The William & Mary Educational Review, Volume 4, Issue 2 by The William & Mary Educational Review

The

William & Mary Educational Review

Volume 4, Issue 2

The

William & Mary Educational Review Volume 4, Issue 2

The William & Mary Educational Review Volume Four, Issue Two May 2016 ISSN 2330-748X ÂŠ2016 www.wmer.org Information for Contributors The William & Mary Educational Review is an independent, refereed journal published by graduate students of the School of Education at The College of William & Mary. Our mission is to make a substantive contribution to educational and counseling literature through the publication of highquality literature reviews, scholarly papers and studies, reports from the field, interviews, and other short pieces, in order to build interest and understanding through multiple perspectives on education and counseling. In so doing, we provide graduate students first-hand experience with the publishing process. The William & Mary Educational Review welcomes manuscripts that employ qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; literature reviews that disclose relevant gaps in existing research on a relevant topic; theoretical analyses of important issues in education and counseling; policy analysis papers and briefs; and historical papers. Submitted papers should have clearly specified research questions and a theoretical or conceptual framework, employ appropriate methods, and contribute new knowledge to the body of educational and counseling literature. Submissions are accepted yearround for bi-annual publication. Please visit www.wmer.org for complete submission guidelines.

The William & Mary Educational Review Volume 4, Issue 2, May 2016 Contents

Davis Clement

Letter from the Editor

Amanda Armstrng The College of William & Mary

Wren’s Nest Book Review: Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education

Michael Hall The College of William & Mary

Chaos in America’s Classrooms

Alyse Pollock The College of William & Mary

Take Back Sex Education

Dr. Michael F. DiPaola The College of William & Mary

Special Section: Multicultural Leadership

Heather Gentry The College of William & Mary

A Structure for Utilizing Multicultural Principles to Strengthen the Servant Leadership Approach

Yi Hao The College of William & Mary

Servant Leadership in Communities of Color: A Powerful Tool

Grace M. Hindman The College of William & Mary

Diversifying Leadership: Intertwining Multicultural Principles and Servant Leadership in Higher Education

Brendan Bourdage Kelly Erickson Yi Hua The College of William & Mary

Lee D. Flood The University of Tennessee

Bridging the Gap: Organizational Factors and Their Impact on the Postsecondary Enrollment of English Language Learners

Sarah Galey Michigan State University

The Evolving Role of Instructional Coaches in U.S. Policy Contexts

Kyle A. Guzik The College of William & Mary

Effective 9-12 Arts Instruction: Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

Kristen Tarantino The College of William & Mary

Addressing Religious Diversity in the Public Institution

Manuscripts Analysis of the Virginia Teacher Evaluation System Through a Functionalist Lens

The William & Mary Educational Review

From the Editor Dear Readers, Teachers need to know research, but they don’t. When I was a teacher, I didn’t. Phrases like “theory into practice” and “research-based strategies” abound in the popular education press, but with little meaning. Students and scholars are familiar with the challenge of changing practice in light of research findings. Practitioners, however, likely see little connection between the proceedings of this or that conference and their day-to-day teaching duties. One solution to this disconnect, advocated in this space in Volume 4, Issue 1, is the creation of a new kind of scholar whose chief aim is the translation of research knowledge into consumable formats for educators and policymakers. However, most scholars in education have another equally important task, in addition to research: preparing educators. To what extent are teacher preparation programs, declining in popularity even as they are made ostensibly more “attractive” as one-year and/or online programs, treating research literacy and practitioner inquiry as essential skills for teachers, instructional coaches, planners, and principals? Critical examination of research is a crucial, foundational skill for all practitioners, but in today’s punctuated practitioner preparation programs it is frequently jettisoned to save room for content-specific and classroom management coursework. Besides consumption of others’ research, practitioners also need a repertoire of their own research skills for use in their classrooms and schools. Given the increasing ubiquity of Response to Intervention programs and Multi-tiered Systems of Support in schools, data collection—not just data interpretation—is becoming more of an essential skill for teachers. Teachers whose programs do not prepare them for single-case research design and action research design are simply not equipped for today’s schools. In the data-obsessed age of accountability, teachers and schools who are producing their own data are less vulnerable. Teachers and school leaders who do not know how to read research and conduct their own inquiry are more easily persuaded by the “research-based” marketing campaigns of textbook and curriculum companies. Witness the phenomenon of initiative fatigue and the revolving door of “best practices” which seem to change yearly. Without grounding in research knowledge, teachers are not autonomous from these advertising cycles. Let us teach our teachers how to critically consume existing research and conduct valid classroom-level inquiry to inform their own practice. Let us imagine schools themselves—not just schools of education—as the centers of research consumption and knowledge creation. Sincerely, Davis Clement Editor-in-Chief

The Wren’s Nest

Editor-in-Chief Davis Clement

Managing Copy Editor Leah Shy

Financial Manager Madeline Smith

Managing Editor Diana Theisinger

Copy Editors Amanda Armstrong Elizabeth Auguste Linda Feldstein Meredith Smiley Madeline Smith Ryan C. Thompson

Programming Director Samantha Silberstein

Production Editor Joseph Thomas Editor Emerita Julie K. Marsh

The History of the Wren’s Nest

Marketing Director Claire Brantley Media Liason Jamison Miller

Editorial Board

Counseling Isaiah Day Brian Kooyman Laura Pullin Sterling Travis The Eagle and the Wren once tried to see who Katie Winstead Reichner could fly highest, and the victor was to be king of the birds. So the Wren flew straight up, and Curriculum & Ed Tech the Eagle flew in great circles, and when the Kim Rodriguez Wren was tired he settled on the Eagle’s back. The story behind the name... A Scottish fable tells the story of the Eagle and the Wren.

When the Eagle was tired he stopped -

“Where art thou, Wren?” said the Eagle.

“I am here above thee,” said the Wren.

And so the Wren won the match. The history behind the name... The Wren Building on the campus of William & Mary is the oldest college building in the United States. Gutted by fire three times—in 1705, 1859, and 1862—the interior of the structure was rebuilt, but the building itself remains the heart and soul of William & Mary. It is for both of these qualities—resiliency and perspective— that the name The Wren’s Nest was chosen for the front section of The William & Mary Educational Review.

Curriculum Leadership Marquita Hockaday Higher Education Toni Gay Diana Hernandez Jessica MacArthur Mike Postma Kristen Tarantino Faculty Advisors Jim Barber, Ph.D. Jamel K. Donnor, Ph.D.

The William & Mary Educational Review

assumptions, values, and definitions regarding the role of HE. Although he does not call for a realization of past ideals, he does hope that educators will begin to “reclaim elements of a history in which the discourses of critique and possibility offered an alternative vision of what form [HE] might take in a Amanda Armstrong substantive democratic society” (p. 139). Increasingly being viewed by the public as an individual, privileged, and private As sensed from the title of right as opposed to a public good, HE his book, Neoliberalism’s War on Higher is losing its appeal as a place for the arts, Education, Henry Giroux (2014) frames humanities, and social sciences. neoliberal governance, or plutocrats, as “parasites” (p. 9)—not only on Giroux (2014) considers a education, but also on society at large. number of issues facing HE that While Giroux’s tone and language do influence neoliberal ideologies: “low not shy away from personal opinion, funding, the domination of universities he draws on examples from public by market mechanisms, the rise of policy, governance, politics, pedagogy, for-profit colleges, the intrusion of the and government spending to ground national security state, and the lack of his primary argument. His thesis places faculty self-governance” (p. 138). The economic Darwinism as the guiding disinvestment in public universities and force for neoliberal policies that promote an investment in for-profit universities, “utilitarian individualism” (Fowler, as well as the unequal distribution of 2013, p. 95) and privatization while federal funding (with only 6% being devaluing social, moral, and economic allocated to education, whereas 60% justice. Utilizing the critical theories goes to military spending) reflect a few for which he is known in other works, examples of these issues (Giroux, 2014). Giroux convincingly provides examples The most prominent of the neoliberal ideologies rampant implications of this institutional in higher education (HE); however, he paradigmatic shift toward market values, insufficiently, though understandably among many discussed throughout given the nature of utilizing critical the book, include the undermining of theory, provides solutions for how civic education and public values, the educators can rediscover or promote rise of big sports, the standardization democratic governance. This review of educational reform, the confusion provides a brief summary of the of “education with training…[and the book, an analysis of the arguments notion of] students as consumers” grounded by other works, and a reader (Giroux, 2014, p. 68), and “faculty recommendation. as entrepreneurs” (p. 30). These concerns reflect some of Giroux’s main Summary arguments—that the ever-increasing Giroux (2014) provides a foundation for his writing by sharing his inequality of wealth, and ultimately the

Book Review: Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education

The Wren’s Nest

educational opportunity gap, has led to “the undoing of the American dream into an American nightmare” (p. 132). Among other proposals, Giroux suggests that academics and the pedagogy they implement have not only a role in, but an ethical responsibility for, unsettling such neoliberal orthodoxies. Analysis The previous summary cannot do justice to Giroux’s (2014) historical authentic interest in and personal liability for (revealed in the final chapter’s interview) shining a critical light on HE driven by economic ideologies. And even though Giroux appears to recognize the unvaried nature of his claims when he states, “At the risk of being repetitious…” (p. 134) and “As I have mentioned throughout this book…” (p. 137), a number of themes discussed below clearly emerge from the book. A general critique of the book, recognized early on in the read, is that given Giroux’s ability to capture the essence of the neoliberal agendas infused within HE, there is often a lack of composing causal arguments and practical solutions. For instance, in chapter four, Giroux (2014) outlines the dangerous power of athletics in undermining the “liberal values of critical thinking” (p. 112) and encouraging, although not explicitly stated as a result of, the increase of sexual violence on college campuses. In chapter five, Giroux focuses his attention on the impact of neoliberal ideologies on faculty members. Viewed by Giroux as another example of economic values inherent in HE governance, institutions increasingly support part-time and adjunct faculty members as opposed to full-time, tenured ones; however, faculty

members oftentimes actually contribute to a commodified and standardized academy when viewed through the lens of neo-institutionalism (Gonzales & Núñez, 2014). Individualistic values, encouraged by an institutional ranking regime, promote prestige, isolation, and personal scholarship among faculty while devaluing collaboration and knowledge sharing—two vital characteristics needed for faculty and educators alike to lead in a culture of neoliberal change (Fullan, 2001; Gonzales & Núñez, 2014). In addressing this need for change, Giroux (2014) posits that students and faculty should be active policy enforcers. Unfortunately, in light of the examples already provided, a number of factors influence faculty members’ lack of interest in combating economic ideologies and in expanding their roles. In the face of academic freedom and job-driven curricula, “intellectuals who engage in dissent” or view education as a public good “are often dismissed as irrelevant, extremist, elitist, or un-American” (p. 141). As for students, engaging in acts that influence the defining of policy issues, and ultimately the agenda which sets policy, is a foreign concept to them given the inculcation of a notion that HE “neither serves a public good nor is a valuable democratic public sphere” (p. 64). How much more deflating can such a pervasively negative ideology be for acts of self-driven advocacy? By encouraging agency among stakeholders in HE, while at the same time recognizing the difficulties in doing so, Giroux leaves readers with an uneasy, questioning, almost hopeless sense that resolutions can be found. This difficulty in offering applicable solutions is often a critique

The William & Mary Educational Review

of using critical theory, which is Giroux’s main framework. Despite this disheartening sentiment, Giroux effectively identifies the dominant neoliberal ideologies found in HE, scrutinizes ideas, reveals potential rationales behind those ideas, and attempts to develop “alternative forms of understanding and point to concrete possibilities for action” (Friesen, 2008, p. 4) through his immanent critique. Understandably, the resolutions sought are not easily identifiable nor can they be practically and successfully addressed by one particular agenda item. By focusing on the grassroots level, Giroux (2014) begins to acknowledge the need for educational leaders to engage “students as students, rather than as consumers or even criminals” (p. 118). If neoliberal agendas remain problems that are unreachable or constantly theorized and complained about, leaders begin to “separate individual problems and experience from public issues and social considerations” (p. 46). Grassroots policy not only places agency in the hands of faculty and students, but it also redirects the attention to and expectation of HE institutions “to focus their work on important social issues that connect what is learned in the classroom to the larger society and the lives of their students” (p. 40). By addressing issues on a practical level, while recognizing their broader implications, Giroux provides a glimmer of hope for agenda setting momentum because, with agency, comes action.

