Help New Teachers Establish Themselves Professionally – ebookschoice.com

The involvement of higher education institutions in induction is less prevalent than it should be, given the promise these partnerships offer for improving teacher preparation by redefining the boundaries between college and K-12 classrooms. Sadly, the scarcity of this type of collaboration is a missed opportunity to provide new teachers a link between their pre-service and in-ser-vice teacher development and a missed opportunity for college faculty and school-based personnel to benefit from one another’s expertise, open lines of communication, collaborate on projects, share facilities, and benefit in myriad ways.

 

Collaboration can take many forms and can include teamwork with one or more educational partners involved in supporting beginning teachers – the union, institutions of higher education, the local school board, parents, the state educational agency, the business community, and others.

District-university partnerships can offer benefits to new and experienced teachers alike, from a continued relationship with the university for the novice teacher/alumnus, to possible compensation (in the form of university course vouchers) for veteran teachers who serve as mentors.

 

If your induction activities are voluntary you will need to encourage new teachers to participate. Remember that new teachers often are overwhelmed by the heavy load they carry. Offer some of the following incentives:

– Extra planning time

– Money for materials

– Limited extracurricular duties

– Reduced workload

– Release time to observe other teachers

– Priority placement in staff development workshops

– Assistance toward earning a master’s degree in the first or second year of teaching

– Continuing education credits toward district salary increments

 

Beginning teachers and mentors who volunteer to participate in the program are required to enroll in graduate courses tailored to their needs. Mentors and mentees visit each other’s classes at least once per semester, hold weekly meetings in the fall, and meet at least twice a month in the spring. Experienced teachers who assume mentoring responsibilities do so in addition to their teaching duties.

 

You already may provide one or more induction program components: orientation activities to introduce novice teachers to your district; support systems, including mentors, to assist teachers as they develop; training in the form of courses, workshops, or ongoing professional development; and/or evaluation designed to foster teacher improvement and/or to determine a teacher’s future with the district.

 

It is important to ensure that all aspects of your program relate to one another and address your district’s particular needs. You will need to consider such issues as district standards for teachers and students, and the extent to which students from teacher preparation institutions are prepared to face the challenges in your schools.

 

Although all of the program components are important, budget constraints often necessitate building a teacher induction program that emphasizes one component over another. Your team might decide to focus on a few components initially and then phase in others. However, if your ultimate goals are to nurture teacher development and retain talented professionals, you should endeavor to work toward integrating the above components into a coherent whole.

 

You will need to decide who will manage your program on a day-to-day basis and who will be responsible for program governance, oversight, and evaluation.

 

It is a good idea to have a governing panel that oversees the program. The panel should have representation from all parties involved in the induction process; usually half of the panel members are teachers and half are administrators. Following are some of the responsibilities of a governing board or panel:

 

– Making program and policy recommendations and implementing them

– Delineating roles, responsibilities, expectations, and inductee success measures

– Directing mentor selection, supervision, and evaluation

– Monitoring and evaluating program development

– Overseeing program budget

 

At monthly meetings, the panel selects, oversees the work of, and evaluates Consulting Teachers (CTs), who are responsible for supporting, training, and appraising inductees. The panel also oversees and approves CT in-service training; receives and reviews all documentation submitted by CTs and others involved in the appraisal process; accepts or rejects CT recommendations; determines program guidelines; and administers the program budget.

 

Induction can be housed in staff development/professional development offices, but some programs are run by personnel/human resources or curriculum and instruction departments.

 

In a small district, program direction may be the responsibility of an associate or assistant superintendent, a coordinator, consultant, specialist, or teacher released from classroom duties to manage day-to-day operations.

 

Costs vary, depending on the following:

– The scope of particular program elements. For example, an informal buddy system costs little compared to a coordinated, formal mentoring component, which requires a budget for mentor stipends, release time, etc.

– Which components (orientation, support, training, assessment) your program incorporates.

– The extent of the program’s reach, e.g., whether you serve new-but-experienced teachers and new novice teachers, operate districtwide or only in selected quadrants of a district, include both elementary and secondary teachers, or mandate inductee participation vs. making it voluntary.

 

For a comprehensive induction program you will need to plan for:

 

– Hiring of a program coordinator (preferably full-time)

– Paying for substitute teachers to release mentor teachers part-time or full-time to provide services to inductees

– Stipends for mentors, guest lecturers, consultants, etc.

– PDF eBooks and other materials

 

Although some states have created programs for new teacher induction, few have maintained the commitment required.

 

Induction can be a separate line item in a district’s budget or can be funded as part of staff development. In the majority of cases, districts are covering the costs of induction programs either on their own or with some assistance/reimbursement from the state. Some districts manage to reallocate funds to cover the costs of induction programs.

 

The importance of a stable funding base cannot be overestimated. Programs created in response to a district mandate and/or negotiated into the teachers’ contracts are the ones that probably stand the best chance of surviving future budget cuts and related threats to their existence.

 

State sponsorship of induction programs has been erratic, with enormous variation among states. Most states with induction mandates leave decisions regarding implementation to the discretion of local districts, while others prescribe exactly how implementation should occur. There are many states that have neither induction policies nor programs in place.

 

Your state might require your district to match monies allocated, or simply provide start-up funding to stimulate district support and implementation. Sometimes programs are mandated with little or no funding at all, requiring districts to obtain competitive grants for funding, use district resources, or seek funds through partnerships or other sources.

 

Sadly, induction programs come and go as legislative priorities change, or funding waxes and wanes. However, it is likely that more state education agencies will soon establish induction programs or revive programs that were allowed to languish.

 

The legislation created block grants to states to increase the accountability of education schools and teacher training programs; grants for partnerships between colleges and schools in low-income areas to improve teaching; grants to help poor urban and rural schools to recruit teachers; and a loan forgiveness provision for college graduates who teach in high-poverty schools.

 

Ideally, an orientation program held prior to or at the beginning of the school year is part of a comprehensive, ongoing induction program. Orientation activities can range from a one-shot basic presentation to a full week of introductory sessions, demonstrations, observations, seminars, and workshops. The more you can offer, the better your program will be; a good orientation will get your teachers started off on the right foot.

 

You may require orientation activities of all new teachers or make participation voluntary. Orientation sessions usually are offered before the start of school, but be sure to repeat them again several times during the year to accommodate late hires.

 

Veteran teachers, in concert with personnel from district (or regional) offices of staff development, curriculum and instruction, and human resources, can play a major role in planning and facilitating orientation. Union representatives also can be invited to participate.

 

The content of an orientation program will be dictated by your district’s needs, the needs of teachers, the time allotted for activities, and whether or not orientation is part of a larger induction program. Orientation to district/system policies and paperwork and to school policies and paperwork is the most common component of induction programs. Available district resources, both tangible (e.g., computers and other teaching tools) and human (e.g., staff developers), are typically introduced during orientation. This is a good time to distribute a handbook, guide, or resource manual for new teachers and explain district procedures, practices, and expectations. Be careful not to bombard inductees with too much information, since they will probably be overwhelmed by the new school, their new role, new faces, and new responsibilities.

 

The program aims to aid teachers in getting acquainted with stu-dents’ needs, making a smooth transition into their new jobs, and becoming familiar with the philosophy, policies, procedures, and curriculum. The more they know, the better able they will be to meet the needs of their students.

 

During orientation, presenters provide:

 

– Resources and support

– Community information

– An overview of district programs and departments

– Information on the Teacher Mentor Program

– An understanding of school system expectations

– New employee information

– Information about curriculum/instruction

 

Expanded workshops on discipline and classroom management, lesson planning, evaluation, and parent-teacher partnerships are introduced in an initial training session before school starts.

 

Suggestions for orientation activities:

 

– Review district policies, procedures, legal issues, and philosophy.

– Make sure teachers know the basics, like how to take attendance and keep a grade book.

– Have a panel — an assistant superintendent, principal, parent, and student — discussing “What I Expect from a New Teacher.”

– Offer nonviolent crisis-intervention training.

– Hold sessions on first-week survival tips and hold subject-area curriculum reviews.

– Present updates from district divisions, with information on instructional support services, business and finance, personnel, and special education services.

– Arrange for teacher visiting days to observe other classrooms.

– Have mentees spend an entire day in a mentor’s classroom.

– Cluster teachers by grade or subject rather than in heterogeneous groups.

– Introduce teachers to the teacher evaluation process, districtwide goals, and curriculum materials.

 

Also, try this:

 

– Present material in half days spread throughout the year.

– Offer optional discussion groups on topics such as teaching in an urban area, helping students manage anger, and inclusion.

– Identify principals or assistant principals who are willing to be on hand throughout the orientation.

– Employ your friendliest, most vivacious food service workers to provide meals and refreshments.

– Identify the most enthusiastic and competent bus drivers to provide a bus tour of the community.

– Invite local business people to participate in activities, or contribute a luncheon or small gifts to be included in inductee packages, etc.

– Identify an efficient group of support personnel to staff the registration desk, distribute name badges, manage attendance and financial records, and greet each participant.

– Structure a midyear check-in with smaller groups of inductees (a few schools as opposed to the whole system) to see if new questions have arisen.

 

Support is the sine qua non of the induction experience. The majority of induction programs seek to provide assistance to novice teachers in order to reduce or eliminate problems; facilitate the development of the knowledge and skills necessary for successful teaching; and integrate inductees into the culture of their schools, districts, and communities. Support/assistance providers may be self-appointed (e.g., the teacher across the hall) or designated (e.g., a principal, department head, and/or a mentor teacher).

 

Public school teachers who are mentored by other teachers in a formal relationship at least once a week or two to three times a month believe the activity improved their teaching. Those who participated once a month or less were less likely to hold this belief.

 

Many programs use mentors to assist beginning teachers. While peers and buddy teachers often do a good job of providing support informally, designated mentor teachers (often called “consulting teachers,” “support teachers,” or “teacher mentors”) play key roles in a formal induction program. Mentors are experienced teachers who serve as guides and coaches; provide support, advice, and assistance; provide lesson demonstrations and lead workshops; conduct formative assessments to foster improvement in inductee performance; and are involved in the teacher evaluation process, affecting continuing employment, licensure, or certification decisions.

 

Mentoring is widely respected as a powerful and cost-effective element in induction programs. A high-quality mentoring program has the potential to affect teacher retention, improve the attitudes and instructional strategies of novice teachers, and help mentors reflect on and improve their own teaching skills.

 

Much of the literature on mentoring asserts that formal programs produce dramatic changes in new teachers. Retention goes up, attitudes improve, feelings of efficacy and control increase, and a wide range of instructional strategies is demonstrated, among other changes.

 

Keep in mind:

 

– Mentoring can take place individually or in groups. It is effective to offer both individual and group support.

– Mentor-mentee meetings can take place weekly, bimonthly, or as needed. It is recommended that support and assistance be offered as frequently as possible.

– Mentoring is most effective when it is organized and structured, not left to chance or informal buddying up.

– Matching mentor and mentee in the same school, grade level, or certification area works best.

– The success of mentoring is only as strong as the relationship between the mentor and mentee.

– Peer review programs assign mentors to beginning teachers as well as to experienced teachers in need of assistance.

 

Effective mentoring is not a process in which one person dictates to the other what he/she must do. Mentoring means providing in a supportive, nonthreatening way, advice, counsel, insight, and facts that the less experienced person can use to guide his/her development into a seasoned professional.

 

Mentors should be:

 

– Highly competent classroom teachers who can work effectively with adults

– Selected through a formalized, equitable process

– Trained as mentor coaches

– Expected to initiate contact with mentees before school opens, preferably no later than the district’s orientation

– Released at least partially from regular classroom duties for observations in each mentee’s classroom, demonstration lessons, and scheduled mentor-mentee visits

– Assigned a manageable number of mentees (depending on the amount of release time granted and whether the mentor must travel between school sites)

– Paid a stipend sufficient to cover the cost of materials, supplies, conference fees, and time contributed

– Assisted, as needed, by a mentor coordinator

– Evaluated annually

 

Although there are school districts that allow mentors to self-select, the most effective programs have rigorous mentor selection procedures that involve specifying mentor qualifications and requiring applications and extensive review processes. You might consider having a panel of educators who select and assign mentors.

 

Mentor-intern interaction is controlled largely by the relationship that develops between individuals. In general, the mentor is to provide advice, help secure materials, ease the intern’s transition into the district, share information about all aspects of professional development, and guide the intern’s induction into the teaching ranks. The mentor’s role is one of an “enabler” or facilitator, and should enrich the experience of an intern teacher.

 

Many state educational agencies involved in mentoring programs allow local districts to determine criteria for mentor eligibility. Some states either prescribe or at least offer recommendations regarding mentor selection criteria (e.g., length of teaching experience and certification requirements), and mentor training.

 

It is often assumed that highly experienced teachers who are effective with students will automatically be good mentors. On the contrary, mentoring is a complex function that requires training in such areas as adult development, communication, time management, leadership, and other important skills, which not all classroom teachers possess. An extensive body of literature on mentor teacher roles and responsibilities also argues for mentor professional development and training.

 

The professional development of mentor teachers, released part-time or full-time from classroom duties to support and assist their mentees, is as important as the professional development of inductees. Sadly, despite a widespread belief in the efficacy of training mentors, districts are invariably hard-pressed to provide mentor training and support in the absence of state funding ear-marked for this purpose.

 

What it takes to mentor:

 

– An understanding of how adults learn

– Self-assurance, patience, and confidence

– A proven record as a skillful teacher

– Knowledge of curriculum and curriculum guides

– Knowledge about how to observe, diagnose, coach, and give constructive feedback to a peer

– Ability to prioritize what needs to be communicated and when, so that information is effectively absorbed and used

– Knowledge about how to work cooperatively with the mentee’s school site principal or supervisor and other members of a support team

– Ability to clarify and fulfill the mentor’s role, e.g., as a buddy, support provider, and/or evaluator

– Knowledge of mentor and mentee professional rights and responsibilities

– Understanding of time management principles

 

The training guides new mentors into their roles and responsibilities and helps build a foundation for the mentor-mentee relationship. The first day of training introduces program objectives, beginning teacher needs, strategies for mentor assistance, effective interpersonal communication, and adult learning theory. On the second day of training, mentors focus on the mentoring process by practicing observation and feedback skills, assisting with the Professional Development Plan, and learning direct assistance and informal contact techniques. Additional professional development activities and resources for mentors include update sessions on special topics and an online professional library, which lists special publications, books, and audiovisual materials.

 

A mentor task force also reviews policies and plans (such as the mentor selection process or the marketing plan); updates members on current beginning teacher or mentor needs and professional development opportunities; designs mentor training and New Teacher Orientation activities; and plans receptions and award ceremonies for beginning teachers and mentors.

 

Mentors begin with a few days of orientation and training, covering such topics as: making the initial visit, role play dealing with teacher absences, multicultural awareness and teacher rights/contracts. Training is ongoing for both new and experienced mentors. In addition to teaching mentors the skills they need to mentor effectively, training sessions — usually led by a combination of staff development specialists and experienced mentors — are important because they bring together individuals with no mentoring experience and those who know the ropes.

 

The different stipulations for frequency of mentor-mentee meetings — weekly, bimonthly, or as needed — only hint at the actual amount of time that mentoring can take. Many mentors report frantic calls from mentees late in the evening; extra observations, coaching, and feedback; and a sea of paperwork.

 

It is important that mentors be given sufficient release time from their own duties to assist and advise their mentees and help prepare them for evaluation of their teaching skills (performance assessment). A reduced workload for mentors and reduced classroom duties will allow more time for mentoring, and fewer mentees assigned per mentor will allow more time for coaching, supporting, and/or assessing each mentee. A reduced workload also can give mentors more time to complete required reports and other paperwork and to participate in professional growth opportunities.

 

Compensation for veteran teachers (when available) can take various forms:

 

– Course vouchers in exchange for mentoring (in a district/higher education partnership)

– Release time to observe or meet with novice teachers and time to meet university or cohort groups informally or in a scheduled class or workshop

– Cash for the extra time required

– Recognition by the larger community as a “master” teacher

 

Making the most of mentoring:

 

– Maximize mentor accessibility by limiting the number of buildings each mentor must serve.

– Identify mentors and mentees as early as possible so they can meet and begin planning prior to the first week of school.

– Identify a place for intern-mentor meetings at each school.

– Make mentoring available to all newly employed teachers — those with less than a full year’s experience and experienced teachers teaching in the state or district for the first time.

– Vary the amount and type of assistance provided to interns based on their assessed needs.

– Aim to move mentees beyond competence to excellence in teaching, over the course of a full year.

– Articulate criteria for evaluating mentor performance.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/help-new-teachers-establish-themselves-professionally/

How To Get Started Improving Your Efforts To Support And Assess Novice Teachers – ebookschoice.com

Many professions offer orientation and support experiences for professionals starting out in a field. Medical residents and law associates—even rookie baseball players—receive extended training, development, and mentoring (working alongside a seasoned expert) before taking on the responsibilities of a full professional. In contrast, novice teachers often are left to fend for themselves, with little or inadequate initiation into the profession.

 

However, an increasing number of school districts offer teacher induction programs to orient, support, assist, train, and assess teachers within their first three years of employment in public schools. Teacher induction is the process of socialization to the teaching profession, adjustment to the procedures and mores of a school site and school system, and development of effective instructional and classroom management skills. Participants in these programs are called inductees, a term which refers simultaneously to teachers who are new to the profession, and teachers with experience who are new to a district, grade level, or certification area.

