful teaching practice reflects systemic, school-wide efforts.  Educational theories, methodologies and practice are critical components of teacher training and practice, reinforcing the country’s commitment to research-based teacher education. 
One obvious question arose from this comparison: do we trust American teachers as educated professionals, capable of doing their jobs?  The answer to this is implicit in how we treat assessment in this country…and assessment is only one small component; do we trust teachers to be accountable for sound pedagogical content, delivery, and curriculum development, without being constantly measured and regulated?  How do we move towards a system of educational thinking based on a shared examination of practices, cooperation, mutuality and reciprocity?  This research is beginning to provoke more questions than answers…but maybe  this is a good starting point…

---

[i] [i] Sahlberg, Pasi. "Lessons from Finland." American Educator Summer (2011): 34-38. Print

as the twig is bent...so is the tree inclined

With the goal of having the new Common Core Learning Standards in full implementation by 2013, schools across America are reworking and redefining curriculum maps in order to create alignment with the new standards.  Hopefully, schools are also attempting to determine a set of principles which recognize the importance between the interests and needs of the individual student and the goals of society and the economy.  As with most districts, in the Newburgh Enlarged City School District, educators literally inherit a curriculum (or at least a well laid out map of it) when they enter a school building, and although they exert freedom over pedagogical strategies and methodology, curriculum development, in terms of curricular policy, supervision, and evaluation is certainly in no way embedded in the job.  Keeping that in mind, you can imagine my trepidation when I got wind that myself and a small group of my co-workers were going to be working collaboratively to create new curriculum maps for the high school English Department (consisting of about 40 of my esteemed colleagues, many of whom have spent a significantly greater number of years in the trenches than myself).   
To remediate what I felt was a huge gap in the necessary understanding  for me to undertake curriculum map writing with both confidence and proficiency, I turned to William Pinar and his colleagues (Understanding Curriculum, Peter Lang 1995) and spent weeks plodding through the enormous history of research on curriculum studies.  What I amassed from the undertaking was that it is probably safe to say that on average, even competent teachers are not well educated enough in teacher education programs (or their time in the classroom) to successfully engage in this kind of curriculum work without any outside support.  But that fact  certainly isn't stopping, let alone slowing, the race to get this inititative underway in my district.
This project is an attempt to personally rectify this situation for myself, my colleagues in the Newburgh Enlarged City School District, and hopefully, if I can convince the right people to support me, a much wider audience than I can even right now conceive.