Recommendation Giroux (2014) presents a disconcerting amount of issues prevalent in HE, as a result of neoliberal, economic, and market-driven agendas. Although readers will not finish this book with a list of concrete solutions, the underlying message for educational leaders to take responsibility for their responsibilities is nothing less than empowering. Despite impeding barriers including the debates about academic freedom, the input by critics of political correctness, and the ubiquitous commodified ideologies of HE, leaders have a responsibility to “generate controversy…[raise] political awareness…[and make] connections to those elements of power and politics often hidden from public view” (p. 149). Although Giroux outlines both the causes and symptoms of neoliberal agendas prevalent in HE, and provides an overview of and evidence for their implications, his main goal appears to be one of providing ammunition for addressing these agendas rather than providing solutions for them. This is a commendable effort, however, given that neoliberal biases are “much easier to recognize, address, and combat when [they are] overt and blatant” (Park, 2011, p. 231). Most importantly, if you are already familiar with both the systemic rationale for and evidence of such neoliberal agendas, Giroux adds— covertly and perhaps purposefully—a much needed call for political activism by HE stakeholders which requires more than this sense of awareness.

The Wren’s Nest

References Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Friesen, N. (2008, June). Critical theory ideology critique and the myths of e-learning. Ubiquity, 2. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books Gonzales, L. D., & Núñez, A. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(31), 1-24. Park, J. J. (2011). The elephant in the room: Race. In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Magolda (Eds.), Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue (pp. 225-235). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

About the Author Amanda Armstrong (B.A., Mars Hill College; M.A., Appalachian State University) is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Educational, Policy, Planning, and Leadership at the College of William & Mary. Her concentration is in Higher Education Administration, and her research interests include college student development and college teaching and learning.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Chaos In America’s Classrooms Michael Hall

Marines have a calling: “We run toward the sound of chaos.” With the war in Afghanistan in the past and the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq still unclear, service members are leaving the military in droves. There is now an entire generation of Global War on Terrorism veterans re-entering civilian society with nowhere to go. Combat arms jobs have little civilian crossover, and many veterans are looking in the mirror and saying, “What’s next?” A phrase I said myself as I left the Marine Corps in 2013 was, “I’ll never be this cool again.” At the same time, our country is in the middle of an education crisis. Administrators nationwide are in a frantic search for new teachers to lead classrooms every school year. School systems such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North Carolina are so desperate for teachers that they have resorted to searching on Craigslist (Dunn, 2015). This is completely unacceptable and an insult to the professional educators who work tirelessly to build the airplanes that are our struggling schools while they are in flight. America needs teachers and our children deserve highly qualified educators. Our veterans have served our country, and many want to continue serving their country. We as a nation have already invested in our veterans. The G.I. Bill is not a “Thank you for your service,” but America’s way of helping

her defenders re-adjust to life back home. Veterans possess certain leadership qualities and moral traits that school administrators want, but recruiters may be looking in the wrong direction. The military does not have a patent on core values such as honor, courage, and commitment; every teacher should embody these principles. If you dig deeper, training veterans to become teachers is almost an obvious answer to a problem plaguing our school systems nationwide. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are used to doing hard work for little pay, something every teacher can relate to. These same veterans are used to dealing with high stress that teachers experience dealing with students, parents, and even detached administrators who are focused on little more than raising standardized testing scores to ensure their own career security. Despite possessing qualities that teachers should be emulating, not every veteran is cut out for the job. Those who are not interested in committing to rigorous study in a chosen content area need not apply. Our schools need content experts, not just role models who possess moral fiber. Many veterans join the military after high school because of a lack of interest in higher education. Upon reentering civilian society these same veterans might have trouble cutting the proverbial mustard in the classroom environment. Some give up with schooling completely and waste a beautiful opportunity to fund their education debt free. Other veterans utilize their military training in high need fields such as engineering and computer science to find better paying jobs in the civilian sector. Teaching is not for everyone, but for some it can be a new

The Wren’s Nest

lease on life. There is also the cultural gap between civilian society and the military that is difficult to transcend. Fewer than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and a fraction of this small percentage actually served in combat (Tavernise, 2011). Injuries sustained, both physical and mental, have an effect on social relationships that sometimes cannot be remedied without professional help. Working around children and PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are not compatible. However, PTSD is not a death sentence. PTSD is an injury, not a mental illness. PTSD can be overcome. I believe with the proper procedures in place, such as PTSD screening and counseling for combat veterans who aspire to be teachers, America will have a highly useful resource to fill classrooms. Having a job that is as rewarding as teaching can be the answer to those many sleepless nights that veterans nationwide face as they try to put the pieces back together and figure out how they can continue contributing to America. Schools need “a few good men.” Teaching is by no means a “woman’s job,” but it is female dominated. Schools, especially elementary schools, need positive male role models (Clark, 2014). The Marine Corps prides itself on small unit leadership. Whether one is a corporal leading a fire team or a sergeant major leading a battalion, there is a place for you and your leadership is needed. The concept of helping veterans transition to becoming teachers is not a new idea. Alternate certification programs like Troops to Teachers allow veterans to become vocational and technical teachers with as little as one

year of college and six years of fulltime work experience. The resources are there; our veterans just need help finding them. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) there were over 573,000 unemployed veterans in 2014. With over half a million veterans looking for jobs, the answer to the problem plaguing schools is apparent. Our veterans need jobs, and frankly, they deserve them. This will not be an easy adjustment for veterans. But as veterans already know, nothing worthwhile comes easy. If you want it, it is there for you. You may have to fight for it, but the prize is a fulfilling and rewarding career that will provide a lifetime of happiness. In order to obtain this new career, proper planning is essential. Service members can start the process of becoming a teacher by registering with Troops to Teachers while still on active duty at ProudtoServeAgain.com. Troops to Teachers offers college advising and will help veterans find teacher training programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Veterans currently using G.I. Bill benefits to complete undergraduate work can become a teacher in as little as a year by completing a Master of Arts in Teaching or Master of Education licensure program. Veterans who may feel that more college is not the right starting place for their career transition might consider alternate routes to certification, depending on their prior education and military service. Troops to Teachers is just one of many alternate routes to certification; other popular options include Teach for America (teachforamerica.org) and the New York City Teaching Fellows (nycteachingfellows.org). Additionally, each state has its own alternate route to

The William & Mary Educational Review

certification that can be accessed via the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s department of education website. For those who have served, our References Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Veteran unemployment rate decreases to 5.3 percent in 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ opub/ted/2015/veteran-unemploymentdecreases-in-2014.htm Clark, K. (2014, December 20). Male role models in schools help reduce misbehavior. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday. com/story/news/nation/2014/12/20/ male-role-models- in-schools- help-reducemisbehavior/20701655/

country needs you now more than ever. The sound of chaos radiates from schools nationwide. Which way will you run? Dunn, A. (2015, June 12). CMS takes to Craigslist to find teachers. The Charlotte Observer.Retrieved from http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ news/local/education/your-schools-blog/ article23815246.html Tavernise, S. (2011, November 24). As fewer Americans serve, growing gap is found between civilians and military. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/2011/11/25/us/civilian-military- gapgrows- as-fewer-americans-serve.html?_r=0

About the Author Michael Hall served in the Marine Corps infantry as an Anti-Tank Missileman with Weapons Company, 1st Battalion 2d Marines from 2009-2013. He has since received a BA in English from Regent University and a MA in Education from the College of William and Mary. Michael is a Teach for America 2016 Hawaii Corps member, where he teaches 7th grade English and Social Studies at Wheeler Middle School.

The Wrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Nest

found that these programs reinforce negative stereotypes about both girls and boys. These programs place an undue burden on girls to reject the advances of their testosterone-laden male peers, while the boys are given a free pass to be ruled by their hormones (Kay & Jackson, Alyse Pollock 2008). These troubling tropes fail to address that many people, regardless Take out your bananas and of their gender, have sexual feelings, condoms: It is time to talk about sex and even in the midst of overwhelming education in schools, or rather the lack evidence that these programs violate the thereof. According to the American Title IX rights of students, they continue Civil Liberties Union, millions of dollars to be funded by the federal government. are being funneled into abstinenceThe biggest impediment to only sexual education, regardless of the stopping federally funded abstinencefact that these programs do not work only education is the existence of Title and that 85% of parents would prefer V Section 510, which passed in 1996. a comprehensive sexual education for To receive Title V federal funding, their children (ACLU, 2008). The time a program may not tell youth about has come for the federal government contraceptives or condoms, except to defund these programs that violate when discussing the failure rates of such the Title IX rights of girls to an equal methods (Trenholm, Devaney, Forston, public education. In the place of these Quay, Wheeler, & Clark, 2007). The destructive programs, Congress should Obama administration and Congress pass The Real Education for Healthy quietly allowed Title V to expire in Youth Act and overturn the Title V 2009, opening the door to newer, provisions of the Affordable Care Act. more comprehensive sexual education The point of Title IX is to programs to receive federal funding ensure that girls and women are not (SIECUS, 2011). However, as part of discriminated against in federally funded a compromise to convince Republicans education programs, such as those to pass the Affordable Care Act, Title V offered in schools and colleges (Kay & was reinstated despite the fact that, since Jackson, 2008). Yet, Legal Momentum (as 1996, numerous studies have shown the cited in Kay & Jackson, 2008), working dangers of abstinence only programs in conjunction with Harvard University, (Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011). Now in found that abstinence-only programs addition to the funds set aside specifically actively discriminate against girls by for evidenced-based comprehensive sex purposely withholding information education, the federal government also that could protect them against an provides up to 50 million dollars a year unwanted pregnancy. Since only females for abstinence-only programs (Stewart, can become pregnant, withholding this 2012). This includes a program in Texas important information is considered sexthat supports the dangerous notion that based discrimination. Furthermore, the the rhythm method is the most effective Legal Momentum and Harvard team

Take Back Sex Education

The William & Mary Educational Review

form of contraceptive. This is a gross misuse of an act that is designed to protect women and give them supports, such as free birth control (Stewart, 2012). Congress should not be in the business of politicizing the health of Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s youth. Supporters of abstinence-only programs advocate that abstinence is the only way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STI). Although this may be true, there is substantial evidence that teens rarely follow this advice (Stewart, 2012). On the contrary, researchers Stanger-Hall and Hall (2011) from the University of Georgia found a strong correlation between teen pregnancy and abstinence only education. The study also found that teen girls who were taught abstinence only are more likely to get pregnant than their peers who received a comprehensive sex education. In fact, the US leads the developed world in teen pregnancy, which is not a race we want to win (Health Research Funding, 2014). Furthermore, Columbia University researcher McKeon (2006) found that 88% of teens who plan to stay abstinent until marriage fail to do so. They are also less likely than their peers to seek STI

testing and less likely to use contraceptives during sex (McKeon, 2006). Congress can rectify this dire situation before the start of the next school year by passing the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act, which was introduced to Congress in 2013 and is currently in committee. The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act would only give federal funds to programs that accurately explain how to prevent STI and unwanted pregnancy with the use of birth control, condoms, and other contraceptives, thereby supporting the rights of girls to a discrimination-free education. This act would support the rights of LGTBQ students to have access to correct information about gender identity and same sex relationships. The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act also includes language that would only give federal funding to programs that discuss how to keep from becoming a sexual aggressor and a rapist, which is something that disproportionally affects boys (Library of Congress, 2013). Withholding that information from boys could be considered a violation of their Title IX rights. The year is no longer 1996, and the way we teach our youth about sex needs to reflect the lessons we have learned over the past twenty years.