 

Teacher induction programming can (and does) take many forms. Induction activities can range from a short orientation session, to mentoring programs, to staff development courses and workshops, to multiyear programs that continue to meet the changing needs of teachers as they develop. Many districts combine several activities to support new teachers.

 

Why are induction programs needed?

 

Influx of new hires

Due to escalating teacher retirements and rising student enrollments, the nation currently faces a shortage of qualified teachers. America will need to hire some two million K-12 teachers over the next decade. Although high-wealth suburban districts will always have a glut of applicants, low-wealth urban districts face a hiring demand of 900,000 teachers or more over the next decade.

 

High attrition rates

Just this year, America’s urban school districts will need new teachers to fill some of the nation’s most challenging classroom assignments. All too many of these new recruits face battlefield odds as to whether they will still be teaching five years from now. No matter how well they did in college, teacher preparation, or another career, teachers can be overwhelmed by their first years in the classroom. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of beginning teachers leave in the first five years of teaching.

 

Reality shock

Central-city public schools are more likely to fill positions with “less than qualified” new teachers than are large or small towns. Even experienced teachers embarking on assignments in new cities or academic disciplines can be sorely tested, especially if they are unfamiliar with the urban environment. The so-called “reality shock” that can ensue often exacts a terrible toll on teacher morale, school district recruitment and, most important, student achievement.

 

Teacher quality

Increasingly, inductees are learning on the job. Thus, there is an urgent need for induction programs to augment the knowledge and skills of both novice teachers emerging from traditional teacher preparation programs, as well as the increasing numbers of inductees with little or no training. Many of today’s induction programs are geared to remediating inductees’ inadequate professional preparation.

 

Why do new teachers leave the profession?

The initial years of teaching have been well documented as a time of frustration, overwhelming experiences, and increasing doubts about the choice of profession. The common concerns of new teachers vary widely, from handling discipline problems, learning the curriculum, understanding district policy and paperwork, to connecting theory with practice.

 

The problem of new teacher attrition is particularly pronounced in urban schools. A new study revealed a vicious cycle that was both symptom and cause of deteriorating conditions in low-performing urban schools. Inferior working conditions, lack of professional respect, low morale, and a culture of high faculty turnover all contribute to high rates of attrition among first- second- and third-year teachers in urban districts.

 

What are some common barriers to new teacher success?

There are many barriers to inductee success, some reflecting characteristics of the inductee, some pertaining to the school or community. Some of these barriers include:

 

– Inadequate preparation in classroom management

– Difficulty organizing time/work schedule

– Inadequate preparation in instructional methods

– Unfamiliarity with the curriculum

– Insufficient preparation for dealing with cultural diversity

– Difficulty fitting in with the school culture

– Language barriers

– Isolation in the classroom

– Large class size

– Cumbersome school or district bureaucracy

– Low salary/inadequate compensation

– Lack of respect or recognition as a teacher

 

What can teacher induction programs accomplish?

Effective induction programs hold promise to:

 

– Extend the preparation period of novice teachers through their crucial first few years on the job so they continue to develop as proficient, knowledgeable, and successful teachers

– Improve the climate for teaching and learning, and build community between new and veteran teachers

 

How widespread are induction programs in the U.S.?

The good news is that induction programs are prevalent across the nation, particularly in the nation’s larger towns and cities. However, these programs vary widely in their complexity, intensity, and quality.

 

Even though 58% of new public-school teachers are participating in some type of formal induction program during their first year of teaching (63% in urban schools), the scope and quality of support can range from effective, comprehensive, multiyear, developmental programs, to casual, one-shot, brief (and often inadequate) orientation sessions.

 

Unfortunately, even when district administrators have had the desire to strengthen induction programs in their schools, in many cases lack of financial resources has prevented resource-strapped school administrators from implementing their vision of induction. And, induction services are not reaching all who need them.

 

Are induction programs a new development?

Most induction programs in operation today were established prior to 1999. State mandates (often without state funding) typically spurred program creation. The 2000s were an especially fertile period for induction programs, due to heightened concern about rising teacher attrition and renewed interest in increasing teacher quality. Unfortunately, many programs have had to cut back services since then, due to lack of funding. The researchers found that one in three induction programs had reluctantly cut back services because of insufficient resources. However, the current shortage of qualified teachers is causing a resurgence of interest in supporting beginning teachers.

 

Are districts benefiting from their induction programs?

Sadly, there is a paucity of formal evaluation among both state-and district-level teacher induction programs. Outcome data that do exist, strongly suggest that good induction programs result in gains in teacher retention and teacher quality.

 

How does good teacher induction benefit children?

 

– It provides grounded, standards-based support for beginning teachers to continue to become better teachers.

– It keeps highly qualified and highly committed teachers in the profession.

– It provides opportunities for experienced teachers to become better teachers

 

Can induction programs benefit teacher recruitment?

Induction programs are beneficial as a recruitment tool. When prospective teachers ask whether they will have support and assistance during the first year of teaching, recruiters with bona fide induction programs can answer in the affirmative.

 

What does the future hold for induction programs?

As states and school districts begin to focus more intensively on issues of teacher quality, the challenges of new teacher orientation, adjustment, effectiveness, accountability, and attrition are coming more and more to the fore.

 

Increasingly, the federal government, states, and districts appear to be recognizing induction as a critical part of the infrastructure for professional development and are beginning to commit resources to formal programs addressing the needs of inductees. The following trends attest to genuine progress regarding teacher induction programs:

 

– Federal legislation is beginning to address teacher induction

– States are enacting policies to support beginning teachers

– Districts are starting to develop induction programs in response to rising teacher attrition (especially of good beginning teachers); the need to fill positions in shortage areas (e.g., mathematics, science, early childhood education); growing enrollments; and accelerating teacher retirements. The program will require a greater investment of funds, staff, inductee and mentor training opportunities, and school site support to provide meaningful and consistent assistance and training for all inductees.

– Districts are expanding existing induction programs

– Regional centers are being created to support teachers

– Teacher union interest in induction is growing. Despite the fact that teacher unions have been for the most part reluctant to treat novices differently from veteran teachers when it comes to contractual matters, some union affiliates (still a small number) have been instrumental in collaborating with school districts to develop induction programs.

 

Increasingly, states and districts are recognizing the relationship between supporting novice teachers and ensuring teacher retention in this time of critical teacher shortage. Still, well-funded, comprehensive, developmental induction programs that serve all teachers who need assistance are far from the norm in U.S. school districts. Future research will tell us more about the quality of induction programs, how to serve all eligible inductees, and how to integrate induction policies and practices into wider school reform efforts.

 

Guidelines for Success

 

Whether you are developing a new induction program, or are aim-ing to expand or improve an existing one, keep in mind that the most effective programs do the following:

 

– View induction as a multiyear, developmental process.

– Within the first three years of their teaching careers, inductees passing through developmental stages have different needs, typically beginning with basic survival (e.g., the nuts and bolts of classroom management and student discipline) and orientation to school site and system-level policies, procedures, and paperwork; moving on to real concern for instructional effectiveness; and followed by interest in curriculum reform, school reform, student assessment, and teacher leadership.

 

It is important to view induction as an extended, multiyear process. University courses are the start of teacher training—inductees need continuous learning opportunities, ongoing orientation, and sustained support. Thus, a second or a third year of support, assistance, and training may be needed, particularly when inductees are hired late or are assigned to grade levels or subject areas that are not their principal area of expertise.

 

Ensure that school site administrators understand how to orient inductees, create supportive working conditions for them, and effectively meet their professional needs. Principals should be trained to be knowledgeable about and alert to inductees’ needs and concerns and should convey to the entire staff the importance of welcoming, guiding, and assisting them. “Buddy” teachers in the same hall, grade level, or department can be asked to be available for emergencies arising in between scheduled mentor visits. Site administrators and department heads should also refrain from mis-assigning inductees to classes they are not qualified to teach or loading them up with extra duties.

 

While peers and buddy teachers often do a good job of providing support informally, designated mentor teachers play key roles in a formal induction program. Be sure you have paid careful attention to mentor selection, training, compensation, release time, support, and evaluation.

 

Link inductee evaluation to district- and state-level standards for what beginning teachers should know and be able to do. The most promising programs tie participation to new, more stringent professional standards and performance assessments that have been established as part of school reform legislation. Inductee performance assessments should be both formative and summative; and teachers should have access to support, information, and guidance prior to assessment.

 

Invest in technology to facilitate communication between and among inductees, their mentors, and university faculty. Email, online forums, bulletin boards, new teacher helplines, etc. are easy and relatively inexpensive ways for inductees to share ideas, concerns, and encouraging words with other novice teachers, regardless of geographic location. All teachers should have ready access to and training on the Internet, which offers a rich array of information resources to teachers and students alike.

 

Evaluate program effectiveness.

It is very important to set up a system of program evaluation or monitoring of progress. Begin by assessing specific program components/activities, such as orientation sessions and training work-shops for inductees—as well as training for mentors—to ensure that inductee, mentor, and district needs are met. Periodically ask inductees and site administrators for feedback on mentor availability and performance.

 

Go on to evaluate program outcomes in terms of teacher retention, improvement of teacher knowledge and skills, increase in new teacher confidence and satisfaction, mentor teacher professional development, etc. Be prepared to modify and improve program elements annually based on what each evaluation reveals. Learn from individual schools and site administrators who are particularly successful in implementing induction programs, and disseminate models of good practice districtwide.

Whether you are aiming to expand, improve, or change the ways you serve inductees in your district, it is important to strive for a coherent approach to induction, tailored to meet the needs of your beginning teachers. Be sure to incorporate the steps below when developing your induction program:

 

Put together a planning team.

You will need to bring together a planning team to tailor an induction program that best meets your district’s needs. An effective planning team is comprised of site administrators, teachers, individuals from local teacher preparation institutions, central office personnel, union representatives, and others in a position to determine how the program components should be coordinated and integrated.

 

Decide which teachers your program should serve.

While most induction programs require participation, exceptions often are made for newly hired—but experienced—teachers. Many districts routinely distinguish between inductees new to the profession and those transferring in with experience. Some state education agencies allow districts to provide limited assistance to inductees who are experienced teachers, especially if they are returning to the classroom after a prolonged absence or if they are new to the state or certification area.

 

Your program can serve first-year teachers only, or you might allow or require inductees to participate beyond their first year of teaching. Of course, like many districts, your resources may be tight and you may only be able to accommodate first-year teachers. If your state has a two-tiered (i.e., initial and full) licensure system, you might require participation of any inductee who is not fully licensed, and consider extending the program into subsequent years.

 

Ask these questions when considering whom to serve:

 

– Have you hired teachers after the start of the school year?

– Has a teacher requested support services?

– Do you have teachers who have changed grade levels or content areas or who have returned to teaching after a long absence?

– Do you have teachers on emergency permit or waiver?

– Do some of your teachers have probationary status?

– Do some of your teachers need help demonstrating competence or meeting requirements?

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/how-to-get-started-improving-your-efforts-to-support-and-assess-novice-teachers/

Obstacles for Special Education Teachers – ebookschoice.com

With the word “accountability” on every teacher’s and parent’s lips these days, one controversial tool that’s emerging is state mandated proficiency exams. Statewide assessments become truly ‘high stakes’ when school quality, teacher competence, and individual student capability are judged by their results. The stakes hit the ceiling when these test scores are used by states and school districts as the sole determinant of whether students pass to the next grade or graduate. The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has pushed the notion of accountability into the world of special education. The law says that students with disabilities should have access to the general education curriculum and that these students should be included in state- and district-wide assessments. And that includes high stakes testing. Currently, many states are implementing or considering implementing high stakes testing.

 

Paperwork Is Number 1 Obstacle for Special Education Teachers

 

In response to a new survey on Special Education Teaching Conditions, respondents overwhelming cited overburdensome and duplicative paperwork as the number 1 obstacle to effective practice. High caseloads ranked a close second, and conflicted role expectations rated third. A complete breakdown of the survey results follows.

 

Overwhelming Paperwork – 79%

Caseloads, Class Sizes – 61%

Conflicting Role Expectations – 58%

Lack of Collaboration with General Education Teachers – 58%

Lack of Problem-Solving Opportunities with General Educators – 55%

Lack of Administrative Support – 44%

Lack of Access to Technology – 43%

Lack of Access to the General Education Curriculum – 37%

Poorly-trained Paraeducators – 34%

Poor Preservice Training – 27%

Unqualified Personnel – 26%

Lack of Opportunity for Professional Development – 26%

 

Comments

 

Following are selected comments from our respondents.

 

Paperwork

 

Planning appropriate lessons for my students is done on Sundays because my planning period is spent in meetings, hall duty, making phone calls, and/or more paperwork for upcoming Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). With 13 years behind me, I have found the situation with special education has become worse, with no support from anyone.

 

The paperwork problem has increased for us significantly this year, preventing us from providing the services the students truly need from us. We are so bogged down with documentation on monitoring and cooperative consultation students that we rarely, if ever, know who they are as a person. Offering them our time to assist them has become virtually impossible. This along with large class sizes, means we cannot truly provide the services and individual attention needed and deserved by so many kids.

 

I am working with 38 students in four grade levels (3-6). Each had an IEP for me to write. I need to be in contact with 10 teachers for which I get no extra planning time, nor concurrent planning time. Each child is wonderful, and each child deserves much more of me than I can give.

 

I feel the focus should be on the child and taken off the endless paper chain. I spend more time making sure I have correctly filled out special education forms and organizing folders than I do making lesson plans. An IEP is only as good as the teacher, and we could be better teachers if we could focus our attention on the children and less on the paper load. Educators, legislatures, state department officials, and parents should work towards getting back to the basics by not worrying so much as to what is written on the numerous special education forms (that change yearly if not sooner) but on what is actually happening daily in the classroom.

 

I feel the amount of paperwork special educators have compared to general educators is not enough to gripe about. The amount of paperwork is becoming unbearable. It is taking away from my students’ time with me. The average length of our IEPs here are 45 pages and take 5-8 hours to complete. That doesn’t count time for conferences.

 

When I started Teaching, I would estimate 80% of my time was spent working directly with students, 20% in paper management. As the years have progressed, the percentages I stated above have reversed. The inordinate amount of time spent pushing papers directly impacts my ability to deliver a special education to the students with special needs. As a resource teacher, I feel like a person trying to fix a broken leg with a band-aid.

 

I am at a point in my career that I question my effectiveness as a special educator. I am tired, stressed, and really disappointed. We are asked to push more papers and deliver a service that is almost impossible. Our caseloads need to shrink and our job responsibilities need to be less. I want to be able to sit across from a parent at an annual review and feel good about the services I was able to provide their child. I do not want to sit there and feel like all IA could do was provide a band-aid for the child’s broken leg.

 

High Case Loads/Class Sizes

 

It seems that case management is a full-time job in and of itself. It has become impossible to teach, consult, and manage cases.

 

I feel that I am reaching the point where I am going to have to choose whether I want to be an effective teacher or an effective case manager. No longer do I feel it is humanly possible to do both jobs well.

 

I’m a high school resource teacher and very concerned about the case load. If the numbers are divided equally, I have about eight minutes of individualized instruction a day for each student. The maximum caseload needs to be lowered for the resource teacher to be effective.

 

Caseload sizes may not always take into consideration the severity of the population served.

 

It is not uncommon for special educators to be expected to be actively working in “inclusion” classrooms while conducting resource (and in a few cases self-contained) special education classes simultaneously. Paraprofessionals do much special education instruction simply because special education teachers are unable to be in two or more places at the same time.

 

Certification

 

I am feeling betrayed. I am a good teacher. I am flexible, adaptable, creative, and dedicated. Simply checking my references would satisfy any concerns or questions one might have about my suitability for a particular Teaching position. I simply do not understand why I could read, reason, write, compute, and teach successfully in some states and be unworthy of practicing my profession when I arrived in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

 

Nonsupportive Administrators

 

The biggest problem is the total lack of support from district administrators for our programs and kids. They are still not thought of as part of the school.

In my experience, administrators top the list of obstacles. Am I the only special education teacher who was disturbed by the way related service personnel and special ed teachers are thrust into a classroom together with no forum to plan?

 

I have great concern about administrators who view special educators as lower-status teachers when compared to general educators and are simply unaware of what is going on in special education.

 

Lack of Resources

 

We use special education software that covers ALL aspects of the special education process. It works well, saves time, and teachers love it. No canned IEP goals and objectives here. Teachers write individual goals and objectives and can save their work to be modified and used again.

 

What about classroom space in public education buildings? People are expected to work with 20 kids and have an office for space – then administrators get upset when the kids get out of hand.

 

I am a third-year teacher of a pre-primary cross-categorical unit. I started my first year with a teacher’s desk and not one item more proved from the school system. I had to practically beg for supplies. I would call my special education department and ask for materials and furniture, and they would refer me to my building principal. The principal would tell me he didn’t have to provide supplies for special education rooms. I feel as though I am getting burned out already due to the constant struggle I have to go through to get what my students need.

 

Lack of Adequate Professional Preparation

 

A significant obstacle for me and my students is the unwillingness of regular education teachers to accept my students’ abilities and disabilities. As we attempt to implement inclusion, I feel like a leper every time I try to help the teachers adapt instruction to include the students in their classes. I know this is due a great deal to the fact that my district has done very little in the way of teacher inservice on inclusion.