The Wren’s Nest

References ACLU. (2008, June). What the research shows: Government-funded abstinence-only programs don’t make the grade. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/what-researchshows-government-funded-abstinence-onlyprograms-dont-make-grade Collins, C., Alagiri, P., Summers T., & Morin, S. (2002, March). Abstinence only vs. comprehensive sex education: What are the arguments? What is the evidence? Retrieved from http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/ abstinence.pdf Health Research Funding. (2014, October 13). 20 abstinence only sex education statistics. Retrieved from http://healthresearchfunding. org/20-abstinence-sex-education-statistics/ Kay, J. F., & Jackson, A. (2008). Sex, lies, and stereotypes: How abstinence-only programs harm women and girls. New York, NY: Legal Momentum. Retrieved from http://hrp.law. harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ sexlies_stereotypes2008.pdf Library of Congress. (2013, February 14). Summaries for the Real Education for Healthy Youth act of 2013. Retrieved from https:// www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr725/ summary

McKeon, B. (2006). Effective sex education. Retrieved from http://www.advocatesforyouth. org/component/content/article/450-effectivesex-education SEICUS. (2007). Federal abstinence-onlyuntil-marriage programs proven ineffective in delaying sexual activity among young people. Retrieved from http://www. siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature. showFeature&featureID=955 SIECUS. (2011). A history of federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Retrieved from http://www. siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page. viewpage&pageid=1340&nodeid=1 Stanger-Hall K., & Hall, D. (2011). Abstinenceonly education and teen pregnancy rates: Why we need comprehensive sex education in the U.S. PLoS One 6(10): e24658. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0024658 PMCID: PMC3194801 Stewart, K. (2012, August 15). How Obama’s healthcare reform boosted abstinenceonly sex education. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2012/aug/15/obamahealthcare-reform-boosted-abstinence-onlysex-education Trenholm, C., Devaney, B., Forston, K., Quay, L., Wheeler, J., & Clark, M. (2007, April). Impacts of four Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs. Retrieved from http:// aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/74961/ report.pdf

About the Author Alyse Pollock is a Masters student in the Curriculum and Instruction program with an emphasis on Special Education at The College of William & Mary. Her research interests include special education policy and school leadership.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Special Section: Multicultural Leadership Historical and contemporary leadership theories from the traditional literature in the United States generally reflect an “I” focused, self-centered leadership orientation. In Salsa, Soul, and Spirit, Bordas (2012) makes a case for Multicultural Leadership, a cooperative, collaborative, and peopleoriented form of leadership. Bordas asserts that there is an urgent need for leadership, especially in educational organizations, that reflects the values and experiences of all Americans. Leadership needs to change from an “I” focused, self-centered orientation to a “We” or other centered orientation, where leaders derive their authority from the people they serve, so they rely on people’s support. The following essays—submitted by students from my doctoral leadership course, for which the Bordas text is now a required reading— synthesize theories from the traditional leadership canon with Bordas’s Multicultural Leadership, for both K-12 and postsecondary contexts. Many of the principles described by Bordas (2012) are similar to themes found in the transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002), and spirituality in leadership (Fry, 2003) literature, all of which challenge the current methods and traditions of leadership used in the United States. Multicultural leadership also entails changing organizational structures so that diversity becomes part of the framework and the standard way of operating. This requires a shift from hierarchical pluralism, which dictates that people conform to dominant cultural norms, to egalitarian pluralism, with values and norms that reflect a multicultural perspective. Dr. Michael F. DiPaola, Chancellor Professor Department Chair: Educational Policy, Planning & Leadership

Multicultural Leadership

A Structure for Utilizing Multicultural Principles to Strengthen the Servant Leadership Approach Heather Gentry

As a current leader in a diverse public education setting, possessing a comprehensive understanding of multiple leadership styles and approaches is of the utmost importance. When embarking upon the task of investigating the concept of leadership, one can locate numerous leadership theories, approaches, and practices that can be referenced by an abundance of articles or texts. However, a component that is noticeably absent from the majority of these elements relates to the associations that exist for each theory, approach, or practice in relation to the multicultural world in which we live today. Through the integration of leadership concepts from multicultural communities into an existing leadership approach, we are able to create a stronger, more sustainable approach to leadership that will be applicable in our multicultural world. To accomplish this objective, three principles from the text, Salsa, Soul, and Spirit: Leadership for a Multicultural Age (Bordas, 2012), will be utilized to strengthen the popular leadership approach of servant leadership. Bordas asserted, “A multicultural leadership orientation incorporates many cultural perspectives, appreciates differences,

values unique contributions of diverse groups, and promotes learning from many orientations” (p. 8). The three multicultural leadership principles from the text that directly strengthen the servant leadership approach are (a) Principle 5, Leaders as Guardians of Public Values; (b) Principle 6, Leaders as Community Stewards; and (c) Principle 9, Gracias. Northouse (2016) stated, “Servant leadership is a paradox—an approach to leadership that runs counter to common sense” (p. 225). Servant leadership is an approach that appears contradictory to the traditional Western view of leadership. Greenleaf (1970) defined servant leadership by stating: [Servant leadership] begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test… is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not further be deprived? (p. 15) This approach is one that resonates throughout the principles discussed in the Bordas (2012) text. Principle 5, Leaders as Guardians of Public Values, contains components that directly relate to the approach of servant leadership. According to Bordas, “Leadership in communities of color is inherently a public responsibility to bring people together to address and change the social and economic conditions that affect their lives” (p. 102). This principle

The William & Mary Educational Review

cites the oppression of minorities, specifically African Americans, as a reason this responsibility exists. Principle 6, Leaders as Community Stewards, is another principle with direct ties to servant leadership. In fact, Bordas (2012) made multiple references to servant leadership within her text. Bordas asserted, “Servant leadership is deeply anchored in Black, American Indian, and Latino cultures that center on community responsibility, the public welfare, and addressing the social structures that hinder people’s progress” (p. 121). An additional principle, which links directly to servant leadership, is Principle 9, Gracias. This principle references spiritual responsibility as the principle’s driving force. This spiritual responsibility ties directly into the goal of servant leadership to help others. Bordas’ (2012) thoughts on spirituality connected to servant leadership when she declared, “Spirituality is a moral obligation to ensure others’ well-being and the collective good” (p. 182). In order to explicate how these three principles fit into the servant leadership approach, as well as how they strengthen this approach in relation to multicultural leadership, the concepts in these principles will be connected to the servant leadership approach through a focus on the seven servant leader behaviors delineated in the text, Leadership: Theory and Practice, by Peter Northouse (2016). According to Northouse, “Collectively these behaviors are the central focus of servant leadership. Individually, each behavior makes a unique contribution” (p. 233). Focusing on the behaviors listed in this approach is an advantageous method,

due to the fact that behaviors are an element that every leader can conceptualize and attempt to emulate in their own leadership styles. Through this focus on behaviors, a framework for implementation will be created. The first behavior discussed in relation to servant leadership is the behavior of conceptualizing. Northouse (2016) declared: Conceptualizing refers to the servant leader’s thorough understanding of the organization—its purposes, complexities, and mission. This capacity allows servant leaders to think through multifaceted problems, to know if something is going wrong, and to address problems creatively in accordance with the overall goals of the organization. (p. 233) This behavior directly relates to the Native American concept explained in Principle 6, It Takes as Long as it Takes. Bordas (2012) quoted a Native American in his text to clarify this principle: John Echohawk observes, ‘I am usually quiet and spend a great amount of time listening and watching. I really want to know what other people think about an issue before I offer my opinion. I have been told that sometimes I am not seen as a leader in these situations. In the Anglo community, a leader takes charge and makes his ideas known first. My natural tendency is to listen first, to reflect on what people are saying, and to discern the meaning behind this. Then I can see the common ground and unifying themes.’ (p. 128) By emulating the Native American behavior of listening and truly understanding the problem or issue, a leader is able to conceptualize and ensure that they are solving these problems or issues as well as meeting the overall goals of the organization.

Multicultural Leadership

The second behavior Northouse (2016) discussed pertaining to servant leadership is emotional healing. Northouse stated, “Servant leaders who exhibit emotional healing make themselves available to others, stand by them, and provide them with support” (p. 234). The behavior of emotional healing is greatly strengthened through integrating the components of Principle 9, Gracias, in the Bordas (2012) text. This principle focuses on spirituality and its ability to strengthen leadership. According to Bordas, “Through practicing gratitude and forgiveness communities of color have emerged as a spiritual force for healing and reconciliation” (p. 185). Putting followers first is another vital behavior discussed in relation to servant leadership. Northouse (2016) expressed this behavior by stating, “It means using actions and words that clearly demonstrate to followers that their concerns are a priority, including placing followers’ interests and success ahead of those of the leader” (p. 234). This behavior resonates in Principle 9 related to spirituality. Bordas (2012) affirmed, “Communities of color have always seen spiritual responsibility as doing good for others. This resonates with seriti and drives a collective and spiritually responsible form of leadership that uplifts the whole community” (p. 185). Northouse (2016) stated: “At its core, helping followers grow and succeed is about aiding these individuals to become self-actualized, reaching their fullest human potential” (p. 234). This links directly to Principle 6 in the Bordas (2012) text, Leaders as Community Stewards. When discussing leaders as

community stewards, Bordas stated: Leadership as community servanthood is central to American Indian culture. LaDonna Harris’ working definition of leadership is “a communal responsibility with a concern for the welfare of the ‘people’ or tribe and then sharing the work that needs to be done based on skills and abilities.” (p. 123) An additional behavior enumerated as being essential to servant leadership is behaving ethically. Northouse (2016) defined this by stating, “Behaving ethically is holding strong ethical standards, including being open, honest, and fair with followers” (p. 235). Behaving ethically can be directly tied to Principle 9 in the Bordas (2012) text, which focuses on spirituality related to multicultural leadership. Bordas quoted a Native American, Bennie Shendo, by stating, “In my community, I could not even fathom the thought of separating the spirituality of who we are as a people from who I am. It is how we carry ourselves every day” (p. 185). Understanding how Native Americans incorporate ethical behavior into their daily lives is a model for leaders striving to fulfill the servant leadership approach. Empowering is another behavior stated as fundamental to servant leadership. According to Northouse (2016), “Empowering is a way for leaders to share power with followers by allowing them to have control” (p. 235). Latino leaders provide an example that strengthens the approach of servant leadership in this area. Bordas (2012) stated, “Latino leaders must integrate the many critical issues that touch people’s lives and motivate people to work together to address these. In this way, they grow people’s capacity to engage in

The William & Mary Educational Review

concerted and collective action” (p. 106). The final behavior discussed by Northouse (2016) associated with servant leadership is creating value for the community. Northouse asserted, “Servant leaders create value for the community by consciously and intentionally giving back to the community” (p. 235). This behavior is strengthened by Principle 5 in the Bordas (2012) text. According to Bordas, “African Americans are very concerned about community and justice. African Americans aspire to create a better life not only for their own people but to establish a society that cares for all people” (p. 101). This need to create value for the community within African American leadership can be traced back to the oppression they experienced in the past. Through my role as a current leader in public education, I appreciate the manner in which the servant leadership approach resonates directly with leadership in an educational setting. I believe that all educators, from paraprofessionals to teachers to administrators, are servant leaders.

This is especially true of school systems with a high percentage of disadvantaged students. Greenleaf (1970) stated that a servant leader has a social responsibility to be concerned about the ‘have-nots’ and those less privileged. If inequalities and social injustices exist, a servant leader tries to remove them (Graham, 1991). By possessing a comprehensive understanding of servant leadership, along with the principles of multicultural leadership and how the concepts contained within each work together to create a strong framework, educators will be able to effectively encourage the progress of all students. References Bordas, J. (2012). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultural age (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as a leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

About the Author Heather Gentry holds a B.S. from Lock Haven University, an M.Ed. from Regent University, and is an Ed.D. student in the Department of Educational Policy, Planning & Leadership at the College of William & Mary, with a concentration in Curriculum Leadership. She is currently the principal at Essex Intermediate School in Tappahannock, Virginia.

Multicultural Leadership

Servant Leadership in Communities of Color: A Powerful Tool Yi Hao

This is a reaction paper to Bordas’ (2012) Salsa, Soul, and Spirit: Leadership for a Multicultural Age, using a servant leadership model to interpret three of the author’s principles. Each principle was interwoven tightly to present a unique angle to look at leadership through deeply rooted cultural traditions. Compared to the mainstream research on leadership, Bordas offered a different lens to define leadership outside of a well-perceived business fashion and more from everyday life: how people recognize, connect, and use the power to make every decision. Core values held by three communities of color were described in detail to reflect multicultural leadership practices. By examining the principles through the lens of servant leadership, an example of how servant leadership can be a useful tool for communities of color is also provided at the end of this paper. The Model of Servant Leadership Servant leadership puts great emphasis on leaders’ behaviors, which includes listing their own interests after their follower’s needs promoting followers’ development (Hale & Fields, 2007). A wide array of theoretical frameworks exists that analyze key characteristics of servant leadership. Besides, Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) proposed a model of

servant leadership with three main components: antecedent conditions, servant leader behaviors, and leadership outcomes. Servant Leadership in Communities of Color Using the model proposed by Liden et al. (2008), three principles found in Bordas’ book will be examined: (a) I to We; (b) Leaders as Community Stewards —working for the common goal; and (c) Gracias—gratitude, hope, and forgiveness. “I to We” and Antecedent Conditions In principle two, which Bordas (2012) discussed about a shift from “I to We”, one can clearly sense that Latino, Black, and Indian cultures provide fertile soil for a more collective standpoint, each coming from a we, rather than I, perspective. Servant leadership occurs in a particular culture (Northouse, 2013). In a we-oriented culture, common good and long-term welfare for the whole community is most valued (Bordas, 2012). The communities of color honor tribe, community, and family, which all support the ten characteristics of a servant leader when considering a we-culture perspective. As Latino, Black, and Indian cultures all share the foundation of putting group interests ahead of individual interests, leaders from the communities of color are not pushed by power or positions coming with the leadership role, rather they feel the urge from people around them wanting them to lead. Leaders (a) listen to their followers who are also family, friends, and people from the same communities, as their commission to serve usually aligns with their faith, (b) empathize true feelings based on immersive understanding as the true leadership

The William & Mary Educational Review

emerges when servant leaders try to address peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, and (c) share great responsibility and commitment to the welfare of the whole communities (Bordas, 2012). Servant leadership is also well received in the communities of color, as a shared sense of collectivism and care of communal good spreads among all the community members. Followers trust and choose their leaders and desire the chosen leaders to act as servants who are looking out for more than leadersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; personal gains. Leaders as Community Servants: Servant Leader Behaviors As Bordas (2012) mentioned, community servanthood involves many people sharing power and benefiting others. The idea of having leaders as servants accords with the behaviors proposed by Liden et al. (2008). When facing concerns and challenges from economic, educational, political, and psychological progress, leaders provide emotional support by making themselves available while they think through problems by acknowledging followersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and empowering them to become self-sufficient without treating others differently because of their leadership positions. Servant leaders also are trusted because of their ethical behaviors, essentially the willingness to go an extra mile to fulfill what others need from them (Bordas, 2012; Liden et al., 2008). Thus, by following the values in the greater community, leaders complete their mission with passion and commitment by intentionally giving back to their community, changing the areas with which they see community members have struggled, and making efforts to improve the public good.

Gratitude, Hope, and Forgiveness: Leadership Outcomes By looking at principle nine through the lens of leadership outcomes, societal impact has been stressed by recognizing how servant leadership can change individuals and have a greater influence to the society. By linking gratitude to thanksgiving, hope to optimism, and forgiveness to reconciliation, Bordas (2012) acknowledged the importance of spiritual responsibility, reflecting an integration of leadership, spirituality, and social activism. True servant leaders embrace the spirituality-driven power from a sense of belonging from their cultural backgrounds, as well as a recognition of historical improvements, while maintaining the belief that things will turn out to be right through collective efforts. In history, the communities discussed by Bordas are traditionally underrepresented and have gone through setbacks and hardships. However, having servant leaders who show the ability to forgive and love means reconciliation that servant leaders promote to help work with the oppressed groups. Leadership is exhibited not only in how servant leaders carry on traditions and help younger generations to realize their dreams, but also in how leaders deal with the past, present, and future. By fully incorporating the tenets of being grateful, hopeful, and forgiving, the leaders of color are on the right paths to their greater visions. Servant Leadership in a Multicultural Age Living in such an age, we are blessed to have diversity not only to label ourselves with a fancy word but to truly learn about the similarities and

Multicultural Leadership

differences among individuals every single day. The world is more mobile, and in order to have more people learn to appreciate the essence of multiculturalism, leaders should first demonstrate cultural awareness, adaptability, and flexibility. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Servant leaderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; can be a misleading term. They are not just doing what they are told. In fact, they stay true to their ancestry and cultural roots. They listen to the needs of the people from the same communities who are like family and friends to them, see changes in a positive way, and always hold onto the hopes to be grateful to what they have. Most importantly, they pay attention to their followers, help them grow and succeed, and eventually pass on the legacy of the shared culture and values to make the world a better place. Educational Practice: Fostering Servant Leadership in College Servant leadership shares foundations with what has been practiced in communities of color: the value of community consensus, ethics, and empowerment of followers for betterment. Fostering servant leadership among the younger generations of leaders will certainly help continuously nurture the communities. As more and more young leaders choose to seek higher education outside of their communities, support for these traditionally underrepresented students is of great significance, especially to enhance their identity development. Individuals with multiple identities need to figure out what they hold as truths while they are going through college

years in completely different settings at times. Helping younger leaders to embrace their true faith and spiritual identity further enhances their knowledge about themselves and the power of culture and history to work toward the greater good in the future. For student leaders who are traditionally underrepresented, especially those who might be first-generation, transfer, low-income, or immigrant students, the college environment is exciting as well as challenging. Institutions must launch initiatives to help create conversations that raise studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; leadership awareness as well as help them make smooth transitions and early academic and career plans. Unlike students who may have grown up in a more mainstream setting, these students holding the potential of becoming future leaders need to be connected and empowered at an early stage. Peer-to-peer or alumni programs in which a senior student or graduate works individually with a student of a similar background can be transformational on a personal growth level. And later, this servant leadership will keep its traditions and benefit more people in return. References Bordas, J. (2012). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultural age (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3, 397-417. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

About the Author Yi Hao is a doctoral student in the Higher Education Administration program at The College of William & Mary. Her research interests include gender equality, diversity, faculty development, and academic affairs in higher education context.

The William & Mary Educational Review

forth. Greenleaf described the servant leader as making “sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served,” ensuring that “they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 15). The servant leader’s role is to support those around him or her, to help develop the leadership capacity of others, and to take an interest in the impact that his or her leadership has on society around them and work to ensure that that impact is for the greater good. When executed correctly, Grace M. Hindman servant leadership not only improves the outcomes of an organization, it improves On the tip of everyone’s tongue follower performance, increases is the role diversity plays in everyday followers’ capacity to lead, and has a life—how it benefits, challenges and positive impact on the society around it. impacts lives. In the last four decades, the Spears (2010) identified and described numbers of minority students enrolling 10 characteristics of servant leadership: in higher education have increased as listening, empathy, healing, awareness, the numbers of white students have persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, decreased (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). stewardship, commitment to the growth With college campuses’ racial makeup of people, and building community. changing yearly and evolving with the In Juana Bordas’ (2012) book, student body composition, it is crucial Salsa, Soul, and Spirit: Leadership for a that leaders and administrators develop Multicultural Age, she presented nine leadership styles that not only utilize principles of leadership from minority frameworks that are beneficial, but also communities in the United States, utilize principles that are better suited utilizing traditional leadership styles of to their increasingly diverse student African American, American Indian and body. Servant leadership is an excellent Latino communities. While many of approach to leadership that not only these nine are relevant to Greenleaf ’s utilizes many multicultural leadership servant leadership, three will be discussed strategies, but also has the flexibility directly: leaders as community stewards, a to allow for further incorporation of leader among equals, and “I to we.” diverse student bodies. Leaders as Community Stewards Servant leadership was Bordas’ (2012) principle of developed by Robert Greenleaf Leaders as Community Stewards is (1970) as an inverse triangle approach directly applicable to the aspect of to leadership, with the leader at the servant leadership that focuses on the bottom point of the triangle supporting improvement of society as a whole. managers who support employees and so

Diversifying Leadership: Intertwining Multicultural Principles and Servant Leadership in Higher Education