 

Special education teachers are generally seen as something other than a real teacher. We need desperately to bridge the gap between the factions in our profession. I believe this bridge can be built most effectively in the college environment. Regular and special educators in training need to have more opportunities to understand the basis behind each degree.

 

If the push for inclusion and the implementation of regular education curriculum is to be effective, the training needs to begin at the college level. In addition, the colleges and universities training new teachers must implement a program that is not only philosophy but what is really happening in the schools today. Too many new teachers are not prepared for the real classroom.

 

Lack of Respect for Special Education

 

Special education teachers are at the bottom of the food chain. If the regular teacher is out, they use a special education aid every time. I am supposed to have two assistants. One of my assistants was taken for another class; the other works in the office every day from 1:00 until the end of the day.

 

I teach all day with no break or lunch. I have students to feed during lunch, so I usually don’t have time to eat? Why do I do this? I really enjoy my students and have a deep bond with each one.

 

Teachers, parents of exceptional children, and the exceptional children themselves are given little attention by school administrators. The special education teacher is expected to solve all problems, keep a low profile, and ask for nothing. In a few schools, administrators will not provide Teaching supplies and instructional materials on the grounds that the special education funds are supposed to be used, not the school’s budgeted funds. Teachers are often bounced back and forth from school to agency.

 

I find because of our schedules, it is very hard to make the appropriate contacts needed to benefit our students.

 

I see building level support as key to success for special ed teachers.

 

Unqualified Special Education Teachers

 

It is very disillusioning to see the quality, or rather lack of, in most of the present special education teachers. It seems that school districts will hire anyone to teach a special education class.

 

Lack of Opportunity Career Paths

 

Regarding the questions about career options, preservice preparation, and professional development, I see these as personal choices and motivational levels. As for career paths, with all of the changes going on, special educators have a multitude of paths to follow.

 

Miscellaneous

 

The threat of law suits and overdocumentation is driving away many teachers. Please work to simplify the legal part of this profession and let teachers do what they can do best – teach.

 

Teachers who are actually in the classroom dealing with day-to-day realities of our job should have some input-i.e., having an administrator at every IEP meeting. That would 360 meetings on our campus. Besides, they are not required to sit in on general ed parent conferences, so why should IEPs be any different?

 

It is hard to continually give and give – with little respect or help, added paper work, and laws always demanding more.

 

Two teachers are on staff at my school. One is above state caseload by two and the other by four. We do not have a continuum of service, and the new director of special education has no clue about an elementary setting.

 

Gains and Losses

 

High stakes testing has engendered pluses and minuses, as well as confusion and anxiety for special education students and their teachers in schools across the nation. For instance, some special education teachers are caught in a basic quandary: do I teach content to my students so that they will do well on the test, or should I focus my energy on helping a student master essential skills such as reading or Mathematics?

 

Weaver goes on to say that many teachers try to offer the best of both worlds by attempting to meet goals by using content that may be found on state assessments, but no one knows if this technique leads to success for the students. In other cases, special education teachers say high stakes testing and the pressure it brings has caused them to change the way they teach.

While parents of children with special needs support their children’s inclusion in state- and district-wide testing for the most part, they often share teachers’ concerns about what is being lost educationally. For example, the “Teaching moments” that can make all the difference to a child’s understanding of a subject can be forfeited.

 

However, special educators also say that state- and district-wide assessments can benefit students with disabilities. For example, high stakes testing may prove to be the impetus needed to ensure students with disabilities get a higher quality of educational service from both special and general educators. Another plus is that including students with special needs gives school administrations incentive to devote more resources to special education.

 

Test Anxiety

 

A side product of high stakes testing is the psychological toll on students and teachers. The net effect of the diploma sanction has been an increase in dropout rates, especially for minority, urban, special education, and bilingual students. Special education teachers are also grappling with the question of who can take alternate assessments. Students with disabilities have the option of alternative assessments, but it is expected that only a low percentage of students, between one and five percent, will require an alternative assessment.

 

The Accommodation Paradox

 

Children with disabilities must be included in general state and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary. But the legislation does not specify what constitutes an “appropriate” accommodation, so decisions about which accommodations are allowed during testing are in the hands of the states, and ultimately the student’s IEP team. Examples of accommodations are giving students with disabilities more time on the test or using the services of a scribe or reader.

 

Then there’s the nagging question of whether a test taken with accommodations is the same test at all. Thus, if a teacher reads a question to a child with a learning disability, is that the same test? At what point does a reading test become a listening comprehension test? Another problem schools are facing with test accommodations and modifications is that they require additional personnel, and some schools do not have the resources for such personnel.

Positioning the Goalposts

 

In schools where the majority of non-disabled students are struggling to pass standards tests, some educators fear that students with special needs will be left behind. Others are optimistic about the types of success students with disabilities can achieve. But the fact is, we just don’t know what to expect. Even in today’s climate of increased accountability, no consensus has emerged about how much progress is acceptable for students with disabilities.

 

Emerging Tools for Schools

 

Special education students can rise to the challenge by using appropriate accommodations, interventions and modifications, layering the curriculum, diversifying instructional delivery systems, implementing multi-level testing, utilizing resource teachers better, and giving general education teachers tools to help them tackle the precise difficulties individual students are having.

 

A Challenge We Can Meet

 

While high stakes testing is causing unease and uncertainty, many special educators hope it is a challenge both students with disabilities and they will meet. As for the children, taking statewide tests may be one of the toughest academic challenges they will ever face.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/obstacles-for-special-education-teachers/

The Uniqueness Of The Middle Level Student Teaching Practicum – EbooksCheaper.com

Most beginning teachers will agree that the student teaching experience is the most practical and worthwhile experience in their teacher preparation program. It is the one culminating experience that brings together the earlier studies in subject matter specializations, adolescent development, pedagogy, and curriculum.

Middle level student teachers also share a respect for this final field experience, yet these students are often placed in a setting that is basically different from the junior highs of yesteryear. In addition to the former areas integrated into the student teaching process, there is an added dimension to this teacher induction process in which the student teacher must learn to absorb the culture of the middle level schools.

The fact that many beginning teachers in middle level schools are encountering elements such as interdisciplinary teaming, flexible block scheduling, advisory programs, and integrated curricula adds to the uniqueness of the middle level student teaching practicum.

Because the experience may be unique, there are a number of ideas that can facilitate the transition from college student to effective middle level teacher. A few of those ideas are: getting off to a good start, developing effective interpersonal relationships with the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor, and acclimating the student teacher to the responsibilities of an effective middle school teacher.

Getting off to a Good Start

The beginning days of the student teaching experience are crucial to the growth of the novice teacher. This is the time when learning about the new surroundings, introduction to the role of the middle school teacher, and laying the foundation for a classroom management system are initiated.

An excellent way for the student teacher to learn about the environment of the middle school is through participation in a shadow study. The student teacher, with help from the cooperating teacher, selects a middle school student to shadow for a day. The student teacher records impressions about the student he/she is following, considers the events of the day, and draws conclusions about the daily life of a young adolescent in this particular middle school. Much opportunity for observation and reflection is provided by a well-done shadow study.

Since the focus of an effective middle school is meeting the needs of the young adolescent learner, situations that permit the student teacher to view the school environment from the eyes of a variety of individuals working to meet learner needs is important. Interviews with support staff, other faculty at the same and different grade levels, administrators, and the secretarial staff help the student teacher appreciate the educational atmosphere of the school.

 

Another activity that can facilitate a smooth adjustment to the student teaching position is early conferencing between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher focusing on planning and teaching responsibilities. Topics such as appropriate lesson plan format, deadlines, mode and delivery systems for feedback, and transition of teaching load should be discussed early. These initial conferences will set the tone for communication between cooperating teacher and student teacher for the rest of the experience.

Conferencing during student teaching needs to involve analysis of planning techniques, teaching, student assessment and evaluation, and the effectiveness of interpersonal relationships. The conference is an ideal time to discuss these topics, analyze and revise approaches, and plan for future skill development. A focus on young adolescent learner characteristics and needs should be maintained in this field experience.

Another valuable form of conferencing is the three-way conference between the student teacher, the cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor. The university supervisor is probably responsible for visiting a number of student teachers as a part of his/her assignment. This breadth of experience provides a new set of eyes and ears that can contribute information tempered with a knowledge of how other student teachers are doing at this stage of development.

Getting a good start on developing a classroom management plan that takes into consideration the developmental needs of the learners is another area to be addressed at the beginning. The student teacher should talk with the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor about what techniques will help put in place a plan that teaches students to take responsibility for their own actions.

Developing Effective Interpersonal Relationships

One of the most significant determiners of success in student teaching is the student teacher’s ability to develop effective interpersonal relationships with young adolescent students, the cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor. The degree to which the parties involved are able to communicate will affect every other aspect of the student teaching episode. In addition to the immediate parties with whom the student teacher needs to communicate, the interdisciplinary team is also a participant in the development of professional relationships.

Teaming is often a new concept to middle level student teachers. Whether or not the teacher education program contained instruction on teaming, the actual collaboration expected at the team level requires the development and practice of new skills. The student teacher and the cooperating teacher should spend conferencing time discussing the role of a productive team member. Any responsibilities that team members have on the team should be built into the transition plan for the student teacher to eventually assume.

It is a good idea for the student teacher to visit other team meetings in order to gain a broader perspective. The student teacher can observe how diversity of personalities, management styles, and mode of operation can vary from team to team. In this way, the student teacher can appreciate the need for effective group interpersonal communication skills.

Becoming an Effective Middle School Teacher

An effective middle level teacher is knowledgeable about the nature and needs of young adolescents, middle level philosophy, curriculum and instruction, appropriate middle level methodology, and ideally is prepared to teach in two or more teaching fields. In order to provide supervision and guidance across these areas, the student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor need to monitor progress in each.

Activities may be developed to allow closer observation of the physical, social, emotional, intellectual and moral development of the student in a variety of social contexts within the school. Guided observations could be completed which require the examination and study of developmental characteristics of the young adolescents in both classrooms and extra-curricular settings. An appropriate tool designed to communicate ideas would be a journal kept by the student teacher facilitating later reflection about learner needs and characteristics.

 

Opportunities for participation in the planning and implementation of exploratory offerings, teacher-based guidance, and cross graded groupings should be an integral part of the responsibilities shared with the middle level student teacher. Early and continuous feedback on the student teacher’s work in these areas should take place through written dialogue in a journal, or through the conferencing process. There is no substitute for frequent reflection and feedback.

Methodology appropriate for use in a middle school covers a wide variety of techniques. Careful planning will allow the novice teacher to learn to make effective use of techniques such as large group work, small group work, cooperative learning, independent study, problem solving, and other useful instructional strategies. The cooperating teacher should remember that the student teacher needs to feel safe to experiment with new techniques. A good plan-implement-review process should facilitate greater trust in this areas.

It is widely accepted that all student teachers feel they need to know more in their subject area teaching fields. It is important to provide many opportunities for accessing materials and resources. The broader the student teacher’s experiences with subject area resources, the more confident the student teacher will be.

If the student teacher is prepared in two or more content areas, it is a good idea to provide some teaching experiences in each of the areas. Curriculum integration becomes much clearer when seen through the eyes of one who has experienced teaching through a multi-disciplinary approach.

Although the literature suggests that student teachers at different levels tend to share some common concerns, it is clear that middle level student teachers face special challenges. A student teaching program focusing on a strong start, effective interpersonal relationships, and assimilating the role of an effective middle level teacher can place the middle level student teacher on the path to success in meeting the needs of young adolescent students.

The interest in curriculum approaches beyond the separate subject one has roots in the work of the Herbartians in the 1890s, the Project Method of the 1920s, the curriculum integration and core curriculum movements of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, and other curriculum moments. Moreover, that history, like the present, involves many different types of approaches. This paper provides definitions for various approaches, beginning with the separate subject approach, and connects them with the larger field of curriculum design. It also includes a discussion of sources of themes and issues associated with implementing curriculum designs beyond the separate subject one.

Sources of Themes

Organizing centers for curriculum units are frequently referred to as “themes” and the term “thematic curriculum” is often used generically to describe any or all approaches beyond the separate subject one. In any given case, however, that term does not reveal the important matter of what the theme is or where it came from. In fact, educators seeking alternatives beyond the separate subject approach draw curriculum organizing themes from a number of sources.

One source themes is the existing subject curriculum. In this case, a topic already taught in one subject is opened up for consideration from the viewpoints of other subjects. Usually, themes drawn from existing subjects involve historical periods like “Colonial Living” or the “Middle Ages,” but others like “Metrics,” “Technology,” or “Myths and Legends” are also common. Themes selected from inside the existing curriculum often seem easier to use since they already have legitimacy in the curriculum as well as resources available for learning activities. However, a curriculum made up solely of themes based on personal concerns is inadequate to meet the school’s obligation to bring issues from the larger world to student’s attention.

Another source of themes might be called process concepts. Process concepts focus on relationships such as “Change,” “Cycles,” or “Systems.” Such concepts make it easy to involve various subject areas since they are found in almost any area of living. However, because such processes apply to almost everything, they are often too ambiguous to offer students a clear context for their learning experiences.

Appealing topics might include topics supposedly popular with students, such as “Chocolate” or “Apples.” Teachers who develop units around these themes often invent very engaging activities that students find interesting. While units using “appealing” topics may contain significant educational content, publicizing the titles alone, without any explanation of what they involve, has sometimes led parents and others to believe that thematic units trivialize the curriculum.

Teachers who use multidisciplinary designs draw from all sources depending upon which seems useful in correlating information and skills from different subjects at any given time. However, teachers who use curriculum integration designs draw themes from social issues and personal concerns since they emerge from real-life issues, offer powerful, significant, and relevant contexts for learning, and offer possibilities for introducing students to democratic problem-solving and constructivist uses of knowledge.

Curriculum Approaches in Action

The definitions of various curriculum designs presented here are drawn from curriculum theory as it has evolved over most of this century. Thus the technical differences among them may not always be so apparent in the on-going life of a school or team where teachers may overlap or blend different designs. Rarely does any curriculum design, other than the separate subject approach, completely dominate the program of a whole school. Instead, it is likely to find a mix of approaches in a school, particularly a combination of separate subject and multidisciplinary courses and units. Moreover, when a teaching team is involved in a particular multidisciplinary unit, it is possible that not all team members will participate or that team members will participate to varying degrees depending on their interest in the theme or their subject’s perceived relation to it. At the present time, the curriculum integration approach, as defined here, is almost always carried on by only a few teachers in any given school and often used for only part of the day.

Because teachers or teams may mix and match approaches and because the concepts behind various approaches may be implemented in diverse ways, it is probably unwise and unfair to engage in debates over whether any particular case qualifies strictly as one or another approach. Rather it is important to observe the general direction taken by a teacher or team with regard to how they define the purposes of the curriculum, the sources and uses of knowledge, the boundaries between subject areas, the sources of themes, and other important features of curriculum approaches. Furthermore, the use of one or another curriculum approach cannot be identified merely on the basis of the kinds of learning activities employed. While such activities as projects, collaborative planning, group learning, and student self-assessment are used within the curriculum integration approach by definition, they may be and are often used in other approaches, including the separate subject one.

Finally, as discussions in schools and elsewhere address the possibility of using curriculum approaches beyond the separate subject one, it is important to remember that the approaches defined here are not simply points along a continuum. For this reason, while some teachers may feel a need to work through a multidisciplinary approach before attempting curriculum integration, others choose to move directly to integration approach so as to pursue the purposes it intends.

 

Megan Wilson is a teacher, life strategist, successful entrepreneur, inspirational keynote speaker and founder of https://Ebookscheaper.com. Megan champions a radical rethink of our school systems; she calls on educators to teach both intuition and logic to cultivate creativity and create bold thinkers.

 

Source: https://ebookscheaper.com/2023/09/28/the-uniqueness-of-the-middle-level-student-teaching-practicum/

Improving Education In School And Pursuing The New Educational Standards – ebookschoice.com

There are many current stimulators of educational improvement and represent multi-year efforts to define new standards, not just for subject matter content but also for teaching, assessment, and programs. Using a large-scale consensus process, new documents are reviewed extensively by constituent groups and acquired substantial “ownership” as a result.

 

These documents and influential predecessors have much in common. They call for substantive education for all students (not just the academically elite), delineate the major content themes for the curriculum, and set new expectations for assessment, teaching, and student learning.

 

Careful review of these documents and case studies of schools in which the ideas are being put into action establish that the desired reforms are complex, multi-faceted, and extend into the most basic aspects of the teaching and learning process. Taken seriously, they demand sweeping and fundamental change.

 

Another pervasive impression from the case studies is the large effort required to make these changes. Time is a major dilemma for teachers, and it is reflected in the difficulties teachers face in finding the time for initiating change and engaging in the related professional development. The education advocated in these standards reflects values and beliefs that often differ from those commonly held by school personnel.

 

A related matter is that most educational personnel do not recognize either the full extent of the changes called for in the new standards. Grasping the reality of the situation is essential for initiating and sustaining significant professional development.

 

The purpose of professional development activities is to foster teachers’ growth into the most effective teachers possible. The teacher learning is essential for significant educational improvement, and this learning, in turn, provides a foundation for the changes in student roles and work that are the “bottom line” of educational improvement. Teacher learning requires attention to educational practices at a fundamental level, a level at which the teacher addresses the very values and beliefs that underlie his or her current practices. Without addressing the matters at this level, major changes in classroom practice are unlikely to occur, and the promise of the new standards will not be realized.