Multicultural Leadership

Bordas (2012) described leadership under this principle as something that is accepted—not pursued—by individuals as a “conscious choice” (p. 120). This conscious choice is similar to the stewardship of servant leadership described by Northouse (2016), whereby an individual takes “responsibility for the leadership role entrusted to the leader” (p. 228). Leaders in this way are not striving to be leaders for their own personal gain, but are chosen by their communities and accept this role as a sign of their dedication to the common cause. What minority leaders do with this principle is uplift their communities and the individuals who are a part of them for the benefit of all. Leadership is not something that is meant to better the individual; it is a tool to improve the lives of all in the community. Leaders in this capacity not only work as advocates for their communities; they help others develop their own capacity to lead. Much of what leaders as community stewards do is empower the community and work to gain consensus and a shared vision. The principle of leaders as community stewards emphasizes the societal impact of servant leadership. By focusing on leadership as a community service, individuals are better able to build partnerships within a community. Leaders are better able to build coalitions and empower individuals from multicultural communities who are more inclined to work from a grassroots perspective. A Leader Among Equals Bordas’ (2012) principle of A Leader Among Equals discussed the collectivist nature of many minority cultures and how leaders in these cultures

are facilitators rather than leaders. The Latino characteristic of personalismo reminds individuals that “no matter how ‘important’ a leader becomes, she or he must be willing to do the hard work needed for community progress” (Bordas, 2012, p. 89). The idea that all persons, both leader and followers, are working together towards a common goal not only improves morale, but speaks to the character and quality of the leader. Leaders who utilize “A Leader Among Equals” (Bordas, 2012) as well as servant leadership have a greater capacity to conceptualize goals and priorities of an institution or division and do the work to ensure that that vision is accomplished. Incorporating personalismo also helps to level the field in terms of the emotional well-being of both servants and leaders. The community investment in the leader helps to remind the leader that he or she has achieved this status not of his or her own volition but through the support of countless others. As the leader it is therefore only right to reciprocate that support by remaining grounded and working to ensure that those who helped him or her are likewise invested in as individuals and a society. Additionally, there is a greater ability for a leader to have a sense of empathy for followers and to step back and ensure that the emotional wellbeing of followers is being taken care of. I to We Bordas’ (2012) principle of I to We addressed the difference between the individualistic perspectives of Anglo America compared to the collectivist identity of minority cultures. In this collectivist culture, “the family, community, or tribe takes precedence

The William & Mary Educational Review

over the individual, whose identity flows from the collective” (Bordas, 2012, p. 48-49). This collective identity follows the building community aspect of servant leadership, which defines a community as essential and a “group in which the liability of each for the other and all for one is unlimited” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 21). This shared interest in each other allows for a safe and encouraging environment for the improvement of individuals, students, and institutions. When a leader incorporates the I to We principle in servant leadership, he or she is more inclined to support his or her followers first. This sense of community in an institution enables individuals to feel comfortable reaching out for assistance when needed, but also to come forward with their own ideas. When a common goal is clearly defined and individuals feel as though they are supported in reaching it, followers become more confident and self-sufficient. Individuals who utilize this principle create a balance of their own individual success with communal success. Their goals as leaders go hand in hand with the vision of the department, division or institution. By focusing more on the “we,” a leader has the capacity to change perspectives on priorities and conceptualize a greater mission in partnership with the larger group. Conclusion Bordas (2012) stated “leadership in communities of color is grounded in spiritual responsibility: leaders attend to

people’s material and social needs, as well as provide inspiration and hope” (p. 20). This grounding directly reflects the core tenets of servant leadership put forth by Greenleaf (1970). If an institution and a leader are to succeed, they must put the needs and well-being of others first, whether it be the needs of a follower, a student, or the community the institution impacts. Student populations in higher education are changing with every semester. If universities and colleges seek to develop their students effectively, they must understand the cultural backgrounds and values of the students they seek to serve. Higher education leaders are chosen by a university to serve the needs of students. With this responsibility, leaders must not only work to support their followers in their divisions or offices, they must empower their followers to further support the students of the institution. Additionally, they must work to ensure that the institution is not a detriment to the surrounding community, but rather a source of positive influence and change. By incorporating Bordas’ (2012) principles into the idea of servant leadership, institutions are better prepared to not only support their institutions but to also support those of multicultural backgrounds who seek the spiritual and cultural leadership Bordas put forth.

Multicultural Leadership

References Bordas, J. (2012). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultural age. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Snyder, T. D., and Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of education statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011). Washington, DC: Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.

About the Author Grace Hindman (B.A., The College of William & Mary; M.L.S., University of South Carolina) is a doctoral student in the Educational Policy, Planning & Leadership program at The College of William & Mary, with a concentration in Higher Education Administration. She is currently the transfer credit coordinator at William & Mary, and her research interests include college student spiritual development and student success of minorities and legacies.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Analysis of the Virginia Teacher Evaluation System Through a Functionalist Lens Brendan Bourdage, Kelly Erickson, Yi Hua

Abstract Effective teacher evaluations serve the dual function of being both summative and formative (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The current evaluation tool in Virginia uses a traditional approach of incorporating standardized test scores as forty percent of a measure of teacher effectiveness. By way of a literature review, this article applies a sociological perspective to the process of teacher evaluations in Virginia through a functionalist lens. Additionally, an examination of the pros and cons of a traditional versus authentic student assessment model is included. Evidence gathered suggests the current Virginia teacher evaluation tool fulfills the summative, but not the formative, function. This discrepancy could have lasting negative ramifications if not remedied, as the need to support teachers in achieving maximum professional performance is central to the educational system serving its inherent function of producing competent citizens capable of contributing to society. Keywords: authentic assessment, functionalism, teacher evaluation, traditional assessment

Both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and Race to the Top of 2009 (RTTT) emphasized the importance of improving teacher quality as a means of enhancing student performance. Moreover, RTTT proposed using students’ academic growth over an academic year as an indicator to measure teacher effectiveness (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). In response to the law and solid research evidence (e.g., Muñoz & Chang, 2007; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Stronge, 2010), Virginia has connected

teacher performance to student academic progress in teacher evaluation, basing 40 % of teachers’ evaluations on student academic progress (Virginia Department of Education [VDOE], 2015). Virginia’s evaluation model incorporates the characteristics of both traditional and authentic assessments serving the dual function of being both summative and formative (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). “Evaluation” and “assessment” are used interchangeably in this text. Simply speaking, traditional assessments focus on using quantitative indicators, such as

Virginia Teacher Evaluation System

student academic achievement, to assess teachers, while authentic assessments emphasize assessing teachers’ abilities through multiple aspects and data sources (Tanner, 2001). However, it is questionable whether the Virginia model appropriately balances “traditional” and “authentic,” and how well it serves both the summative and formative functions. Starting with the sociological context in which functionalism is embedded, this article analyzes the Virginia evaluation model with respect to both traditional and authentic assessments. The authors selected sociology as the context through which to analyze this question, because perceptions of teacher evaluation are socially constructed by different social groups, such as teachers, students, parents, and education scholars, and each stakeholder has their own expectations for the teacher evaluation process. The outcome of teacher evaluation influences many aspects of social life and educational development within a society. Moreover, functionalism provides the authors a solid theoretical basis to explore the functions of teacher evaluation given different standards and educational contexts. In this article, the pros and cons of traditional and authentic assessments are discussed. Evidence gathered suggests that the current Virginia teacher evaluation tool fulfills the summative, but not the formative, function. This discrepancy could have lasting negative ramifications if not remedied, as the need to support teachers in achieving maximum professional performance is central to the educational system serving its inherent function of producing competent citizens capable of contributing to society. In the end, the

authors summarize the concerns regarding the Virginia evaluation model. Context of Sociology Sociology is the study of social structures and institutions. The discipline is rooted in a “positivist tradition and aims to be led by evidence, studying individual lives to develop generalizations applicable to the greater society” (Bruce, 1999, p. 57). Modern sociology has evolved over time, making its first appearance in the philosophical writings of Greek and Arab philosophers in the 14th century. The discipline flourished in the 20th century after religion’s stronghold as the primary source for legitimate social order was broken, and the societal ramifications of the Industrial Revolution took root across Europe. Several notable figures have influenced the evolution of sociology, but three individuals in particular, each with differing perspectives on formative societal issues, stand out as having made substantial impacts in defining the theoretical underpinnings of the discipline. Karl Marx (1818-1883) believed that ongoing conflict between two social classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, would lead to revolution, and that communism would eventually replace capitalism (Bruce, 1999). Max Weber (1864-1920) believed that the rise of rationality, the process of replacing traditional or emotionally driven thought with reason and practicality, was the driving force in society. He posited the concept of Verstehen, or understanding why people do what they do in their interactions, as a primary lens through which to view human interaction (Bruce, 1999). Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), a French sociologist considered the

The William & Mary Educational Review

“father of sociology,” believed that “culture does for human beings what instinctual and environmental constraints do for other species” (Bruce, 1999, p. 35). His contention was that the breakdown of shared social norms, resulting from the evolution of a more complex society, was the issue bringing the most detriment to bear on society. There are four guiding tenets of sociology. The first is the belief that “reality is socially constructed” (Bruce, 1999, p. 25). This means that there is not one single reality. Rather each person’s reality is constructed based on individual experience. The second tenet is that human behavior has hidden social causes. This means that despite having the freedom to think and act independently of formal constraints, human behavior is driven by social norms and expectations. People have a biological need to belong to the larger social group, and tailor their behavior accordingly. Third is the notion that “much of social life is inadvertent or unintended” (Bruce, 199, p. 86). This tenet is important as sociologists seek to understand the causes of a given outcome, because an outcome may not in fact be an intended but rather “an unintended consequence of a large number” (Bruce, 1999, p. 87) of other factors. The fourth and final tenet of sociology is that the way “people see themselves is greatly affected by how others see them” (Bruce, 1999, p. 48). The work of sociologists is focused on various broad facets of social life including class structure and institutions as well as the components within those institutions. The discipline is focused in large part on trying to understand “how humans come to live their realities” (Bruce, 1999, p. 48).

Sociologists are interested in the “social causes of health, wealth, and happiness as well as poverty, illness, and depression” (Bruce, 1999, p. 56). They search for “patterns and use systematic comparisons to illuminate the cause of who we are and what we do” (Bruce, 1999, p. 54), attempting to not only identify the “what” of human behavior or interactions, but also to examine beliefs, values, motives, and intentions underlying the “why” of human actions. Functionalism and Education A discussion of educational issues from a sociological standpoint fits particularly well into the functionalist framework. Ontologically, functionalism has its roots in the positivistic organisms of the 19th century, as developed by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Functionalists look at the world as a system, and try to understand the contributions of its components. As discussed by Martindale (1965), the industrialization of nations in the 19th century led to higher population densities, a movement from individual thought toward collectivist thought, and the development of “the institutions of the mass state” (p. 153). Sociological functionalism was primarily an invention of the American mass state in the second half of the 20th century. It could be seen as a response to the WWII-era success of functional military and economic systems, and an attempt to apply these models to human behavior. As sociological functionalism was further developed by Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and Robert Merton (19102003), they established an epistemology focused more on teleology than causality. In other words, as Martindale (1965) explained, Parsons and Merton were

Virginia Teacher Evaluation System

more interested in the purposes served by social phenomena, and less in what may have caused them. This is truly the root of a functionalist mindset—the what is more important than the why. In its broadest sense, functionalism describes the social system (and its component institutions, like education) as “a set of social activities operating in equilibrium,” and posits that “all recurrent social activities have the function of maintaining a social system” (Whitaker, 1965, p. 154). From an axiological standpoint, then, functionalists count any activity that helps maintain societal equilibrium as good, and anything that causes dysfunction as bad. According to Whitaker (1965), there are many advantages to studying problems using this functionalist methodology. He discussed how functionalism excludes speculation on human motives and the origins of institutions, and brings us closer to a “natural science of society” (p. 143). Functionalism has its limitations as well. It can be seen as a very conservative mindset, only interested in maintaining the status quo, and consequently ignorant of how dysfunctional certain aspects of society can be. According to Whitaker (1965), functionalism also struggles to account for social change, and is seen as a “static closed system,” only dealing with social phenomena “at one moment in [time]” (p. 140). These advantages and disadvantages are certainly valid in some situations, and with some thinkers and theorists. However, thinkers like Merton have found ways to modify functionalism to account for social change, and opened it up to discussions of dysfunction (Whitaker, 1965). In fact, that is just

what is required as we turn to look at our education system, and more specifically the function of teacher evaluation within that system. At its core, the function of the institution of education is to produce citizens able to contribute to the workforce and provide value to society, thereby maintaining societal equilibrium. Many factors impact learning at all levels, including school environment, curriculum quality, an individual student’s background/culture, and most importantly for our purposes here, teacher quality. This paper examines the evaluation of teacher effectiveness in Virginia, and considers how the evaluation process could be better operationalized to affect student learning by way of increased teacher capacity. This increased student learning outcome would demonstrate the function of the evaluation process in service to society at large by providing the next generation of capable citizens. Traditional vs. Authentic Assessment Models Teacher assessment methods fall broadly into two categories, traditional and authentic. Traditional methods have roots in the positivist paradigm, which is based on the belief in an objective reality, attempting to rate teacher performance using quantitative measures, and judging teachers on their ability to perform key tasks, according to a normative standard that is applied across the board. Traditional methods often focus more on student performance on standardized tests, utilize single raters, and rate teachers using what Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) calls the “scoreboard” model (para. 8). This methodology is often driven by pressure to increase test scores,

The William & Mary Educational Review

stemming from legislation like the NCLB of 2001 (Valli et al., 2007). Authentic methods, on the other hand, are more in the functionalist paradigm, which regards society as a complex system whose parts work together to maintain social stability. It recognizes differences in students and schools, and attempts to account and control for all influences on student learning. In the words of Tanner (2001), authentic assessment “expects environmental conditions to vary,” and seeks out “multiple ways for students to demonstrate their learning” (p. 27). Strengths of Traditional Assessment Method Using standardized test results, a traditional method to evaluate teachers, has both strengths and weaknesses. Proponents argue these assessments are norm referenced, valid, and reliable (Tanner, 2001). Also, standardized tests are posited to be an objective measure of student learning (Corcoran, 2010) and, assuming the integrity of the student growth percentile, afford a reliable indicator of student proficiency with grade-level material. A further argument supporting use of traditional assessments comes from a 2013 Associated PressNORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, which found that “75% of parents say standardized tests are a solid measure of their children’s abilities. 69% say the tests are a good measure of a school’s quality” (Elliott & Agiesta, 2013 as cited in ProCon.org, 2015, April 3, para. 9). Proponents seem to be arguing that if teachers can affect a baseline competency in reading and math, then they have performed their function within the education system.

Weaknesses of Traditional Assessment Method If we stipulate for the moment that this is the proper function of a teacher, problems still exist. For instance, only about 50% of educators teach in grade levels requiring standardized assessments, leaving a large percentage of educators who do not have those assessments on which their evaluations can be based (Toch, 2008). Even though there are allowances in the evaluation tool for using other validated, quantitative measures, these assessments are often teacher or district made. As a result, there is neither uniformity in those assessments nor a reasonable way to ensure they are a valid measure of student learning, or if they will be implemented with fidelity. Additionally, opponents contend there is too much emphasis placed on the test score (Tanner, 2001), offering only a single snapshot of student learning (Toch, 2008), and not a comprehensive idea of teacher effectiveness. A further argument against the use of standardized tests is that their use narrows the curriculum, as it is not possible to test all things a student should know (David, 2011). Teachers then attempt to raise test scores by teaching to the test. Teaching to the test not only invalidates the test itself, but takes time away from the teaching of those concepts/skills which are not tested. Also of particular concern is that these standardized tests, given once or twice a year, provide “few if any feedback opportunities for students or teachers to improve” (Mielke & Frontier, 2012, p.10).

Virginia Teacher Evaluation System

Strengths of Authentic Assessment Method Measuring the quality of teaching and quantifying the impact a teacher has on individual student learning can be challenging. This is especially true given that, as Valli, Croninger, and Walters (2007) state, “disentangling teacher effects from school effects is more complex than generally acknowledged” (p. 637). Factors like student mobility, team teaching, and other complex links with teachers have noticeable influence on teacher effect (Valli et al., 2007). Popham (1999) agrees that it is very “difficult to isolate the impact of a single teacher from the other factors that influence test scores. These other factors include what was taught in school in previous years or by other teachers, a child’s innate intellectual ability, and the student’s out of school learning” (p. 4). Finally, in contrast to data indicating parental support for the use of standardized tests cited above, other reports indicate the emergence of an “anti-testing sentiment as the number of tests given to students has risen, resulting in parents opting their students out of testing” (Sawchuk, 2015, p. 4). Authentic assessment, conversely, may expand the teacher evaluation rubric to include nonacademic measures, empowering teachers through self-diagnosis and self-evaluation, and providing multiple raters for a single teacher. Additionally, authentic assessment purports to coach for growth, not scores (BambrickSantoyo, 2012), and focuses on developing teachers and their expertise (Mielke & Frontier, 2012). Proponents of incorporating authentic assessments of student progress into evaluations of

teachers cite the shift in learning to a more constructivist process wherein “teaching is done for understanding, not for rote learning” (Danielson & McGreal, 2000, p. 3). Supporters also laud authentic assessments because they inherently focus more on “learning than on passing a test, and on the transfer of learning as measured by application of skills on authentic tasks” (Tanner, 2001, p 24). If authentic assessments are more reflective of students’ learning and ability to apply that learning, it stands to reason that these assessments may be better suited as formative evaluations, which is a more functional use of the evaluation tool than their traditional counterpart. Reflecting on student performance of authentic tasks helps teachers focus on improving the quality of their instruction. According to Tanner (2001), any kind of assessment is defensible only to the extent that it “actively forwards and enhances a child’s learning” (p. 25). Authentic assessments also tend to align more closely with diverse curricula, and afford students the opportunity to respond in a variety of ways. This flexibility is essential, given the diversity of learners in schools. Further, authentic assessments are generated locally by teachers or districts, not by third parties or testing companies. As a result, they are often a better reflection of what has been taught in a particular school. These assessments are generally scored manually, so even with a rubric in place, there is an opportunity for a teacher to exercise professional judgment in evaluating student responses. Results of authentic assessments can also provide valuable, timely feedback for teachers reflecting to improve the effectiveness of their practice, while

The William & Mary Educational Review

simultaneously allowing teachers to inform their instruction to meet students’ needs. Weaknesses of Authentic Assessment Method Opponents of incorporating authentic assessments of student progress in teacher evaluations claim that they are not a reliable indicator of student achievement because they lack a normative basis, validity, and reliability. Additionally, grading of these assessments is subjective, and assessments themselves may not be given with fidelity, thereby skewing any results. Finally, opponents argue that using authentic assessment is both “time and cost intensive” (Tanner, 2001, p. 28). For each content area by grade level, divisions have to define essential learning competencies, and develop assessments and rubrics to evaluate learning. Teachers then require training on how to give and evaluate the assessment, and how to analyze the results to inform their instruction. In addition, this type of work requires consensus across districts/ schools, which may be difficult to reach. In the specific case of teacher evaluation in the Virginia K-12 public schools, the authors question whether the Virginia evaluation model strikes enough of a balance between “traditional” and “authentic” measures to accurately assess whether or not teachers are performing the sociologically required function of producing educated, competent citizens. In Tanner’s (2001) words, can we “connect the classroom to life beyond the school, and advance the quality of teaching in the process” (p. 24)?

Overview of Virginia K-12 Teacher Evaluation Model Previous traditional teacher evaluation models failed to accurately measure teacher quality and effectively support teacher professional development (Marzano, 2012). Based on the research evidence (e.g. Stronge, 2006), VDOE has pointed out these problems, including failing to differentiate teachers’ performance, low validity of evaluation instruments, lack of impact, and absence of meaningful and timely feedback to teachers (VDOE, 2015). RTTT and state legislation have called for “rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation models that differentiate teacher effectiveness based on student achievement” (Marzano, 2011, p. 3). In 2015, Virginia’s Board of Education approved the revised Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers (Guidelines) (VDOE, 2015). Along with that, the Standards for the Professional Practice of Teachers (VDOE, 2011) also provides a conceptual model for effective teaching, and is used as a resource for teacher evaluation. The Code of Virginia requires that teacher evaluations be consistent with the performance standards included in the revised Guidelines (VDOE, 2015). The Guidelines document is designed to “support the continuous growth and development of each teacher by monitoring, analyzing, and applying pertinent data compiled within a system of meaningful feedback” (VDOE, 2015, p. 7). The resulting Virginia teacher evaluation model was developed as a bifurcated tool. The first part of the

Virginia Teacher Evaluation System

evaluation, standards one through six, “include[s] professional knowledge, instructional planning, instructional delivery, assessment of and for student learning, learning environment, and professionalism.” (VDOE, 2015, p. 3-4). These six standards serve as a “trait instrument designed to rate an employee’s overall performance against a pre-determined set of indicators” (Rebore, 2015, p. 211). The second part of the evaluation tool, standard seven, is required by Virginia law and seeks to connect teacher performance to measures of student academic progress. It serves as a “results-based form of evaluation, but instead of focusing on teachers comparatively rating themselves against their own growth over time in self-selected areas of need” (Rebore, 2015, p. 212), the standard uses student performance measures to quantify teacher effectiveness. The Virginia evaluation model uses multiple data sources to document teacher performance, which include both formal and informal observations, student surveys, document logs, and teachers’ self-evaluations (VDOE, 2015). The rating of the summative evaluation is determined by weighing the first six standards equally at 10% each, and giving the seventh standard (based on student performance) a weight of 40% (Marzano, 2011; VDOE, 2015). Within the 40%, about 20% of the student academic progress measure is comprised of student growth percentiles provided by VDOE, and the other 20% is recommended from one or more validated and quantitative measures (VDOE, 2015). A student growth percentile quantifies “how much progress a student has made relative to the

progress of students whose achievement was similar on previous assessments” (VDOE, n.d., para. 1). The overall evaluation of a teacher relies on a scale that has four levels: exemplary, proficient, needs improvement, and unacceptable (VDOE, 2015). The first two levels are regarded as “effective performance” and the last two are “not meeting expectations” (VDOE, 2015, p. 58). Functionalist Analysis of Virginia K-12 Teacher Evaluation Model Abundant research evidence indicates that quite a proportion of student learning gains can be statistically explained by teacher effects (e.g., Muñoz & Chang, 2007; Rivkin et al., 2005; Stronge & Tucker, 2005), and that the comparative impact on student achievement for effective teachers versus ineffective teachers is significantly different (e.g., Stronge, 2010; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2013). For example, Stronge et al. (2013) found more than 30 percentile points of difference in fifthgrade students’ achievement in reading and mathematics based on one year’s teaching and learning experience can be attributed to the quality of teaching performed by top-quartile and bottomquartile teachers. Therefore, including student academic progress in the teacher evaluation process is indispensable. Evaluations of student progress, if used correctly, could go a long way toward improving educational outcomes for students by way of increased teacher effectiveness, which is the ultimate goal of the accountability movement. From the functionalist perspective, the primary responsibility of school is to produce students who can eventually contribute to the greater good of society. Given the understanding that teaching and learning