 

The professional development is not a simple process. The total picture of the development of a professional is never simple, nor is it appropriately portrayed in a simple linear fashion.

 

While there are variety of ways in which this complex picture could be described, this paper will explore three dimensions of professional development: the technical dimension, the political dimension, and the cultural dimension. Within each of these dimensions, both the process of professional development and its content will be addressed. The final section of this document addresses an outlook that underlies the total presentation, namely the need to address any programmatic professional development from a systemic perspective, i.e., with full attention to the many interrelationships among the many facets of the situation.

 

The technical dimension of professional development refers to professional knowledge and skills and the means by which they are acquired. Knowledge and skills pertain to the full sweep of professional practice, such as organizing curricular content, planning instruction, managing classroom activities, conducting challenging laboratory activities, fostering rigorous intellectual discussion, conducting quality student assessment, motivating student participation, and defining expected student work. The means by which these knowledge and skills are acquired include in-service education, informal learning through reading, conferences and networking, and collaboration with colleagues in the school context.

 

For many educators, mention of professional development brings to mind in-service education. In fact, for many people the terms are almost synonymous. A deep understanding of how professional development actually occurs, however, shows the fallacy of this thinking. By itself, in-service education cannot sustain professional development, nor is it even likely to be the key building block for professional development. On the other hand, it may be an important component of professional development, and in some cases, especially in the midst of department or school-wide curricular or programmatic changes, it may be an essential component. However, given its prominence in educators’ thinking and the important role it often plays in professional development, it will be addressed here first.

 

The above listing of knowledge and skills includes topics common to in-service education classes. Many of them are essential to the professional development of teachers in the midst of educational reform. New curricular content and a new role for teachers in the classroom are major elements of such reforms; in-service education is a prominent and appropriate means of addressing them. In addition, this attention to teacher roles can extend to how these new roles can lead to new student roles and new forms of student work. Obviously, this in-service education will be most effective when closely connected to the concerns of the participants and the educational changes underway in a particular school setting. It should also be conducted in a manner that is participatory and closely connected to participants’ experiences in their own classrooms.

 

An example of making such connections is in-service education tied to a program of peer coaching. While there are various forms of peer coaching, each has the common characteristic of focusing on a teacher’s own work in the classroom and providing specific feedback on it. Furthermore, it provides a context for collaboration with peers and potentially fosters stronger collegial relationships. While generally not simple to implement, and certainly not a panacea, peer coaching is one means of connecting formal in-service education to the “real world” and fostering another highly important part of professional development, collaboration with fellow teachers.

 

The means of nurturing the technical aspects of professional development are far more extensive than in-service education classes. In fact, as noted above, if the means of developing these competencies is limited to in-service education classes, the overall process will have limited success. The approach must be comprehensive and related to an overall process of educational change in the school or the science or mathematics department.

 

Professionals whose knowledge and skills are developing at a significant rate take the initiative for this growth and foster it in many ways. Thus, informal means of professional growth are important, including reading, attending professional conferences, and networking with fellow professionals in various ways. Studies of educational reform in science and mathematics show many such informal teacher influences. It appears that the more teachers are “self-starters” in terms of their professional development, and the more they take responsibility for their own learning, the more varied these means of growth.

 

Conferences are important sources of technical knowledge and skills, new visions of what education can be, and inspiration for new courses of action. Such a conference may be the context, for example, in which a teacher gains new insights into the meaning of national standards, finds educational misconceptions challenged, and even begins to reassess certain educational values and beliefs.

 

Networking and informal communication with other teachers are important means of professional growth. Whether established through contacts made in in-service education classes, at regional or national conferences, through working together in the same school, or other means, these communication networks are important to teachers. The isolation from fellow teachers during the working day in so many schools only highlights the importance of this communication. The benefits for teachers include specific knowledge as well as the less tangible “support” teachers need.

 

In the previously mentioned studies of educational reform in science and mathematics, no means of professional growth was more powerful than collaborating with fellow teachers on the day-to-day responsibilities of improving their teaching. While teachers may collaborate with other teachers in the context of some in-service education classes, the collaboration of concern here is intense, “real,” and centered on the most important aspects of teaching, because it occurs in the context of actual work on the teaching process. Rather than simply collaborating on general ideas about such tasks as conducting labs, designing assessments, or guiding discussions, this collaboration is centered on the authentic work of teaching within the context of the working day; it is an integral part of that working day. As a result, unrealistic assumptions are exposed, conflicting values and beliefs cannot be avoided, and joint decisions must be made about actions that will be taken on an ongoing basis. While professional growth can take place in other contexts, this one stands out in terms of its impact.

 

The technical dimension of professional development is of basic importance, has many forms, and is needed on an ongoing basis. It will not occur in anything but the most limited form, however, without appropriate political support, a matter to be addressed in the next section.

 

Professional development occurs, as do all aspects of education, in a political context. Matters of authority; power and influence, including the negotiation and resolution of conflicts; and moral issues of justice and fairness are all part of the picture. The mechanisms that directly foster increased proficiency in the technical dimension are present or absent largely as a result of matters that lie in the political dimension. What happens in the political arena can have a telling effect on teachers’ professional development. These influences are both formal and informal, occur at various levels (e.g., national or local), and strongly shape what happens in the technical and cultural dimensions. National and state influences, local leadership, and teacher empowerment will be addressed below.

 

A consistent vision and set of goals from various national spheres of influence can have a marked effect on local professional development. Similarly, state documents can legitimatize new visions of educational practice and set a new direction in the midst of competing viewpoints. Case studies show their significant influence. Evidences of their influence, however, should not cause one to abandon another important consideration, namely that these national and state influence are not a sufficient condition for either educational reform or professional development. Although vision and resources from the national and state level can be important influences, without local leadership their impact will be minor.

 

Although occasional individuals experience substantial professional growth in the absence of organized efforts to promote it, widespread professional development by a large percentage of teachers in a particular locality does not occur without local leadership. Although occasionally coming from informal leaders in smaller settings, this leadership for systematic professional development most often comes from persons in formal positions of leadership.

 

In-service education classes occur because of leaders that make them happen. If this in-service education is tied more closely than usual to the day-to-day work of teachers, including a peer coaching program, the leadership required is much greater. A program of this nature requires creating a vision for what these efforts can accomplish, acquiring the needed resources, addressing concerns of the participants, and managing the many logistics needed for its success. The required leadership will depend upon the scope and nature of the professional development. In some cases, a department chair within one school will provide the needed leadership. In other cases, it will demand the leadership of principals or district leaders.

 

If major professional growth is to occur on a widespread basis within a given department, school or district, one essential leadership ingredient must be present. The leader or leaders must have a systemic view encompassing the many elements of professional development which must come together to make this growth possible. Steps must be taken to foster complementary in-service education, formal programs of curriculum development and instructional improvement, collaborative work relationships, and informal communication. This systemic endeavor must include both the technical dimension addressed above and the cultural dimension to be addressed below. Such leadership is essential for major professional development to occur.

 

This leadership also must include attention to public support for the educational changes being promoted and the professional growth required for these changes to occur. Public support, particularly parental support, is essential if major changes are to occur. This public support is related to teacher professional development in that teachers have a major role in this education of parents. As teachers take on new roles, with the intent of fostering new student roles and forms of student work, they acquire the responsibility of preparing students and their parents, both directly and indirectly, for these changes.

 

Major professional growth requires teachers taking responsibility for their own learning and having a work context in which they can put their new approaches into practice. Both of these elements are closely related to what is sometimes labelled teacher empowerment, a context in which teachers are expected to have these responsibilities, and there are no major impediments to them doing so. Effective leaders capitalize on the potential of this approach.

 

The cultural dimension pertains to values, beliefs, and school norms. This dimension is at the heart of professional development if one assumes that this growth encompasses major changes. Although labelled here as cultural, these values and beliefs have a strong individual as well as social component. The move from traditional educational practices to those advocated in the new standards generally entails significant shifts in what is valued and in beliefs about what students should learn and how it can best occur.

 

In the new role, a teacher is less a dispenser of information and more a coach and facilitator. The teacher less often transmits information, communicates with individuals, directs student actions, and explains conceptual relationships. The teacher is more often engaged in helping students process information, communicating with groups, coaching student actions, facilitating the learning process, and modeling the learning process. The student role is less that of passive observer and more that of self-directed learner. The student is less often engaged in recording teacher information, memorizing information, or following teacher directions. The student is more often engaged in processing information, designing his or her own activities, and interpreting, explaining or hypothesizing. The student work is less teacher-prescribed and more student-directed. The student is less likely to complete worksheets, do teacher directed tasks, or engage in the same tasks as all the other students. The student is more likely to engage in tasks that vary among the students, design and direct his or her own tasks, and engage in tasks that emphasize reasoning, reading and writing for meaning, solving problems, building from existing cognitive structures, and explaining complex problems.

 

Certainly these shifts in teacher role and in the role and work of the students must be the substance of in-service education and other aspects of the technical dimension described above. Most fundamentally, however, these shifts are shifts in values and beliefs, and they may come more slowly than the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.

 

In-service education and related activities must attend to values and beliefs, not in an “in-your-face” manner, but in such a way that each individual has an opportunity to consider the relationship between various educational practices and these personal values and belief. Furthermore, individuals need an opportunity to consider alternatives in educational practice, the implications of these practices, and their connections to these values and beliefs.

 

As noted earlier, the most powerful influence within the cultural dimension probably is the work teachers do with their peers in a collaborative work context. Working together with fellow teachers on the curricular content of their classes, the instructional approaches, and the means of assessment to be employed provides a context within which one’s values and beliefs are regularly encountered along with the more technical matters. Under the right circumstances (e.g., in conjunction with in-service education), this is the setting with the greatest potential for professional growth.

 

A case has been made here for viewing professional development from a systemic perspective; it cannot be understood adequately in isolation from the professional work context of each teacher. In today’s climate of educational reform and pervasive attention to new educational standards in mathematics and science, educational change and professional development are inexorably tied to each other. If you expect major change in one of these two areas, you are confronted with the realization that you cannot have one without the other; educational reform is essential for teacher development and teacher learning is essential for reform. A program of professional development must be connected to all the other movement toward educational improvement.

 

In addressing the systemic character of the situation, it is relevant to consider a conceptual framework for staff development. All five of these models have potential and are worthy of further examination by the person developing a program of staff development. It is asserted here, however, that whichever of these five models someone chooses to adopt and adapt to mathematics or science education, it must be viewed in a broader context than this description implies. Initiating a staff development program based on one of these five models is inadequate, unless conceptualized in the broader educational reform context described above.

 

From a theoretical perspective, the “individually guided staff development” model, seems to be most compatible with the position advocated here because of its emphasis on the individual and the implied constructivist orientation. For many who are responsible for a program of professional development, however, it may require an unfamiliar instructional management approach, and may not be compatible with various features of their educational context.

 

Operationally, the “development/improvement process” model, most resembles what is advocated here in that it combines professional development and program improvement. With a more extensive conception of program improvement and a long-term commitment to fundamental change, it would be much the same as advocated here.

 

All five models have potential. It is argued here, however, that whichever one is employed, it must make provision for individual plans of professional development. Furthermore, whatever organized program of staff development is established, whether based on one of these five models or some other model, it must be operated in the broader context described above. It must be integrated with overall processes of educational improvement and viewed systemicly.

 

Finally, whatever program of professional development emerges, it must be sustained for a long time. One of the observations in the case studies cited above was that staff development activities often ended too soon. Formal in-service education in some cases ended after two years, for example, yet the overall reform process was still under way and not expected to be complete for some time. After the initial two years, individual teachers were finally realizing how much dissonance there was between their traditional approaches to education and those of the new standards, and they were recognizing the dissonance between their long-standing values and beliefs and those of the reforms. In this situation they became sharply aware of their need for help and were distressed that it was no longer available. Professional development and educational reform must continue hand-in-hand over a long period of time.

 

The implications of this conception of professional development are fairly obvious. The individual teacher interested in professional growth should pursue a long-term path of: (1) learning through a variety of formal and informal means; (2) attempting new classroom approaches that foster new student roles and work; (3) reflecting on and reassessing personal educational values and beliefs on an ongoing basis; and (4) possibly most important of all, making every effort to establish an intensive, collaborative work relationship with one or more fellow teachers. The leader wishing to promote professional development within his or her sphere of influence should pursue a systemic and long-term approach that unites program improvement and professional development. While moving the instructional program toward the new national standards, teacher learning should be fostered through formal and informal means, teachers should be encouraged to pursue new teaching roles that lead to new student roles and work, and collaborative working situations should be initiated in which teachers can work together on program improvement.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/improving-education-in-school-and-pursuing-the-new-educational-standards/

Challenging Standards And Student Assessments In Every State – ebookschoice.com

As the nation rightly focuses on issues and events affecting our foreign policy and defense, one major element of domestic policy remains to be resolved. And it deserves our attention. Our states and their leaders have successfully pioneered many of the policies now considered essential for the rest of the nation. Our No. 1 priority, in fact, is the successful implementation of challenging standards and student assessments in every state.

 

Our national insistence that schools get their collective act together is a good thing. But our focus must remain on the urgent needs of children today, and that requires choice of schools. Without choices, good intention lack motivation.

 

Students who are attending failing or mediocre schools, even schools with the best intention of improving, will remain trapped there because ZIP codes dictate their attendance. When students are unable to find a better school to suit their needs, not only are the children trapped, but also the school has little reason for urgent improvement. In a system where everyone must stay where they are regardless of quality, there is little reason to fix the problems.

 

It has been argued that we need to give schools time to put these new standards and accountability mechanisms in place – that they can’t be held accountable overnight.

 

None of us want our own child in a subpar school, much less one where the majority of students can’t read. Should parents of these children wait while the school redoubles its efforts? Of course not. And none of us with the means to move our children from a poor school to an effective school would choose to stay where our child wasn’t learning.

 

Our faith in education as an enterprise — one in which the young are initiated into the aspects of our culture which we deem worthy of preservation — has been undermined by an education establishment committed to progressive, child-centered approaches, and by politicians gullible enough to give them house room.

 

The vested interests that stand in the way of reform are so strong — and they are strong. By “vested interests” I mean those academics committed to the child-centered ideologies to which I’ve just referred; the bureaucrats who do very nicely, thank you very much, out of the present system as it’s currently organized and managed; and the teacher unions who, supporting — as they see it — the interests of their members, have done their very best to frustrate each and every reform that has been mounted by government over the last decade or two. Those are the two reasons why we have problems that we have.

 

Parents became more and more worried about the fact that their children weren’t learning to read and write. Employers became more and more worried that when they had job vacancies, they couldn’t fill those vacancies with anybody who was half presentable or half competent to do the job.

 

In practice, the political aspiration was corrupted, as it so often is, by educationalists charged with its implementation. But the principles were good, and those principles are worth a moment’s reflection.

 

Decide what we want schools to do, give them the space to get on and do it, and then hold them accountable for their performance. The accountability is the crucial last bit of the jigsaw.

Further, the fact that we were identifying the schools that were making a difference, where there was excellent practice, meant two things: It meant we had a base of the dissemination of good practice, and it meant also that we could ask that crucial and searching question: Why, if this school can do it, is the school down the road not doing it?

 

But if that’s the positive, then the negative — although I don’t actually think it is negative, because until a problem’s been brought out into the open, how can anybody think a solution is ever going to be found?

 

Of course, we didn’t actually use that blunt word failure — we preferred to wrap it up in a typically euphemism and say that these schools were “requiring special measures”. But nevertheless, they were failed schools. And many of them had failed generations of pupils.

 

I used to visit many of these schools and the message was, yes, we knew that there was problem, but, no, nobody had the energy, the bottle, the guts, the drive to do anything about it. It was the act of inspection and the judgment — yes, the judgment — of failure that was the catalyst, the necessary catalyst for action. The prospect of an inspection — and this is other side of the coin from the “stress” argument — the prospect of inspection certainly concentrated minds. A bit like execution, I know, but it did. Things got done that wouldn’t otherwise have been done, and that’s good.

 

And also, the strength and the weaknesses in the school, to be brought out by an independent team — that kind of consultancy did help heads to plan for the future, although on that one, I have to say that it takes two to tango. I can remember at conference after conference, standing up giving my speech and then taking the questions. And one question that you could always predict, the one statement that you could always predict, was from a head teacher who would say, “Well, the inspection’s a complete waste of money.”

 

And I used to think to myself, well, you know, maybe he’s right — maybe he had a dud team, maybe we got it wrong. But then, maybe (I thought), he looks pretty smug, he looks pretty complacent, and that perhaps is the problem – that he didn’t have the professional honesty and courage to recognize that maybe the inspectors had got it right, and that he was living in some fool’s cloud cuckoo land. Because I don’t know about you — maybe this is just me — but certainly the older I get, the greater the capacity I think all human beings have for self-delusion.

And maybe it is quite a good thing for someone to come along occasionally and say, “Yeah, you’re right — this over here is pretty good, but no, you’re kidding yourself — these things over here are not up to scratch.” So that’s a good thing about inspections, too.

 

We also, incidentally, inspected local education authorities. We exposed failures in teacher training, and we were just having a discussion down here about teacher training. I worry very much about teacher training and I think it’s important to reveal to everybody just what’s happening and we opened up — to go back to that parent theme — the secret garden so that parents knew what was happening. And in so doing, we made choice a reality.

 

Now, those achievements are important. But they weren’t as impressive as they should have been, and I do worry about the future. Why weren’t they as impressive? Because an inspection system is only as good as the inspectors who are working within it.

 

And many of our inspectors — perhaps inevitably, but it’s still a problem — went into classrooms trailing their own ideological baggage behind them, and that baggage was often progressive and child-centered.

 

We had inspectors working for us who didn’t think that phonics instruction was crucial to learning to read; inspectors who were more interested in geography as a vehicle for the enhancement of thinking skills than they were in capital cities; inspectors who didn’t have much time for multiplication tables, and so on.

 

The new learning initiative requires of all people far more than just basic skills. It requires creativity, flexibility, collaboration, and the practical skills of the entrepreneur. These higher order skills are more effectively learned and developed in the rich, collaborative, problem-solving, but uncertain world of apprentice-type learning than ever they can be in the formal classroom, with its inevitable emphasis on abstract tasks and predictable results.

 

I used to teach English. I used to teach Shakespeare, Macbeth. I never knew what the “result” of teaching Macbeth was going to be. I remember that line in Macbeth, “To know the deed, ’twere best not know myself,” which I think is pivotal to the whole play — Macbeth is thinking about how he is going to live the rest of his life with the conscience that he has following the murder of Duncan — and talking to students about how they responded to that. A formal classroom, yes, but, the results were never predictable.

 

What sort of schools do we want for tomorrow? Is this how you see your institutions?

 

The basic assumption underpinning the national curriculum is that the present and future needs of pupils, and the needs of the society in which they live, are best served by the study of an arbitrary collection of predominantly academic subjects. This highly questionable assumption should be at the forefront of any serious thinking concerning future developments of the school curriculum.

 

For me, education is about handing on to the next generation those things that we deem to be worth preserving in our culture, which means an understanding of history and mathematics and science.

 

These aren’t a collection of “arbitrary academic subjects,” and I certainly don’t think the alternative stacks up to much serious intellectual scrutiny. May I share it with you?

 

We all live on the great dynamic web of change. If knowledge is an artifact, and innovation is the result of interaction on the web, then the way for us to better manage change is to become acquainted with the interactive process.

 

Last night I thought about that answer that Hemingway gave when asked what makes a great novelist. His answer was, “All great novelists have built-in crap detectors.” And I think that is what the educationalist needs these days.

 

Because whilst the politicians might wax lyrical about the need for information as to what’s happening in schools, they like the good news, they don’t like the bad news. So there has to be independence. And that independence is really difficult to achieve.

 

We need to challenge low standards. We need to deflate the complacency and challenge the defensiveness. We need to know the truth, warts and all. As I just said, it’s only when problems are exposed that solutions will be found.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/challenging-standards-and-student-assessments-in-every-state/

New Developments For Special Educators And Students With Disabilities – ebookschoice.com

An increasing number of students require specialized health care procedures during school hours. Procedures such as tube feedings, clean intermittent catheterization, suctioning, and ventilator management are becoming more commonplace in the school setting. Who performs the procedures and is responsible for them being correctly implemented varies across school districts and states. Although consensus can be difficult to reach regarding other critical areas surrounding specialized health care procedures. Two critical areas have been identified and are as follows:

 

First and foremost, all teachers need to maintain a safe, healthy environment for their students in collaboration with others in the school. This includes learning about their students’ specific physical and/or health impairments, physical health care procedures, and treatment regime. A teacher should know the major problems and emergencies that could arise with each student. There should be a plan in place to know how to respond should a problem occur. Teachers should also know general safety skills such as universal precautions, general first aid, and CPR.

Second, specialized health care procedures should be viewed as independent living skills, which students should be taught. Specialized health care procedures and other health management skills should be considered for goals and objectives. These objectives could target independent performance, partial participation, directing someone else in performance, or knowledge of the task. It is the educational team’s responsibility to consider how students can participate in their own self-care.

 

The plan for and establishment of instruction in the area of self-management skill development must include input from appropriate health care specialists, such as nurses, OTs, and PTs. Teachers of students with physical and health disabilities are responsible for providing expertise in the area of instructional strategies and adaptations to promote student learning of these procedures. Even when health care personnel are responsible for performing these procedures, teachers must work closely with them, providing appropriate instructional strategies, error analysis, and correction procedures.

 

Society can steal the dreams of people with disabilities. It defines what people with disabilities are capable of, provides ready-made programs instead of letting these individuals choose their own path; holds low expectations for their achievement, giving praise for mediocre performance instead of expecting the best; and limits their experiences under the guise of protection or safety.

 

Dreams are the essence of a free society, the privilege to dream and the freedom to make that dream come true. This is true for all people.

 

Discipline/Violence

 

Preventing violence and discipline problems in our schools calls for comprehensive, school-wide programs, specialized interventions for students who need additional help, and educators who make an effort to connect with each of their students. Specific guidelines follow.

 

Instituting School-wide Behavioral Supports

 

–    Develop a team-based approach to using and evaluating best practices. The teams should include an administrator, grade level or department representation, individuals with expertise on behavioral strategies and issues such as psychologists and other support staff, and a parent. The administrator must actively support the staff by providing budget, additional staff, and resources.

 

–    Adapt and sustain research-validated practices

 

–    Make behavioral instruction proactive. Educators should give direct instruction in appropriate social behavior, model appropriate the behavior, give students opportunities to practice the behavior and become fluent at it, and give positive feedback.

 

–    Provide a continuum of instructional behavior support. The intensity of intervention must increase as the intensity of problem behavior increases. Schools can’t throw simple solutions against complex problems, such as using parent volunteers to manage students who are chronic behavior challenges. Schools should use individuals who know the strategies to address those problems.

 

–    Use data-systems to guide decision making. These systems should inform staff as to what is currently in place, as well as what is and is not working. The data should be applied to the school’s goals for its students.

 

The Surprise Killers

 

We learn about students who have a hidden potential for violence and suicide and we stressed the need for educators to be aware of “quiet,” anti-social students who suddenly erupt, killing themselves and/or others.

 

These unidentified students have often experienced a high degree of rejection. They become such non-entities, their teachers and peers, and even family members, do not know them. To fend off their alienation, they may join a deviant peer group such as the “trench coat mafia” referred to in the Columbine High School deaths.

 

To help such students we recommend that educators make it a point to support the rejected student and establish credibility with him or her. Strategies to do so include greeting each student respectfully; treating each student with respect and dignity even when there is a classroom disturbance; and providing relevant instructional materials that is age appropriate, well-paced, and at an appropriate academic level.

Educators should pay attention to any feelings of unease they may experience with a student. In such instances, the educator should refer the student for evaluation and seek help from other professionals.

 

Assessment

 

States have been struggling to enact the mandate that they must include and report the scores of students with disabilities in state- and district-wide assessments. While only some states know how many students with special needs are included in broad-based assessments, others have the information but lag behind in analyzing it. However, with the data available, we know that the number of students included in assessments vary greatly, ranging from one state that includes all students with disabilities to a state that includes only 14% of such students in assessments. States also report differences in how the scores for students with disabilities are used. Most use the scores for state-wide policy decisions and to target low-performing schools for additional funding. They are also used to guide decisions about curriculum or instruction, general school reforms, and individual student issues, such as graduation or promotion.

 

One assessment quandary special educators are trying to navigate is high stakes testing. Currently, some states use exit exams, which students must pass to graduate, and many more are planning to institute such exams. While some special educators fear students with disabilities will fail exit exams and be unable to graduate, others warn that high stakes testing can be used as an excuse to exclude students with special needs from state-wide assessments. In addition, such tests may exacerbate the drop-out rate of students with disabilities.

 

Special educators are also worried that their students will be unable to meet state standards. However, if teachers and parents expect students with disabilities to live and work in their communities, we must be sure they have the skills and knowledge to do so. The key is to ensure our students get the resources they need to master the required subject matter. Another problem is that states and legislatures are looking to high stakes testing as a means to enact negative consequences for teachers and schools. Punishment is not an effective way to change behavior.

 

Overuse of accommodations is also a concern. Special educators may over-accommodate on state-wide assessments, thinking the accommodations “can’t hurt.” However, providing accommodations that aren’t needed are antithetical to independence. Furthermore, students may not receive accommodations in the workplace, and those who don’t need them shouldn’t grow dependent on them.

 

Effective Treatments for ADHD

 

In general, a combined therapy using medication and behavior therapy or medication alone outperforms behavioral therapy in treating ADHD, but one must look at the child’s characteristics to determine the best type of therapy for ADHD. The results of a national study comparing various treatments for ADHD are:

 

–    For children with anxiety and ADHD, a combined therapy worked best.

 

–  For children with aggressive/oppositional behavior and ADHD, a combined therapy or medication worked better than behavior therapy alone.

 

–    For children with ADHD or conduct disorder, behavior therapy only showed no gains.

 

Though the study shows that medication is effective for children with ADHD, many parents and educators are still reluctant to use it. As a result, children may receive lower dosages than they need to suppress their symptoms. Placing children on Ritalin or other medication for ADHD may lead to substance abuse.

 

Children get into substance abuse through delinquency. With proper medication, kids make it in the real world. To determine the best treatment for a child with ADHD, one must consider all factors, such as whether the child has anxiety or if there are circumstances occurring in the home that may affect the child. Each child with ADHD must receive an intensive evaluation and frequent monitoring to ensure the most appropriate treatment.

 

Reading

 

While we have made great strides in learning how to teach children to read, the battle is far from over. Researchers have identified methods that help the majority of young children learn to read, but we do not know how to prevent reading difficulties in all children. Another major problem is that we still do not know how to help non-readers master this essential skill once they have progressed beyond the third grade. This is problematic, for it is at the fourth grade that reading moves to expository writing, which gives students the information they need to master content. Non-readers also lose essential vocabulary acquisition, which is often correlated with intelligence.

 

To help ensure young students learn to read, schools must take a proactive approach, recommended reading experts. First, they must consistently deliver quality reading instruction in kindergarten through second grade. Torgesen recommends using phonemically explicit instructional approaches, as they have the strongest impact on reading growth. Second, schools must provide more intensive, explicit, and supportive instruction for children who are at risk of reading difficulty. Third, schools should employ an assessment system that gives educators feedback on each child’s mastery of the basic reading skills, such as alphabetic understanding, phonological awareness, and fluency, on a weekly or monthly basis. We can’t wait until the end of the year to decide if kids are making progress.

 

Providing Access to the General Education Curriculum

 

Giving students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum entails major shifts in the way teachers approach instruction. First, both general and special education teachers need to be able to communicate and work effectively with other professionals. Second, they must share decision-making on assessment and instruction. And third, they must employ more flexible teaching approaches, including who will teach what, where the instruction will occur, and how the students will be grouped both in and out of class.

 

Educators may also need to base instructional units on the content their students should master. This structure will influence the way teachers group children and gather feedback, as well as the instructional approaches they will use.

 

Finally, educators must monitor students’ progress in the general education curriculum. Continuous flat profiles in critical target areas is not acceptable.

 

Accommodations/Modifications

 

Educators should provide a continuum of accommodations that allow students with disabilities to access the general education curriculum. While accommodations involve changing the way content is delivered, sequencing of material, or timelines for mastery, they still allow students to work toward the content established in state standards.

Special educators should be leery of making modifications, which change the knowledge and skills a student is expected to master. When making even simple modifications, we can take him or her “out of the loop” for success on state – and district-wide assessments.

 

Special Education Law and You

 

–    Evaluations: Decisions concerning a child’s disability and educational program must be based on a number of assessments, including informal teacher assessments and observations, as well as input from parents. Educators should also be able to articulate the educational basis or rationale for a decision.

 

–    Educational Methodology: The courts have stated that they will not resolve disputes on educational methods. The courts recognize that there are many different ways to teach a child with a disability.

 

–    The emphasis on students with disabilities participating in the general education curriculum should not result in major expansions or in detailed goals, benchmarks, or objectives in every content area. The new focus should result in attention to accommodations that allow students to participate in the general education curriculum.

 

Discipline

 

–    Manifestation Determination — A school can decide a child’s behavior was not a manifestation of the child’s disability and the child’s disability did not impair his or her ability to understand the impact, consequences, and ability to control behavior. To show that a child understands the impact and consequences of his or her actions, educators can use anecdotal stories of their daily interactions with the child.

 

While the school cannot decide whether or not the student’s behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability without the parents’ presence, the school can meet to discuss the issue. In fact, it’s often a good idea to give staff a time to vent behind closed doors.

 

–    Behavioral Assessments — A behavioral assessment would not require parental consent if it is a review of existing data. If the behavioral assessment involves formal evaluations or psychological or other assessments and procedures, the school should get parental consent.

 

–    Continuing Educational Services — If a child is removed from the educational environment for more than 10 days, school personnel and the special education teacher determine what services the child will receive. That could mean that homework would be sent home.

 

–    Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) — LRE is being applied to pre-school children, and districts must ensure that a continuum of services is provided to this population. LRE is also being considered for the extended school year, which is based on the child’s potential for regression, the rate of recoupment, or other factors such as the child being on the brink of a breakthrough in his or her basic skill area.

 

Crises in the Classroom

 

In today’s turbulent climate, more of our students will experience crisis than ever before, and as educators we are called upon to help them through these difficult times in their lives.

 

Special education teachers often play a crucial role with their students who are in crisis. Some students with special needs may be particularly at risk when they experience crisis, and special educators need to know how to help them get the support they need, as well as how to work with them in the classroom. Because of the close ties special education teachers often develop with their students, the special educator may be a student’s first confidant when crisis hits. As a result, the special educator needs to know how to help her or his students educationally and emotionally and, if necessary, get additional support.

 

Though most special educators have received little or no formal training in working with students in crisis, many have developed communication and problem-solving skills that help their students cope with difficult times.

 

However, teachers can only go so far. For schools to effectively help their students in crisis, they must have a crisis action plan that addresses a continuum of situations, from personal issues such as divorce or death to disasters such as fires and earthquakes. They also need crisis intervention teams that can respond immediately to different situations. The most effective plans include community agencies as well as school resources to provide services for students.

 

Special Education Students At-Risk

 

Some students with special needs, particularly those with learning disabilities or emotional disturbance, are at-risk during crises. These students, who may have difficulty knowing how to get what they need under normal circumstances, may struggle more than others when dealing with crisis. Likewise, students who do not have a good sense of logic and consequences or who do not read social clues well will suffer more in crisis situations. Such students can feel a total loss of control and respond to the situation from a totally emotional base rather than a rational or intellectual model.

 

Some students with learning disabilities are also more susceptible to joining a gang, where they gain a sense of belonging they do not find in the classroom.

 

Also, students from diverse backgrounds may suffer more during times of crisis because their poor English skills keep them from expressing their experiences and/or feelings, or they do not have a support group to help them through the crisis.

 

The Special Educator’s Role

 

The special education teacher’s role can become very complex when he or she has students in crisis. The special educator may function as a counselor as well as a teacher during difficult times, and in some areas that do not have extensive resources, may be called upon to act as the mental health professional when no one else is available.

 

Many special education folks are so caring and concerned, they are very good at dealing with crises in people’s lives.

 

Most special educators agree that crisis in the classroom must be addressed. When a crisis occurs that affects a majority of their students, many special educators reserve class time to talk about the crisis, how it makes everyone feel, and how students can handle it. We must set aside class time and process the situation as a class.

 

If the crisis is a natural disaster such as an earthquake, some educators develop lesson plans to help students understand what has happened. Any teacher in disaster preparedness can develop some simple lessons students with special needs can understand.

 

Other teachers develop writing or drawing activities to help students express their feelings about the crisis, or they may have students read a book that deals with a particular issue so the students know they are not alone in their experience.

 

Addressing a group crisis as a class can be a straightforward decision, but the situation can become more complicated when crisis affects a single individual. Many times, a student will reveal a personal trauma in the middle of class, and the teacher must determine on the spot the most appropriate action to take. He or she must meet the individual student’s needs, as well as those of the rest of the class, and safeguard the student’s privacy.

 

Depending on the topic, when a single student brings up an issue in class, many special education teachers will take some time to talk with the student, and possibly, include the class in a discussion of the feelings that arise from the event. Others try to talk to the student alone by assigning the other students individual work, sending the class to another educator so the teacher can talk to the student privately, or meeting with the student at another time.

 

Special educators also help students who are in crisis by temporarily cutting back on their expectations for the student. They may extend deadlines, give smaller assignments, or make other adjustments in workloads. However, it is important to try to keep the student engaged in school so that he or she is not too distracted by grieving.

 

Special educators further help their students in crises by being on the lookout for any changes in behavior or lack of progress that signal the need for professional help. Teachers can keep a journal stating what has occurred, the progress the student is making, and the teacher’s interventions (met with the parents, sent the student to a counselor, confidentially informed staff of the situation).

 

Getting Support for Students in Crisis

 

Special educators can be a great help to their students by being their friend, showing they care, and engaging in active listening when their students are in crisis. But some students require more help than teachers have been trained to provide. When an educator sees that a student is not improving over time, observes changes in behavior, or is faced with a situation in which a student may be hurt or could hurt others, he or she should get assistance immediately. Resources include counselors, school psychologists, school nurses (many of whom are trained in mental illness), and community agencies.

 

The classroom teacher needs to walk a fine line between taking on what maybe is the job of the psychologist, particularly with a student who has emotional issues.