The William & Mary Educational Review

comprise the core work of schools, and that teachers “vary greatly in their ability to promote student achievement” (Taylor & Tyler, 2012, p. 3638), we come back to the question of whether the teacher evaluation model in Virginia serves its purpose when viewed through a functionalist lens. By using student growth percentiles from standardized tests as a 40% measure of teacher effectiveness, the Virginia evaluation tool appears to serve the accountability movement well by focusing on the summative function of evaluation. While incorporating traditional measures of student achievement in Virginia’s teacher evaluation tool appears to serve the summative function, it is questionable if these traditional measures, especially weighted as they are, complement the formative function of improving teacher quality/effectiveness. This is a critical consideration given that the formative function of teacher evaluation should be to improve teacher practice in the service of student achievement. In response to this perceived deficit, some are advocating in favor of incorporating more authentic measures of student progress into the teacher evaluation process. The Virginia evaluation model shown in the revised Guidelines is certainly neither traditional nor all authentic. However, from a functionalist perspective there are some limitations to this model given its reliance on traditional/summative assessment, as outlined previously in this article. First, there is disproportionate weight given to student academic progress as a measure of teacher effectiveness. The problems with attributing student progress (or lack

thereof) to particular teachers are well documented. There is also a troubling emphasis placed on student performance in math and reading; the only supporting evidence for linking student progress to teacher effectiveness in the Guidelines document reports teacher variance based only on scores from these two subjects (VDOE, 2015). Secondly, VDOE teacher ratings highlight feedback problems, in both frequency and inattention to teacher development. The model allows for yearly summative evaluation of probationary teachers, and a threeyear cycle of evaluation for continuing contract teachers. By the time a teacher receives feedback, it will be too late to implement any kind of meaningful change in that year. By the next year, teachers will have a new group of students, and the opportunity will have passed for teachers to instructionally impact those students for whom they now have feedback. From a functionalist perspective, this missed opportunity would not be a productive use of the evaluation tool, because the results of the evaluation would not inform teachers’ instruction, which is the stated function of the evaluation tool. A final concern with the Virginia model if applying the functionalist lens is that the language used to rate teachers speaks to a disconnect in the emphasis on growth for all teachers. From the revised Guidelines: “the use of the scale enables evaluators to acknowledge effective performance (i.e., “exemplary” and “proficient”) and provides two levels of feedback for teachers not meeting expectations (i.e., “developing/needs improvement” and “unacceptable”)” (VDOE, 2015, p. 59). The current system

Virginia Teacher Evaluation System

seems skewed towards identifying unsatisfactory performance, rather than functioning as a springboard for reflection. The current evaluation tool does not convey the expectation that all teachers should be working toward continuous improvement in their practice in fulfilling their functionalist role of preparing citizens who can contribute to society. Discussion There seems to be little question that traditional and authentic assessment methods both have their place in the evaluation of teachers. As Danielson and McGreal (2000) stated, “teaching is a highly complex process that defies traditional methodology for evaluating teachers” (p. 16). In order to support the function of education, any effective teacher evaluation system must recognize the difference between the two methods, and use each appropriately (Marzano, 2012). Likewise, there is little argument that if teachers are more competent, students will learn more effectively, and grow throughout their academic careers. As Mielke and Frontier (2012) discussed, developing expertise in teachers should be the goal of a quality evaluation system, and that evaluation system should empower teachers through selfdiagnosis, skill development, and peer interaction. Tanner (2001) stated simply, “if we aim to improve evaluation, the greatest promise is to integrate both traditional and authentic assessment components as they complement one another” (p. 29). However, the two modes of assessment will not complement each other in the same way in every school. This is where the

authors think a flat 40% assessment of improved test scores makes it difficult for teachers to function effectively. As mentioned before, teachers are often caught in a trap where they must teach to certain tests, while recognizing that the tests are narrow, and do not reflect the breadth of a student’s learning or aptitude for learning. The VDOE evaluation tool does include both traditional and authentic assessment methods, but is still ignoring key components of an evaluation system that in its most effective form, as described by Danielson and McGreal (2000), will be “designed to support teacher growth through a formative process [that produces] higher levels of satisfaction and more thoughtful, reflective practice while still satisfying accountability demands” (p. 15). Conclusion After analyzing the dual accountability functions of the VDOE teacher evaluation model, the authors found it fulfills the summative function by helping administrators make summative decisions, but it has limitations in the formative function of helping teachers increase the quality of their instruction in the service of student achievement. Also, a 40% assessment based on student achievement leads teachers to design test-driven curricula neglecting students’ well-rounded development. Within the context of sociology, teacher evaluation is socially constructed and it is driven by social norms and expectations. Every society expects to develop competent citizens through the effective education system. However, the limitation in the functions of teacher evaluation would negatively affect teaching and learning in schools, which is the core of educational

The William & Mary Educational Review

systems. Analyzing the functions of teacher evaluation models through the lens of functionalism helped answer the question regarding how well the VDOE model serves the dual accountability functions. An analysis of the pros and cons of the teacher evaluation model’s References Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2012). Beyond the scoreboard. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 26-30. Bruce, S. (1999). Sociology: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? Should they be? The use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice. Retrieved from: http://www .annenberginstitute.org/pdf/ valueAddedReport.pdf. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. David, J. L. (2011). What students need to learn: Research says…high-stakes testing narrows the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 78-80. Martindale, D. (1965). Functionalism in the social sciences: The strength and limits of functionalism in anthropology, economics, political science, and sociology. Philadelphia, PA: American Academy of Political and Social Science. Marzano, R. J. (2011). Evaluation model alignment to Virginia teaching standards. Retrieved from http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/ Marzano_Alignment_to_Virginia_Teaching_ Standards.pdf Marzano, R. J. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14-19. Mielke, P., & Frontier, T. (2012). Keeping improvement in mind. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 10-13. Muñoz, M. A., & Chang, F. C. (2007). The elusive relationship between teacher characteristics and student academic growth: A longitudinal multilevel model for change. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3-4), 147-164. Popham, J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15. ProCon.org. (2015, April 3). Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America? Retrieved from http:// standardizedtests.procon.org/#background

dual functions leads the authors to believe the VDOE should revise the model to focus more on the formative function, allowing the evaluation tool to serve its intended function of improving teachers’ instructional capabilities in the service of students and society. Rebore, R. W. (2015). Human resources administration in education: A management approach (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. Sawchuk, S. (2015, September). Teacher evaluation: An issue overview. Education Week, 35(3). Stronge, J. H. (2010). Effective teachers=Student achievement: What the research says. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Stronge, J.H. & Tucker, P.D. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339-355. Tanner, D. (2001). Authentic assessment: A solution, or part of the problem? The High School Journal, 85(1), 24-29. Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102, 3628-3651. doi:10.1257/aer.102.7.3628 Toch, T. (2008). Fixing teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 32-37. U.S. Department of Education. (2009, November). Race to the Top program executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ programs/racetothetop/executive-summary. pdf Valli, L., Croninger, R. G., & Walters, K. (2007). Who (else) is the teacher? Cautionary notes on teacher accountability systems. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 635-662. doi: 10.1086/518492 Virginia Department of Education. (2011). Standards for the Professional Practice of Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/ teaching/regulations/uniform_performance_ stds_2011.pdf Virginia Department of Education. (2015). Guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/ performance_evaluation/guidelines_ups_eval_ criteria_teachers.pdf

Virginia Teacher Evaluation System

Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Student Whitaker, I. (1965). The nature and value of growth percentiles. Retrieved from http:// functionalism in sociology. In D. Martindale www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/scoring/ (Ed.), Functionalism in the social sciences: the student_growth_percentiles/index.shtml strength and limits of functionalism in anthropology, economics, political science, and sociology (pp. 127143). Philadelphia, PA: American Academy of Political and Social Science.

About the Authors Brendan Bourdage is a doctoral student in the Educational Policy, Planning & Leadership Higher Education program at The College of William & Mary. His research interests include higher education access for underrepresented/disadvantaged students, and the balance of athletics and academics in higher education. Kelly Erickson is a doctoral student in the Curriculum Leadership program at the College of William and Mary. She is also pursuing a leadership endorsement. Her goal is to be a practitioner able to apply research to resolve problems of practice in reading instruction. Yi Hua is a doctoral candidate in the Educational Policy, Planning & Leadership K-12 program at The College of William & Mary. Her research interests include teacher evaluation, education assessment and parental involvement.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Bridging the Gap: Organizational Factors and Their Impact on the Postsecondary Enrollment of English Language Learners Lee D. Flood

A priority goal of the United States Department of Education in 2015 was raising completion rates of postsecondary education by implementing policies and programs to increase college access, promote seamless transitions from secondary to postsecondary education, and ensure equitable educational opportunities for all students (United States Department of Education, 2014a; 2014b). Equitable access is dependent on marginalized groups attaining postsecondary enrollment. That simple notion is the point of departure for this study. The English Language Learner (ELL) population in the United States has grown rapidly. By 2025, approximately one out of every four students in public schools will come from a home where a language other than English is spoken (Goldenberg, 2006). ELLs consistently performed below their English-speaking peers on measures of academic achievement despite federal legislation, like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001. This legislation was specifically aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning for all students, including ELLs (Abedi, 2008; Goldenberg, 2006).