 

Special educators recommend working closely with a student’s parents when a crisis occurs. Special education teachers can share their observations with parents, offer to send them forms or other information they might need, and give them ideas for resources in the community and at school. If an entire family is in crisis, the teacher’s input can help parents focus on the needs of the child.

 

Teachers also face times in which students do not want their parents to know about their situation or the student may be the victim of parental abuse. However, the teacher may be held responsible if she or he did not report a confidence and the student is harmed or harms another. Furthermore, teachers are required by law to report any suspicion of abuse to the authorities. In these difficult situations, teachers can talk with the student to determine who should be told of the problem and help develop plans to protect the individual. Teacher can say something like, “This is a really big problem, and you are very upset. Someone else has to be told. Help me decide who will be that person. I’ll stay with you, and we’ll talk until you help me decide. I understand you don’t want me to tell your mom or dad, but I’ve got to tell somebody.”

 

One of the most frustrating things teachers encounter when working with students in crisis is that they do not have the power or authority to get resources working for a child. Despite that fact, teachers need to know who can do what and where and how to get the student the services he or she needs.

 

School-Wide Interventions

 

In the face of the escalating violence students experience, more and more schools are developing crisis intervention strategies. Many schools have school crisis teams, involving psychologists, counselors, nurses, administrators, and peer mediators, that teachers can call on when a student or students are in crisis. When a crisis affects a large portion of the school population, experts from other schools, other districts, or the community may be called on to assist.

 

Experts stress that teachers and staff should be told what the actual extent of the problem is and how to discuss the crisis so that everyone tells the same story and rumors are dispelled. Students who are involved need to have access to phones so they can contact their families. In addition, when a school-wide crisis occurs, a room needs to be set up where students can go when they feel particularly grief-stricken, uncertain, or confused.

 

Some schools also hold discussion groups for students who are dealing with the same type of crisis. Different groups address specific topics such as drugs, grief, girls’ issues, gangs, etc. Crisis seems to have made itself a chronic guest in our classrooms. Therefore, teachers can expect to spend more of their time helping students through crisis. It is a role for which we have received little preparation, but one we need to master if we are to help our students succeed in their world.

 

In summary, teachers have a responsibility to develop knowledge and skills regarding their students’ health care needs. Maintaining a safe, healthy environment and viewing their students’ specialized health care needs as potential educational targets requiring the teacher’s expertise in instruction are two issues that require more attention and commitment.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/new-developments-for-special-educators-and-students-with-disabilities/

Monitoring The Status Of Students’ Journey Towards Science And Mathematics Literacy – ebookschoice.com

A major focus of the current mathematics and science education reforms is on developing “literacy;” that is, helping students to understand and use the languages and ideas of mathematics and science in reasoning, communicating, and solving problems. In many ways, these standards documents are far more voluminous and complex than any scope and sequence in place in school systems today. But these documents are meant to be used as frameworks which provide guidance in education reform – they are not the definitive sources articulating to teachers how education reform must occur in their classrooms.

Our plan in this discussion is to lay out the components of mathematics and science literacy as set down in the major reform documents and then, using selected how-to articles, to show how strategies and activities tried by math and science teachers have been used, or can be used, to promote math and science literacy among students. For pragmatic reasons only, our discussions often focus either on mathematics or science reform recommendations and examples. In doing this, we do not mean to imply that the elements of literacy in these disciplines are somehow separate or different. In fact, the separate discussions show how both the mathematics and science education communities, coming from different directions at different points in time, independently arrived at similar positions and many of the same recommendations regarding the ideas of literacy.

In support of this discussion of the components of literacy, we also provide samples of resources, materials, and services that teachers might find useful in promoting mathematics and science literacy in their classrooms. The how-to articles are meant to be quick-reads that can be applied or adapted to classrooms directly. These articles are included to make it easier to decide which ones might be of special interest. Other articles and documents are intended as sources of a more general background. These documents provide some of the research bases and rationales behind some of the reform recommendations. Finally, we have included other references and information on databases which are not directly cited in the discussion but might prove valuable as additional sources of classroom ideas.

During the last decade, the mathematics education community appeared to lack clear focus and a sense of direction. Although many conferences were held, papers written, and reports produced, there was not a general consensus regarding which direction mathematics education should head.

The Standards offer an organization of important mathematical topics and abilities by grade-level groups (Kindergarten – grade 4, grades 5 – 8, and grades 9 – 12). Throughout the Standards the emphasis is: “knowing” mathematics is “doing” mathematics. Knowledge should emerge from problem situations so that students have a strong conceptual basis for reconstructing their knowledge at a later time. Furthermore, problem solving situations develop mathematical literacy by: (a) providing motivation for developing concepts by establishing a “need to know;” (b) providing opportunities to read, write, discuss, and explore mathematical ideas; and (c) providing opportunities to make conjectures, test, and build arguments about a conjecture’s validity. In short, the Standards describes a new curriculum for school mathematics in which students learn more, and often different, mathematics and in which methods of mathematics instruction are significantly different.

This notion of what a mathematics-literate American learner might be is parallel to that of a science-literate student. Similarly to the mathematics education community, science educators and scientists also began to grapple with the lackluster performance of our students relative to students world-wide.

Both the science education and mathematics education communities have in common the image of what discipline literacy requires for this century. Both have pushed the concept of literacy beyond that used in the reading literature. Whereas in reading it is common to find literacy defined by functional grade level performance, in science and mathematics the essence of literacy is increasing sophistication over the course of schooling. This represents a fundamental shift from literacy as a status notion to one of literacy as relative to the context of knowing – that is, the real world, the domains of the discipline, and specific applications. For teachers, this non-static notion of literacy presents considerable challenge and opportunity. And, when presented with standards documents that are not linear, not sequential, and not hierarchical in their recommendations, the teacher or teacher-advocate has the responsibility of translating the image statements into instructional materials, textbooks, learning activities, and pedagogical practices.

A major premise of both the mathematics and science standards is that what a student thinks, knows, and can do is greatly dependent upon how the student learned it. Research across a variety of disciplines indicates that students may learn best when they construct their own understanding of the material. This implies that teachers do not, and cannot, pass understanding to their students; instead, teachers can only engage students in activities from which students construct their own meaning. In short, learning is an individual activity fostered within the social context of teaching. This does not imply, however, that students must always “reinvent the wheel.” For example, basic computation and algorithms were invented precisely so that people would not have to count on their fingers and toes to solve each problem. Formulas in science serve similar practical purposes. However, such activities should not dominate the mathematics or the science curriculum. Furthermore, computational procedures should be developed in contexts so that students perceive them as tools for solving problems not as problems to be solved.

In the mathematics and science reform literature, meaningful learning is promoted when students actively inquire. Inquiry in the reformed mathematics and science classrooms is more than just doing activities; it involves interacting with peers, teachers, people outside of the classroom and the school, and all kinds of resources. In the inquiry classroom prescribed in the reform literature, students work collaboratively on problems that are engaging and relevant; they ask questions; they access and use information from a variety of resources; and they challenge the ideas of others. Teachers, in turn, challenge their students about their observations, hypotheses, explanations, procedures, and evidence. We refer to this interactive kind of inquiry as “Inquiry” (i.e., inquiry with a capital I and in italics) to emphasize the importance of interacting orally and in writing as recommended in the reform movements. Inquiry is not restricted by student age, content, or context. Students at the earliest grade levels can use and develop the skills of mathematical and scientific Inquiry.

There should be a lot of investigation and debate going on in the science classroom. Inquiry in science is characterized by its demand for evidence, reliance on a blend of logic and imagination, expectation that scientists try to identify and avoid bias, rejection of authoritarianism, and recognition that science is a complex social activity. These characteristics of scientific inquiry are translated into instructional goals and standards in the reform literature. Similarly in mathematics, the theme of Inquiry is manifested in the standards and in the instructional activities. Whole-class discussions can provide students opportunities to synthesize, evaluate, and summarize strategies, ideas, and/or hypotheses. Small group discussions can provide opportunities to discuss and exchange ideas with peers, and individual work can help students to develop confidence in their own mathematical abilities. Different instructional approaches and activities such as those which develop students’ Inquiry abilities will be discussed in the following sections.

In both mathematics and science, Inquiry can be “issues-based.” This approach heightens the interest level, and therefore, the engagement of students. Throughout the Standards the importance of connecting mathematics to real-world problems (and hence utilizing an issues-based approach in teaching) is emphasized. Real-world problems with ‘messy’ numbers or too much or not enough information or that have multiple solutions, each with different consequences, will better prepare students to solve problems they are likely to encounter in their daily lives. The key to the effectiveness of the issues-based approach is to use a learning prompt which is appropriate and interesting to the learners. Teachers must also take care to use open-ended tasks for which there are multiple correct solutions. These open-ended tasks will then promote experimentation and exploration on the part of each student and will avoid the recall of particular facts, algorithms, or procedures.

An example of a series of issues-based lessons is Mathematics in Baseball in which students work in small groups investigating baseball statistics as well as other aspects of the game. Stimuli for small group discussions are provided in the article, which encourage students to exchange ideas, offer and receive constructive criticism, develop and test hypotheses, and make and correct mistakes in their small groups. Another example of a teaching module utilizing the issues-based approach is Involve the Community which confronts misconceptions students may have about the usefulness of mathematics and science in their own lives outside of school. Students go into the local community and interview someone to find out how that person uses mathematics on the job. Students are then responsible for developing mathematical problems described during their interviews, scheduling the person to speak to class, and writing a term paper concerning what they learned during their interview.

In science, the unity of perspective is not as evident. There are those who interpret science literacy to mean that life skills and citizenship are the key elements, not the rigorous scholarship or mastery of any specific science content or processes. This is countered by those who advocate for a focus on conceptual learning in the context of real-world problem solving.

Those who advocate for a life-skills and citizenship approach to science instruction are exemplified by Hurd’s statement, “Modern science is driven more by societal needs than by theory.” This societal perspective with its emphasis on life learning and citizenship places greater value on “knowing how” than on “knowing that” in defining science literacy.

The issues-based, societal perspective is the basis of the Science-Technology-Society approach. With its learn the science you need to know when you have a need to know it philosophy, there is no such thing as a fixed science curriculum or mandatory content or set of process skills. Students in an classroom identify personal, school, or community problems and issues and work collaboratively on a solution, learning and using appropriate science content and skills in the process of solving the problem or resolving the issue. Proponents claim that the approach develops science literacy more effectively than a content-driven curriculum because the problems are real and the learning is relevant to the students. The “medium is the message;” concepts and principles of science, however well-learned outside the context of a societal or personal issue, are not science at all, or at least not the kind of science worth learning. Teachers have reported numerous issues-based instructional activities across a range of issues.

Advocates of conceptual change learning view the elements of understandings and habits of mind in the definition of science literacy as key and argue for Inquiry that promotes meaningful learning of critical content and process knowledge in science. Teachers emphasize the importance of both the students and the teacher knowing what the student already knows and uses in everyday life situations and applications to engage students and provide context for learning science concepts and processes.

The major difference between the issues-based Inquiry and Inquiry for conceptual change is that specific ideas are targeted for instruction. For example, in science, playground equipment and amusement park rides are used to explore basic laws of force and motion. The properties of liquids and gases are investigated when students make their own carbonated soft drinks; or the life cycle of a common house fly is learned by studying the droppings of the classroom guinea pig. Teachers have used state-of-the-art technologies such as high-speed trains, entrepreneurial interests of students, “who-dunnit” detective scenarios and The Great Tape Robbery, and even current hit movies to capture student interest and to teach for conceptual change with regard to basic science concepts.

Similarly, important mathematics content is described throughout the Standards. For example, all three grade-level divisions include probability and/or statistics standard(s) as well as a geometry standard; and two grade-level divisions include measurement, estimation, algebra, and functions standards. As in science, Inquiry is a central theme in classroom instruction: throughout the Standards, verbs such as explore, justify, represent, solve, construct, discuss, investigate, describe, develop, and predict are used to convey this active physical and mental involvement of children in learning the content of the curriculum.

As in conceptual change learning in science, specific ideas, skills, and/or mathematical concepts can be targeted for instruction. For example, teachers have used common materials such as popcorn for developing data analysis skills, calculators to discover number patterns and hone estimation skills. Teachers have integrated math and art to develop geometric concepts, and math and science to develop geometric concepts and measurement and estimation skills.

In another lesson, students learn to apply probability models as well as use simulations to estimate probabilities concerning boy/girl birth ratios and the average number of children in a family. And student development of spatial imagery is targeted in the lesson Promoting Visual Imagery in Young Pupils. The magazines are useful resources for Inquiry for conceptual change-type instructional activities.

The challenge of managing Inquiry learning environments without sacrificing intellectual vigor is not insignificant. Student-centered learning is grounded in moderating the Inquiry-based classroom, which is prompted with exploration and stimulated with manipulatives in a way that is connected to the students’ real world. By reflecting on students’ growth in the disciplines, teachers will understand what pedagogical techniques work well to move students along on their learning journey.

Because the standards themselves represent the possibilities for instructional focus rather than the requirements for instructional focus, the teacher is placed in the important leadership role of selecting the optimal content to engage each particular group of students in the work of the discipline. The selection process must take into account local content goals, learning goals that ensure that the “habits of mind” of the disciplines are reinforced, resource availability, and the interest levels and developmental characteristics of the students. In short, optimizing learning in mathematics and science is not an algorithmic process.

The role of teacher as facilitator of learning begins to take on real meaning as the standards are implemented. And teachers seeking a cookbook for effective mathematics and science teaching will be sorely disappointed.

In clear and unequivocal ways, the role of the teacher as implementer of either the science or mathematics standards becomes more important in defining the learning journey for students than ever before. Because the standards documents are to be used as frameworks to guide mathematics and science education reform, teachers’ professional judgment becomes more and more powerful as a force in defining the schooling experience for students. For this reason, those teachers who choose to or are chosen to teach mathematics and science must have an in-depth understanding of that which they are teaching.

In order for teachers to make decisions about what, when, and how to teach science and mathematics, they must have a rich understanding of the content and appreciate how knowledge in a content area is created, organized, linked to other disciplines and applied to real-world settings.

Teachers who effectively use the standards documents to guide daily instructional decisions must have specialized knowledge of how to teach the content (i.e., content-pedagogy), and they must recognize misconceptions and background knowledge that may make growing sophistication problematic. They must, of course, also be able to modify and reorganize to meet the needs of all learners.

The emphasis in the critical response skills is on argument and evidence. We contend that some or all of these “symptoms” should be used more or less as “ground rules” for Inquiry in (and out of) the classroom. For example, making activities such as checking that statements (both oral and written) do not intermingle fact and opinion or that celebrities aren’t used as authorities in arguments part of what routinely happens in science class will develop the “habits of mind” so valued by reform proponents and reinforce the use of these same habits of mind beyond the classroom walls and school years.

Teachers who use an issues-based approach usually have little trouble creating an Inquiry environment. Personal and societal issues (e.g., landfills, toxic waste, AIDS, pollution) are readily controversial and lend themselves to investigation and argument. It is generally not difficult to find students who will take opposite sides of an issue or classrooms of students to find public groups with opposing positions. Teachers have used a variety of issues-based topics with great success, for example, investigations of ecological problems; Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Resource and Guidelines; The Curriculum File; Computerized Simulation as an Inquiry Tool, or problems dealing with death and aging; Debates: Verbal Encounters in the Science Classroom. What is challenging for the teacher who utilizes an issues-based approach is to keep students focused on those aspects of the argument that can be resolved with scientific and/or mathematical evidence, and/or which utilize scientific and/or mathematical reasoning, and to minimize those aspects of the argument that are strictly emotional, political, and/or personal. One must also keep in mind that just because an activity is issues-based does not imply that students will use or develop Inquiry skills. Students must generate and evaluate arguments on the basis of the scientific and/or mathematical evidence they gather and evaluate their conjectures using the rigorous standards of mathematical and scientific inquiry.

In classrooms where the emphasis is on understanding specified content and process outcomes, controversies are not at all obvious to students (or to most teachers) and any disagreements that arise are usually not as sensational as they are in an issues-based classroom activities. But the potential for argument and for debate nonetheless exists. Facilitating Inquiry when there is no “hot” social issue requires that the focus shift to the controversy embedded in science and mathematical ideas themselves. The alternative conceptions and/or misconceptions that students hold in a given topic or area are excellent sources of controversial ideas that can be investigated. For example, controversies from the history of science such as the phlogiston theory of heat or the geo-centric model of our solar system – can be used to stimulate Inquiry for conceptual change. Common misconceptions of mathematical concepts can be also confronted and explored, as can common student mathematical errors.

The strategy of simply suspending judgment or withholding the correct answer is very effective at stimulating discussion. Challenging students who hold different ideas to produce evidence of their respective positions is one way to stimulate debate, discussion, and investigation and turn routine lessons into Inquiry sessions. Simple modifications of cookbook activities (e.g., adding an open-ended question or posing an extra-credit question) or project work that requires students to work collaboratively is another effective way of facilitating Inquiry.

Inquiry can also be facilitated directly by using variations of the “student-teaching-students” idea. A strategy that has been around for centuries but still is effective today is “cross-age tutoring.” But tutoring must be done in a hands-on rich environment so that legitimate Inquiry can take place. When older students inquire with younger students, both benefit from the experience.

As it does in any language, the ability to communicate well requires more than the knowledge of vocabulary and grammatical rules – one must also be fluent in using the language in both speaking and writing. Both the mathematics and science standards identify learning to communicate mathematically as an important goal for all students. As students communicate their ideas, they learn to clarify, refine, and consolidate their thinking. In other words, communication helps students to enhance their understanding of mathematics.

Learning the language of mathematics or science is not a simple task. For young children, representing is an important way of communicating mathematical ideas. Physical models can be used to represent and develop mathematical concepts. Furthermore, with young children the connections between thought and spoken word are usually stronger than those between thoughts and written symbols. Thus, children should be encouraged to relate their everyday language to mathematical language and symbols and to verbalize their thoughts and thinking processes.

As students progress in school, their mathematics communications should become increasingly sophisticated, that is, become more formal and symbolic. The introduction and use of technical symbolism should, however, evolve as a natural extension and refinement on the students’ own language. Moreover, great care must be taken to ensure that students are aware of the connections between mathematical concepts and symbols, otherwise students are likely to view symbols as disparate, empty objects which are to be memorized and/or manipulated. All students should be provided opportunities to listen to, read about, write about, speak about, and reflect upon their mathematical ideas. It is not enough for students to merely write a response to an exercise or to “show all their work” on a problem. It is equally important that students be able to explain how they arrived at their responses as well as describe the difficulties they encountered during problem-solving processes. Students must constantly be encouraged to clarify, paraphrase, or elaborate on their mathematical ideas and relationships. These are means by which students enhance their mathematical understanding and teachers monitor their students’ mathematical progress and understanding.

In reformed mathematics and science classrooms, literacy means being able to express oneself, defend one’s ideas, and critically analyze claims both orally and in writing. Journaling, logging, and keeping a portfolio are as much a part of the reformed science and mathematics classroom regimen as they are of any arts or humanities classroom. Portfolio assessment strategies are especially effective in promoting Inquiry. When students have to explain, argue, and reflect on their work rather than simply to select responses, answer questions, and complete standard form assignments, both their writing and Inquiry skills are enhanced. Portfolio scoring rubrics based on evidence and logic of argument communicate to students the value and importance of Inquiry skills.

Student problems and misunderstanding can be revealed and corrected. Teachers can use student writing to identify which instructional techniques did/did not work and modify their techniques accordingly. Furthermore, through student writing teachers can examine what students have learned versus what those students think they have learned and use this information in assisting students in developing their metacognitive skills (“knowing how to learn”). However, it should be noted that the utilization of information gained from student writing is dependent upon the quality of both the writing prompts and the teachers. Teachers must collect, read, and give feedback to students frequently. And teachers must be ready to receive and use constructive (and perhaps not-so-constructive) criticism.

The move to emphasize patterns of argument and thought in the language of mathematics and science Inquiry has payoff potential across the curriculum. For example, there is strong evidence that analyzing the language and layout of good expository material enhances the general reading, comprehension, and critical thinking skills of younger students. High school science and mathematics teachers report great improvement in creative writing skills, critical thinking, student attitudes toward the subjects, and conceptual understanding when students keep journals and are encouraged to compose creative writing reports (e.g., case histories and resumes) in place of standard laboratory reports or other conventional tasks. However, it should be noted that attempts by teachers to translate results of alternate assessments, journal writings, and other creative writing into letter grades can be difficult and that racial differences may affect students’ performance on open-ended items on standardized tests as compared to multiple-choice items was found.

The current reform agenda has the potential to dramatically alter the experiences that children have in science and mathematics classrooms in America. The standards documents themselves set the tone for a new understanding of science and mathematics literacy for all Americans. They present an image of the classroom that is Inquiry-oriented, activity-based, and engaging. The role of the teacher changes from that of disseminator of information to one of a mentor-scholar as children present ideas, challenge ideas, and reconceptualize these ideas.

This shift in the image of what a learning environment should look like calls upon teachers to take risks and to incorporate new instructional strategies into established pedagogical practices. The standards themselves, as a replacement for a scope and sequence or hierarchical curriculum, challenge the teacher to make professional judgments about what the appropriate content and context vehicles are for each group of students to maximize their learning. Teachers must take on instructional leadership roles. To do this, they must have both content and content-pedagogical knowledge. Background in the disciplines of mathematics and science is essential to support an effective Inquiry-oriented, student-centered classroom consistent with the standards documents. This expertise is also essential to the appropriate and reasonable assessment of whether or not students are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their understanding of important science and mathematics. This view of what quality work is in mathematics or science does not come from the standards. This understanding can and should come only from the expert professional classroom teacher. Thus, the ultimate challenge of the reform goals for classroom practice is for teachers to increase in their understanding of mathematics and science so that they have the appropriate frame of reference for identifying appropriate learning goals, selecting instructional resources to support students’ construction of meaning, sequencing and pacing the activities in the learning environment to support learning, and monitoring the status of students’ journey towards science and mathematics literacy.

 

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/monitoring-the-status-of-students-journey-towards-science-and-mathematics-literacy/

Identifying District Policy Aimed At Upgrading Math And Science Curriculum – ebookschoice.com

The following discussion is based on a study of curriculum upgrading by states, districts, and schools in response to these calls for reform. We have studied a relatively specific school output: the nature and quality of the mathematics and science curriculum as offered by teachers and experienced by students.

We recognize that much education policymaking occurs piecemeal over time, with each piece motivated by a different purpose. From the perspective of the classroom, the pieces often appear disjointed and fragmented, with no coherent message. Thus, despite our somewhat rational and linear approach to describing and analyzing policy initiatives and their effects, we recognize that, at least to date, education policymaking has been far from rational and linear (though the calls for systemic reform may change this in the future).

The policy instruments of curriculum control are, at this point, fairly well known. They include state and district requirements concerning curriculum, instructional materials, and student testing. The requirements are intended to prescribe desired practice, using a variety of policy instruments that are consistent among themselves in the practices they prescribe. Policy instruments influence practice through rewarding and sanctioning compliance and through the authority to persuade based on legal status, consistency with norms, a basis in expertise, and charismatic advocacy. Clearly, state high school graduation requirements fit the curriculum-control strategy.

In contrast, the policy instruments of empowerment are much less well defined. Generally, however, the intention is to move control out of the hands of the education hierarchy and into the hands of teachers. The policy instruments for this approach are site-based management and deregulation. From an accountability perspective, new reforms replace school process requirements with school output requirements, especially the output of student achievement.

Our approach to policy analysis is somewhat atypical. Most policy analyses focus on activity at one level or another of the education hierarchy, taking a broad view of initiatives at that level. Some policy analyses focus on a particular policy instrument, such as curriculum frameworks. These analyses have been enormously useful in clarifying such matters as policy formulation and policy implementation. In contrast, by focusing on a particular school output, the nature and quality of the enacted mathematics and science curriculums in high school, our analyses slice the policy layers vertically. We look through the layers of the education hierarchy and into the classroom to determine coherence across levels as seen from the perspective of teachers, and to identify the relative influence of various policy instruments. In conducting these analyses, we draw on a large and rich empirical data base consisting of both quantitative and qualitative data characterizing policy, classroom practice, and their connections. This attempt to connect classroom practice to policy has been identified as lacking and much needed.

The study involved math and science teachers in eighteen high schools (grades 9-12) in twelve districts in six states. In each state, one large urban district was contrasted with one smaller suburban or rural district. In each large district, we selected two high schools to give a sense of within-district variability. In the smaller district, we studied a single high school. In each school, four course sections – two for mathematics and two for science – were studied intensively.

At the state level, we interviewed key individuals at the department of public instruction to learn of state policy relative to standard setting in high school mathematics and science. At the district level, interviews determined administrators’ understanding of state policy and how it is passed on to schools, as well as identifying district policy aimed at upgrading math and science curriculum. The school-level data came in two forms: interviews of school administrators to learn of math and science practices in the school, and a questionnaire survey of all mathematics and science teachers in each participating high school. We obtained data on classroom practices from the target sample of courses. We collected classroom practice data through teacher interviews, daily logs describing the content and pedagogy of instruction, and weekly questionnaires describing special instructional and professional activities in which teachers participated. We used a prelog survey to obtain basic demographic information. In addition, we observed all target sample teachers at least once (and usually twice) as they taught the target classes.

The data set is large, rich, and complex. States were selected for contrasts in both the nature and the focus of state curriculum upgrading and standard setting. At the time of this study, Florida and South Carolina represented good examples of states using curriculum-control strategies to achieve basic skills goals. In contrast, California and Arizona were less heavily committed to control strategies alone. Missouri and Pennsylvania stood between these two extremes in the sense that they had relatively few state curriculum-upgrading initiatives of any kind. Our design also contrasted large urban districts with smaller suburban/rural districts to clarify the possible differing roles districts might play in interpreting or adding to state initiatives. Throughout, our focus was on schools serving high concentrations of relatively low-achieving students because these schools and students were the primary focus of the curriculum-upgrading initiatives. The contrast between mathematics and science allowed us to explore limits on generalizability across subject areas of our policy analyses. In selecting target teachers and target classes, we used the criterion of enrollment gains since initiation of increased state graduation requirements in mathematics and science. This selection resulted in a sample dominated by basic courses and beginning college preparatory courses in both subjects. The difference between our target sample of seventy-two courses and our achieved sample of sixty-two reflects sample attrition.

In some ways, it is difficult to know what the full list of policies and practices relevant to standard setting and curriculum upgrading might be. Some policies have unintended effects, usually negative; others (teacher salaries, for example) may have effects but are so remote from high school math and science classroom practices that those effects are difficult to trace. The focus here is on policies and practices designed to have a direct influence on high school mathematics and science instruction.

Several facts are apparent from these state approaches to testing. First, testing is a much more common policy instrument at the elementary school level than at the high school level. Testing is also much more prevalent in mathematics than in science. While testing is the lead policy instrument in states with an emphasis on basic skills, it was not, at the time of our study, the lead policy instrument for either of the states emphasizing a curriculum oriented toward higher-order thinking and problem solving. At that time, states with a curriculum reform agenda had testing programs that were not aligned with that agenda. Efforts were underway to revise or replace old basic skills testing programs with testing programs aligned to the new state curriculum frameworks. Although all six states used testing as a policy instrument, four did little to add power to their testing programs.

As a way to preclude piecemeal approaches to reforms in curriculum, instruction, and testing, we have called for systemic school reform. This approach begins with clear and challenging standards for student learning. Policy instruments are to be tied to these standards for student learning and are to be consistent with each other, so that there is coherent instructional guidance to schools and teachers. Within this environment of clear goals and consistent policies, schools are to be given flexibility to develop strategies as needed.

In our study, we found that people at the district and school levels have different perceptions of what is intended by state initiatives. In addition, teachers also vary in the extent to which they believe state initiatives should or must influence their practices. The general tendency is thus toward uniqueness of response, not standardization of practice.

State initiatives in curriculum upgrading and standard setting tend to stimulate additional initiatives by districts. Even state initiatives with little power and modest prescriptiveness receive some attention by districts. Often districts go well beyond what is required, adding their own extensions and enhancements.

Generally, the more curriculum-upgrading and standard-setting activities at the state level, the more additional curriculum-upgrading and standard-setting activities at the district level. At least in curriculum matters, districts appear less inclined to fill voids left by their state than they are inclined to be stimulated into action by state leadership. Large urban districts are more active in standard setting and curriculum upgrading than small suburban and rural districts.

There are several possible explanations for why urban districts are more active in curriculum upgrading and standard setting than rural districts. First, the urban districts have larger bureaucracies for implementing state initiatives and for adding to state initiatives in ways unique to the district. Second, urban district personnel usually are more convinced that change is necessary; they are often more highly motivated toward change than are rural district personnel. Third, there appears to be a much greater commitment to controlling classroom practice in urban districts than in rural districts. This may in turn be explained by urban schools’ typically receiving less direction from parents than do rural schools.

The most substantial standard setting and curriculum upgrading we encountered occurred at the school level. One school had eliminated all remedial courses and required that all freshmen take college prep coursework. Slightly less dramatic, but still substantial, were school efforts to counsel students into the college prep track in greater numbers than had been done historically.

The impetus for increasing enrollments in challenging academic content cannot be found in any straightforward sense in state initiatives. State increases in credit requirements for high school graduation did not specify that credits be in demanding academic content. As was noted, one urban district was eliminating general mathematics, but one high school in the district had gone well beyond the district’s vague initiative, eliminating all general math and general science classes and requiring all freshmen to take algebra and chemistry/physics. The school hopes this will eventually lead to increased enrollment in upper division mathematics and science classes. Another high school in the same district had taken a softer approach, eliminating many, but not all, sections of lower level science and mathematics courses, while adding an advanced placement curriculum. A summer school program was instituted to assist students in advancing more quickly through the curriculum so that they could take higher level courses.

Even in districts with substantial curriculum control, we found many instances of important differences among schools. At one high school in the Florida urban district, site-based management was a high-profile issue, with teachers organized into a body politic that voted on a variety of issues related to the school. The administration placed a high priority on school esprit de corps and academic excellence. In that same district, another school was characterized by antagonisms among administrators, teachers, and students. This antagonism apparently originated with the creation of a “school within a school,” with two teacher cadres and two administrative units. In one school, teachers favored higher-ability groups and excluded at-risk students from advanced courses. Another school was committed to enrolling as many students as possible into college prep courses, nurturing different ability levels while challenging all students to try harder.

Many urban and rural schools serving high concentrations of low achieving students are impoverished, making it difficult for them to accommodate state and district policy, such as the requirements for more course offerings, and consequently, more qualified teachers. The new curriculum reform emphasis on active learning and real-world applications left teachers struggling to find the funds to purchase manipulatives and to take students on field trips.

Contrary to some findings, we saw surprisingly little evidence that teachers were unhappy about or resistant to state and district curriculum standard setting. Several reports from teachers indicated that state and district controls were appropriate and were having positive effects. Where complaints were registered, they tended to be the following types:

• State/district requirements were too hard for some students;
• The bureaucracy supporting state and district controls required too much paperwork from teachers; and
• State and district initiatives failed to provide necessary resources for implementation (e.g., materials, laboratory space, staff development).

Perhaps teachers did not resist state and district standard setting and curriculum upgrading because they helped formulate the initiatives. If teachers perceived their viewpoints and expertise reflected in policy initiatives, they appeared more likely to support those policies.

Typically, teachers were involved in curriculum framework development, as well as textbooks selection, at both the state and district levels. They have also been included in curriculum guide revisions at the district level and in the development of new testing programs. Clearly, shared decision making and site-based management at the school level are consistent with teacher participation at other levels of the school hierarchy.

Despite this increase in teacher involvement, a tension existed between state and district standards and teachers’ expectations about what students can accomplish in those schools and districts most involved in standard setting and curriculum upgrading. All too often, teachers complained about students in college prep classes who didn’t belong.

Teachers’ expectations sometimes lead them to discourage students from taking demanding academic work. Many teachers who find their classrooms filled with low-achieving, disaffected students believe they must resort to highly controlling methods of instruction. Student collaborative work, student discussion, and independent projects, all of which are called for in the new curriculum reform, are seen as possibilities for losing control of students.

There are at least three plausible explanations for why, despite teacher participation in standard setting, some teachers feel that at least some of their students cannot meet the standards:

• Because K-12 schooling is organizationally flat (especially from the perspective of implementation, which rests largely with individual teachers), not all teachers will necessarily feel represented in the standard-setting process.
• Teachers may not agree with the standards that are established (regardless of their views on representation).
• Even if they consider the standards appropriate, teachers may still feel that some students fail to get the support (whether from home or previous school experiences) or motivation necessary to meet those standards.

No state or district initiative that we saw had an adequate response for addressing these teacher concerns. To the contrary, much of the staff development, instructional materials, and assessment procedures reinforce their concerns and serve as a deterrent to desired change.

Characterizing policy effects on practice is not easy. Changes in policies, as well as changes in practice, must be documented. Changes in practice must be preceded by and correlated with policy shifts. Policy shifts occur simultaneously with each other and with other changes. What is causing what? To some extent, documenting intermediate changes helps to build links between policy and practice. Attributions by teachers and administrators can be helpful, but they can also be deceiving. Occasionally policy initiatives are attributed effects that they do not have (e.g., when teachers say they emphasize basic skills in their instruction because basic skills are emphasized on tests, but really they emphasize basic skills because they believe basic skills are most important and what they feel most comfortable teaching). The policy “effects” noted here are not without caveat and ambiguity. Still, based on our analyses, we are convinced of their validity.

Increasing the number of credits required for graduation has resulted in more students’ taking more mathematics and science, particularly the beginning academic courses. In states with high school graduation tests, enrollments increased in remedial courses for the tested subject, mathematics. In states without high school graduation tests, enrollments increased in college prep courses in both mathematics and science. Our findings are as follows:

• Based on transcript analyses in four of the six states studied, increases in the number of students taking science courses was substantial, with beginning academic courses the biggest enrollment gainers. The numbers taking mathematics courses also increased, again with beginning academic courses the leading gainers. On average, increases were one year or more in science and one-third of a year in mathematics. There was no evidence of increases in dropout rates or decreases in high school graduation rates.
• In states with high school graduation tests, enrollments increased in remedial courses designed to help students pass the tested subjects. Low-achieving students met their entire mathematics requirement through remedial work. This was not true in science, which was not tested. Thus, although low-achieving students took more credits of mathematics, the nature of the mathematics that they studied was sharply limited. They did not take high school college prep mathematics, such as algebra, geometry, and calculus.
• In the absence of high school graduation tests (and for students who easily meet the test requirements), there was an enrollment increase in college prep courses in both mathematics and science. As one mathematics teacher stated, “When you require more mathematics from students who are average or bright, then they will take classes where they will learn something.” This practice was reinforced by college requirements, which universally stipulated not only the amount of mathematics and science they required for admission, but also the nature of that mathematics and science.

In addition to states and universities’ mandating the number and nature of science and mathematics courses, districts and schools took further steps in determining course requirements and designing course content, as follows:

• In addition to state and university initiatives to increase the amount and quality of mathematics and science students take, some districts and schools took additional steps. Remedial classes in mathematics and science were eliminated, or all freshmen were required to take a particular math or science course (e.g., algebra and chemistry/physics). Obviously, these initiatives changed the course-taking patterns of students; they did not necessarily guarantee the nature of instruction students received in those courses.
• As mentioned earlier, an especially promising strategy for curriculum upgrading was the development of “bridge” courses in mathematics.
• In the three instances in which we had detailed descriptions of the enacted curriculum for courses required of all freshmen, the content of these required courses looked much like that of courses with the same title that were not required of all students. Eighty-seven percent of instruction was on algebra, as opposed to other content areas in mathematics, such as arithmetic, measurement, and geometry. The average amount of time spent on algebra across all algebra courses was 82 percent. These data are largely reassuring that when college prep courses are required of all students, the content of instruction is not necessarily compromised.
• Despite the new curriculum reforms calling for hard content for all students and reinforced in the frameworks, some form of tracking occurred in every high school studied. Many administrators and teachers reported that they intended to eliminate tracking in the near future; some schools had initiatives in that direction already, but the results were discouraging.

Although the curriculum-upgrading initiatives had an effect on the numbers and kinds of courses students took, the instruction students received did not necessarily reflect much of the new curriculum reform, with its emphasis on instruction that places a premium on student understanding and problem solving and that places students increasingly in control of their own learning.

Despite state and university requirements for lab work in science, only 10 percent of science instructional time was spent in lab work and field work combined. As for expected student outcomes, heavy emphasis was placed on memorizing facts, understanding concepts, and completing routine procedures such as computation. Virtually no time was spent involving mathematics students in data collection and data interpretation, and only 2 percent of time was spent involving them in solving novel problems. Even in science, only 10 percent of instructional time was spent on data collection and interpretation.

Based on our analyses of math and science instruction in eighteen high schools across twelve districts in six states, a pattern emerges as to the nature of curriculum standard-setting and upgrading policies that are most influential on practice. Simply put, the most influential policy initiatives are the ones backed with authority and power that clearly describe the goal and specify how it is to be obtained. This confirms and extends previous findings on policy implementation, whether initiated at the federal level or focused on elementary school mathematics. As the clarity, focus, and power of policy initiatives decrease, influence becomes more variable.

High school course requirements for graduation are an excellent example. Requirements, and consequences for not meeting those requirements, are clearly specified, easy to communicate, and simple to understand. What schools must do is less clearly specified; as a result, we saw considerable variance in school response. Some schools attempted to push students into demanding content in higher level courses while others did not. In some cases, schools did receive direction as to the nature of changes they were to make. However, this lab work requirement is much more difficult to monitor than student course completion. These state requirements for lab work in science had much smaller and more variable effects on practice.

Requiring students to pass tests for high school graduation had predictable effects as well: more remedial work for low-achieving students in tested subjects. Again, the policy is clear and so are the consequences for lack of compliance. Students know what they must do. As in the case of high school graduation course requirements, what schools must do is less clear. Schools must determine for themselves how best to serve students. Because the requirement is a minimal standard, schools serving high concentrations of high-achieving students-and high-achieving students in other schools-meet the requirements without even trying. In short, minimum test performance is prescriptive only to a subset of students and only in the subjects tested.

Although increased graduation requirements and test performance have had the intended effect, calling for hard content for all students and emphasizing conceptual understanding, problem solving, and higher-order thinking, is a long way from being reflected in high school math and science. Tracking is alive and well; and although some states have intensified basic skills instruction, no state has attempted to systematically coordinate policy to emphasize the goals of curriculum reform. Whether the policy instruments used to intensify basic skills can be turned to these newer goals remains an open question.

Curriculum frameworks are neither very prescriptive, nor, by themselves, a strong influence on practice. Not surprisingly, many teachers interpret the frameworks as justification for their current practice. Many other teachers are unsure of how to change their instruction to make it consistent with the framework. Where frameworks are translated into clearer statements of what is desired, the effects are much more pronounced and much more predictable.

We found plenty of evidence that there was a serious lack of teacher capacity for achieving the new curriculum reforms, at least among schools serving high concentrations of low-achieving students.

Teachers, counselors, and administrators did not know how to deal with the student diversity resulting from the elimination of tracking. This is perhaps the single greatest tension created by curriculum upgrading. As more students are pushed into more demanding academic work at the high school level, teachers are confronted with new and more pressing problems: how to communicate with students, how to motivate students, and how to conduct classes in which students’ prior achievements, aptitudes, and interests differ dramatically.

Compounding this problem of how to deal with student diversity is a lack of clarity as to exactly what is meant by frameworks and professional standards calling for hard content for all students. Does this mean that all students are to study exactly the same curriculum across the entire K-12 experience? Or does this mean that all students should be exposed to and master a core curriculum containing a balance between facts and skills, on the one hand, and higher-order thinking, problem solving, and reasoning on the other? If there is to be a common core of content for all students, what is the definition of that core, and how should schools and teachers be best organized to deliver that core to students in a way that benefits them regardless of their backgrounds and aspirations? Amidst this confusion caused by lack of a clear goal, schools and teachers are trying a variety of approaches, but without total commitment.

Teachers‘ qualifications present yet another problem in mathematics and especially in science, where graduation requirement increases were most dramatic.

What these figures cannot show is how much high school math and science teachers are prepared to change their instruction to fit a new vision. Such a change depends on teachers who feel comfortable with their subject matter in a way that allows them to be flexible and responsive. We saw considerable evidence that teachers lack the knowledge and energy to deliver a curriculum that places a premium on deep conceptual understanding and that facilitates problem solving and reasoning. There are many probable explanations for such deficits:

• Instructional materials consistent with the goal of hard content for all students are not always available.
• Testing practices at the state, district, and classroom level often are not consistent with the new reforms.
• Access to good, concrete models of the desired instructional practices is limited.
• Instruction consistent with the curriculum reform is simply more work.

We saw painfully little indication that states and districts are prepared to spend the time and money necessary to support the types of changes required to address these deficiencies. Money was a serious problem in all urban sites except those enjoying special benefits from desegregation rulings. Even basic instructional materials, such as textbooks, were in short supply. Lab space was inadequate – in amount, conception, and maintenance. Although we saw some serious efforts to address the assessment problem at the state level, we saw no serious efforts to address the shortage of appropriate instructional materials.

Most disappointing was the quantity and quality of staff development. Although a great deal of money is spent on staff development in the United States – millions per year – only a few dollars per year is spent on each teacher. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in fragmented and episodic approaches to staff development. Often, someone far removed from the classroom decides what teachers need and arranges to have it delivered in the form of a half-day workshop to those who volunteer. We saw no evidence of states’ using the money in a programmatic approach to supporting teachers in curriculum upgrading. We are convinced that staff development needs to be completely rethought so that schools and teachers are the initiators and main providers of their own professional development. Experts from beyond the school should be called on only as needed and only as they can serve a school-based strategy for improvement. Developing such a strategy, of course, would require schools to see their responsibilities in a new light. It would also require additional funds, first and foremost, to provide teacher release time.

We did see a few exciting projects for curriculum upgrading, but invariably these were add-ons not part of a main program-with questionable futures. We saw little sign, however, that empowerment strategies were replacing curriculum-control strategies as the primary mechanism for curriculum upgrading. A focus on understanding and applications was to characterize instruction in all academic subjects and for all students.

 

 

 

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/identifying-district-policy-aimed-at-upgrading-math-and-science-curriculum/

Adoption of National Science and Mathematics Standards – ebookschoice.com

In 1991, Jonathan Kozol published Savage Inequalities, a book that dramatically made public what most people who visit schools have always known – that American children experience shockingly different conditions of schooling. These differences are even more likely to be exacerbated in science education, the most resource-dependent of the academic subjects. Children cannot learn what is not taught. For instance, only 45% of eighth graders report that they do science experiments each week, and only about 52% of the nation’s eighth grade science teachers feel that they have enough materials to teach science.

 

With the movement toward new standards, some educators and policy-makers fear that simply changing standards without changing the education system that distributes opportunities to learn could result in even greater inequities for children who are poor, in minority groups, learning English as a second language, attending poor schools, or have disabilities. We can define “opportunity to learn” to include the presence of decent, safe science classrooms, certified, qualified science teachers, professional development opportunities for teachers, textbooks, supplies, laboratory equipment, and access to new technology. Crucial to successful adoption of the new science reforms are teachers who understand the reforms well and can translate them into practice. This issue of fidelity between intended reforms and classroom implementation is significant, especially since the existing research suggests that it is hard to achieve.

 

Professional development is one answer, but the type of professional development needed for science and mathematics reform must be comprehensive, and probably expensive. If successful science and math reform is dependent upon resources as defined above, then poor schools and students could find themselves even further behind as a result of the reform. In a national study of school-level reform of mathematics, it was found that 69 percent of the schools that were involved in significant efforts to improve mathematics defined themselves as “suburban.” These results suggest that opportunity to learn is further limited and stratified; new initiatives are designed to counteract this problem, aiming reform funds at urban schools that are disproportionately poor and disproportionately populated by diverse learners.

 

The concerns about opportunity to learn are magnified when considering various populations. For instance, do female students in classrooms where gender biases flourish have an equal opportunity to learn? Students who are learning to speak English and students with disabilities have experienced similarly impoverished resources in science and mathematics classrooms as do children in poor schools. What might be done to improve their opportunity to learn, if science and math for all is the goal?

 

School Organization

 

Science and mathematics reform may require significant changes in school organization. Teacher participation in decision-making and the redefinition of professional development as an in-school, real-time activity are bound to have an impact on school organization. The new reform suggests that traditional science education with its one-subject-per-year, layer-cake approach be replaced by integrated science that will require what its name indicates, scope, sequence, and coordination, and a different sort of school organization than currently exists.

 

In order for science and mathematics teachers to work collaboratively on integrated material, common planning time may be necessary. This may be broadened to include teachers from across the curriculum. Teachers of math and science may form teams that include special education and ESL/bilingual teachers, as is already happening in some schools. Longer time blocks to allow for extensive hands-on activities may be required. The demand for access to computer labs in some schools increases as more teachers build those activities into their schedule.

 

The whole-school reform efforts have encouraged educators to offer a single curriculum that allows all students to have access to high level learning. Ability grouping or tracking is an issue that has been re-examined in the effort to teach all students science and mathematics. Current empirical research on tracking directly dealing with science education is in short supply, although there are more studies available for mathematics. But there is an abundance of empirical research and meta-analyses on tracking in general, substantial qualitative research on the subject, and sophisticated mathematical analysis and modeling of the related subject of student course selection patterns in science and mathematics.

 

From this body of literature, four general conclusions are relevant to science and mathematics reform for diverse learners:

 

– Lower track classes are disproportionately populated by minority students (except Asian Americans); working class, low income students; and students with disabilities.

 

– Students in lower track classes get fewer resources and experience science very differently than students in higher track classes.

 

– Students in lower track classes achieve somewhat less than their counterparts in heterogeneously grouped classes; students in higher track classes achieve somewhat better, while differences between entire groups under tracked and untracked conditions are not much affected.

 

– Variations in course selection of gateway science and math courses (chemistry, geometry, etc.) for females and underrepresented groups result in these students being locked out of upper level courses and limit opportunities to pursue science, mathematics, and engineering further.

 

Consequently, if schools commit to mathematics and science for all, ability grouping practices must be examined. Tracking and low expectations have worked against equity for many groups. However, the science and mathematics programs suggested by the new standards seem likely to lead to new flexibility in allowing for students to progress at varying rates. The new standards promise science and mathematics education that is both broad and deep enough that one would not worry about very young students achieving the standards very quickly. Because the standards are organized in grade bands (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12), rather than in a lock-step by grade fashion, it is conceivable that a student who masters the standards in a given band early, might proceed to the next band in a non-graded fashion. Relaxation of traditional, rigid age/grade science holds promise for both high achievers and those who need more time; for instance, some students with disabilities would be served well if allowed to progress more slowly.

 

Aligning Assessment with Reform

 

Adoption of national science and mathematics standards and participation in reform are voluntary at the state level, but the reforms and the accompanying standards leave a great deal of room for interpretation at all levels. How will anyone know if state school systems, school programs, or individual teachers are interpreting the standards as they were intended by the developers? This is the fidelity issue, the match of the intended curricula to the implemented curriculum. Clearly, when there are assessments that are aligned with the science and mathematics standards we will have one, but not the only, measure of fidelity and efficacy of the new reforms.

 

While the United States does have a national assessment system and the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP), funded by Congress and administered through the Education Testing Service is the “Nation’s Report Card.” The new NAEP will provide a bilingual version (English/Spanish), as well as “special sittings” for students with disabilities. Thus, if the measure of seriousness in providing science and mathematics to all via new standards is indicated by a willingness to assess, the NAEP appears to be moving in the right direction.

 

In the meantime, several states have moved their assessment programs forward at a fast pace. The newer state assessments have been tied directly to their new state curriculum frameworks, which in turn have been influenced by the national science standards. The state assessments, such as the California Department of Education’s Science Assessment, are frequently performance-based, requiring students to solve real world problems with manipulatives, write explanations of their problem solving techniques, and describe what they have learned. If it is true that assessments drive the way teachers teach, then the improved performance-based assessments hold a great deal of promise as a catalyst for improving practice in science and mathematics classrooms. However, it is not entirely clear how changes in assessment will affect various populations of diverse learners.

 

Documents are to be lauded for their attention to the instructional uses of assessment, the emphasis on what students know and can do, and their explicit attention to equity. But the move towards authentic assessment, performance assessment, and more open-ended forms of assessment has been met with skepticism by some equity advocates. The hope that these assessments can be used to leverage improved curriculum and teaching is counteracted by fears that: 1) initial increases in student disparities will be used to legitimate draconian consequences for minorities; 2) open-ended tasks will be so culturally biased as to stack the deck against poor children; and 3) categorical programs and other efforts to enhance educational opportunity will be improperly monitored or, worse yet, gutted.

 

Assessment results can be and are used to hold both students and schools accountable for their performance. As states have begun to publish by-school assessment results, schools have been able (and in some cases, encouraged) to exclude students who may not perform well. Also, states (California, for instance) publish each school’s performance relative to other schools that are similar in terms of student social class and other background variables. The reason for these practices is to hold schools accountable only for those things that they are able to do anything about: a student’s entering language proficiency, special needs, and social class are among those things over which schools have no control. Yet practices which exclude student populations can result in an inflation of a school’s performance. For a large-scale example, California’s standing relative to other states on the NAEP reading test would drop if its limited English proficiency students had been included in the assessment. The results of science performance assessments that expose students to novel situations are more closely related to aptitude (and, in turn, related to social class) than those that directly assess school learning experiences. There are equity implications. Simply put, a performance assessment that is based upon the content and experiences of the classroom is more likely to be “fair” than one that asks students to apply principles to new tools or situations that some students have never experienced, but others have.

 

Ironically, while some students have had opportunities to learn denied them because tracking systems relied upon assessments, it is also true that students who are never validly assessed in science also are denied opportunities to learn. A school’s average scores on current tests are sensitive to the population of students taking the test. Therefore, schools may only administer the tests to those who will score adequately. Students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and African Americans from educationally needy environments may be asked not to attend school during testing days. This is often done under the guise of not wishing to embarrass a student. But if the teacher does not assess student progress in some meaningful way, how can the teacher know what the student is or is not learning, or evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum for a particular population?

 

For example, many students with disabilities are unable to demonstrate their true level of understanding and competency in science or math under traditional testing conditions. The new standards are particularly promising in that they provide excellent guidance in what students should accomplish and suggest that measurement of accomplishments can be placed on a developmentally sensitive continuum.

 

Conclusions

 

For millions of students who represent diverse needs and cultures, children who live in resource poor urban and rural areas, and children who come from cultures that are considered non-mainstream, the future rests in the hands of policymakers, community leaders, and educators they will never meet. These children’s future depends on the conditions of the school they attend. It depends on the quality of the ethos in the schools, on whether these schools are responsive to the students they serve. Most important, these children’s future depends on the quality of teaching that occurs in their classroom.

 

Concurrently, the quality of teaching and learning that occurs in schools depends on the simultaneous reforming and restructuring of the curriculum, the availability of state-of-the-art materials, and exemplary teacher preparation and professional development programs. Success also depends on teachers having access to information and to program models that have proven effective in helping students of diverse needs and cultures master the new, more rigorous standards, especially in mathematics and science. The issues addressed within this paper, we believe, are critical to the successful implementation of mathematics and science reforms in schools throughout America. Further, we believe that the models cited and the curriculum materials used in them can be replicated by teachers in a wide variety of classroom settings. These materials can enable mathematics and science teachers to respond more effectively to learning needs of their students.

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/adoption-of-national-science-and-mathematics-standards/