Schools have struggled to create policies that effectively address the rising population of ELL students. Further complicating the issue was the fact that ELLs are an extremely diverse group including a variety of cultures, parent’s educational experiences, and socioeconomic backgrounds. ELLs speak hundreds of languages from around the globe and have been in the United States for varying amounts of time (American Youth Policy Forum, 2009). An in-depth analysis focused solely on organizational factors and their influence on ELL’s postsecondary enrollment (PSE) was missing in the literature. Comparisons between ELL and non-ELL groups examining PSE were present (Batalova, Flores & Fix, 2012; Cromley & Kanno, 2012; Kim, 2011), but do not answer what factors within this subgroup of students contributed to PSE. Student-level factors have been analyzed at length, but these factors are out of the control of the schools that ELLs attend (Cromley & Kanno, 2012). Therefore, an investigation into organizationallevel factors including school-parent communication, teacher’s expectations

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

(Chapman, 1981; Hanson & Litten, 1982; Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Jackson, 1986; Kotler & Fox, 1985). Sociological orientations move away from the individual and concern themselves with student aspirations as they relate to status attainment in regards to college choice (Paulsen, 1990). This study utilized the psychological framework of Hossler and Gallagher (1987) to provide a theoretical overlay. The researchers proposed a three-phase model that has become ubiquitous in the study of college choice. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) noted that, “At each phase of the student college choice process, individuals and organizational factors interact to produce outcomes” (p. 208) that affect the college choice process. Their three-phase model provided a way Review of the Literature to place and classify events in a linear Theoretical Framework and temporally sequenced order that ultimately led individuals to the decision The majority of studies on to enroll or not enroll into college. Their college choice have been framed through one of three lenses: economical, model breaks the college choice process into three distinct phases that included psychological, or sociological (Hossler predisposition, search, and choice. & Palmer, 2008; Paulsen, 1990). The predisposition phase Economical perspectives frame college accounted for student characteristics choice as the end result of a rational that influence students’ inclination to process that weighs costs, benefits, enroll or not enroll into a postsecondary and various market forces (Hossler institution. The predisposition & Palmer, 2008; Paulsen & St. John, phase included student background 2002). Psychological frameworks posit information like socioeconomic status, the student at the center and examine race, gender, and student ability. In the stages they progress through as they navigate the college choice process addition to individual factors, the predisposition phase also took school/ (Hossler & Palmer, 2008). A variety of multi-stage, college choice models have college characteristics, significant others, been proposed to detail the psychological and educational activities into account. For the purpose of this particular study, frameworks that individuals progress it is important to note that although through in choosing to attend or not individual factors related to background, attend a postsecondary institution attitudes, and significant others tended of students, and college preparatory opportunities was pertinent. The purpose of this study was to analyze organizational factors that contribute to postsecondary enrollment among ELL students. This study addressed the following three research questions: • Do organizational factors related to school-parent communication contribute to PSE among ELL students? • Do organizational factors related to high expectations from teachers contribute to PSE among ELL students? • Do organizational factors related to college preparatory opportunities contribute to PSE among ELL students?

40 The William & Mary Educational Review

to have the strongest correlation with student college choice, organizational factors interacted with these individual factors. The search phase refers to the time when potential matriculants begin seeking out more information on their options for postsecondary enrollment. During the search phase, students begin to interact with the postsecondary institutions that they are considering. The search phase is composed of students’ preliminary college values informing their search activities. In turn, their search activities are influenced by their interaction with potential colleges and universities. These processes help students to create a set of possible postsecondary institution choices or to choose paths that do not include postsecondary enrollment. The final phase of the college choice process is choice. In this phase, the student’s choice set interacts with institutional courtship activities that drive the student to make a choice of the institution that they will attend. Financial aid, institutional cost, institutional quality, and communication with potential institutions are key components that ultimately inform a student to choose a particular institution. Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) framework was specifically chosen for this study because of the connection it makes between background characteristics, organizational factors, and the decision of the student to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Through this framework, postsecondary enrollment can be seen as the cumulative effect of a multitude of factors rather than a singular decision in time. Furthermore, the framework contains the underlying

assumption within this research that an increase of organizational factors that positively influence PSE will ultimately positively influence a student’s decision to attend a postsecondary institution. English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment “A small but growing body of studies focusing specifically on ELLs’ access to and attainment in college suggests the immense challenges that these students encounter if they want to advance to PSE” (Cromley & Kanno, 2012, p. 90). Further investigation was necessary to address barriers, examine current policies, and reevaluate the way the education system approaches ELLs when it comes to postsecondary enrollment due to the limited amount of literature regarding ELLs and PSE. There has been no unified approach on how to address that discrepancy, although there seems to be recognition that ELLs lag behind their non-ELL counterparts (American Youth Policy Forum, 2009). The available research identified student-level factors such as socioeconomic background, GPA, language proficiency, academic achievement, and family capital as major contributors to PSE for ELLs (Flores, Batalova & Fix, 2012; Hein, Sambolt, & Smerdon, 2013; Kanno & Cromley, 2013; Kim, 2011). However, in examining the literature, a number of factors at the organizational level, that is within the school’s sphere of influence, including school-parent communication, high expectations of students by teachers, and college preparatory opportunities emerged as possible factors that warranted investigation.

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

School-Parent Communication Hossler and Gallagher (1987) detailed the importance that parents play in students’ decision to enroll in college. The influence of parents on the college choice process was described in many ways, including parent educational attainment, income, ability to deliver information, support, encouragement, and expectations. However, there has not been an investigation into the importance of school-parent communication on the PSE of ELLs. Although the supposition that a parent of an ELL student would be better in many of their roles if they communicated regularly with the school and were informed about the progress of their student seems apparent, Hossler and Gallagher (1987) did not specifically address whether any differences existed within specific student populations. This study was a vehicle to investigate the role of the parent within the context of the ELL student population as it related to PSE. ELL authors have noted that parent involvement is integral to longterm results on student performance (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004). Lucas (2000) identified schools that communicated with parents as supporting ELL students in actualizing PSE. Additionally, highperforming schools utilized a variety of methods to regularly communicate with the parents of their students (August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996). However, teachers regularly reported difficulty in communicating with ELL students’ parents (Callahan, Gandara, MaxwellJolly & Rumberger, 2003). In many cases, the ELL teacher, ELL paraprofessional, or administrator were the only points of communication for the parents of ELL

students (Brooks, Adams, & MoritaMullaney, 2010). Teachers reported a general lack of communication with the parents of ELL students despite overwhelming evidence and support for increased school-parent communication when dealing with the parents of ELL students (American Youth Policy Forum, 2009; August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996; Center for Collaborative Education, 2011; Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004). August and Hakuta (1998) identified finding new ways to communicate and engage the parents of ELL students as an important direction for future research. High Expectations Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper (1999) detailed the influence of others as a large contributor to educational aspirations and prioritized the importance of parental influence. In fact, they noted that, “Parents’ expectations and encouragement have the greatest effect on the predisposition stage of the college decision-making process” (Hossler et al., 1999, pg. 280). Hossler et al. also noted a decline in parental expectations for students from the 9th grade to the 12th grade by parents with low incomes, low educational attainment, and for students with poor GPAs. Additionally, students who earn higher grades might be more likely to receive individualized attention regarding college choice leading to an ongoing dialogue, acquiring information, and, in turn, the development of confidence to pursue PSE. However, Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) framework does not directly address how teacher expectations can affect a student’s decision to enroll in college. Teachers have a unique position in their students’ lives where they not

42 The William & Mary Educational Review

only provide information, but also inspire and motivate students to achieve goals. High performing schools consistently demonstrated having high expectations for students in regards to outcomes (August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996; Williams, Hakuta, Haertel, Kirst, & Levine, 2007). In particular, researchers discovered that high expectations of teachers improved ELL achievement. Characteristics of high expectations include challenging curriculum, alignment with the standards, utilizing higher order thinking skills, and student autonomy/responsibility. The idea of challenging preconceived notions of learning limitations due to language was present in schools that maintained high expectations for students regardless of their language background (Callahan, 2005; Center for Collaborative Education, 2011). However, the reality of teachers having high expectations for ELL students does not appear to be as consistent in practice. Harklau (2000) found that institutional labeling of ELLs marginalized students academically and led to lowered teacher expectations. Lowered teacher expectations manifested themselves in academic underachievement by ELLs (Callahan, 2005). There appears to be a disconnect between what is best for ELL students in regards to teacher expectations and what actually occurs. Furthermore, examining college access becomes particularly problematic due to the disadvantages inherent in this vicious cycle of low expectation and low achievement faced by ELLs (Hein et al., 2013). Although this study is particularly interested in exploring the

relationship between expectations of teachers on the PSE of ELL students, readers should be wary of making a causal link between the two. Strict interpretation should take into account that expectations could be a result of students’ abilities. For example, high expectations might be a result of a student’s advanced abilities that make them more likely to enroll in college than their lower ability peers. College Preparatory Opportunities Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identified college preparatory opportunities as an essential component of the predisposition phase. They theorized that particular educational activities created a college-going disposition for students. The most prominent “interactive effect between individuals and high schools is range of pre-college school experiences” (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987, p. 211). “Poverty and access to collegeready academic opportunities are among the most influential factors determining one’s chances to attend college” (Flores et al., 2012, pg. 2). In fact, participation in college preparatory opportunities has been positively correlated with future success. The umbrella of college preparatory opportunities included courses that resulted in college credit, but primarily focused on developing skills that are essential in easing the transition from high school to postsecondary education (Hein et al., 2013). College preparatory opportunities included access to a rigorous high school curriculum, programs like Upward Bound or Gear Up, AP classes, and dualcredit courses (Center for Collaborative Education, 2011; Flores et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2013).

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

Despite studies linking access to college preparatory opportunities to PSE, ELL students as a whole do not have the same access to college preparatory opportunities as their non-ELL peers. The ELL designation and subsequent placement in ESL classes actually serve to deny ELL students access to college preparatory opportunities (Cromley & Kanno, 2012). ELL students are more likely to be placed in classes that do not prepare them for postsecondary opportunities (Callahan, 2005). Summary ELL students were seemingly at a disadvantage when it came to organizational factors supporting PSE when compared to their non-ELL counterparts. The literature detailed a marked difference between what best practices are and what was actually occurring in regards to ELL students. While the difference in PSE between ELL students and non-ELL students has been thoroughly investigated, an analysis into organizational factors and their effects within the ELL population was timely. Determining whether organizational factors played a role in ELL students’ PSE and the extent of that role was a logical extension of previous research. An analysis would detail what organizational factors encouraged/discouraged PSE among ELL students. The researcher hopes that findings will impact practice, inform policy decisions, and aid district- and school-level practitioners in developing an appropriate organizational approach to increase PSE among ELL students.

Methodology

Data This study utilized data from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002). ELS:2002 was the fourth study in a series meant to track and detail the progress of American students from secondary school to postsecondary work or education. Additionally, the survey data in ELS:2002 was collected to assist in the evaluation and development of policy at levels ranging from the federal government down to locally-controlled, school-level decision makers over the course of a ten year period beginning in 2002 and ending in 2012 (National Center for Educational Statistics , 2002). The use of national data provided a large sample for analysis and improved the ability to generalize results to a population. The dependent variable for this study (F3ILEVEL) was dichotomous and based upon whether a student had ever attended a postsecondary institution. Limitations included the lack of postsecondary data. However, this study was specifically aimed at determining factors that influenced PSE and did not aim to analyze data after PSE. A number of independent variables were analyzed. The independent variables were grouped into one of three categories dependent on the organizational factor that they addressed. The three organizational factors were (a) School-Parent Communication, (b) High Expectations, and (c) College Preparatory Opportunities. A complete list of variables can be found in the appendix. The ELS:2002 variable BYSTLANG, “Whether English is student’s native language?”, was used

The William & Mary Educational Review

Table 1 Student Postsecondary Enrollment Choices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Descriptive Statistics Frequency 4-Year College or University 868 2-Year College 750 Less than 2 Years 87 Did Not Enroll in 2 Year or 4 Year Institution 866 Total 2571

Percent 33.8 29.2 3.4 33.7 100.0

Table 2 Student Sex Male Female Total

Frequency 1263 1308 2571

Percent 49.1 50.9 100.0

Frequency 22 985 112 573 542 79 258 2571

Percent 0.9 38.3 4.4 22.3 21.1 3.1 1.0 100.0

Table 3 Student Race/Ethnicity - Composite Amer. Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic Asian, Hawaii/Pac. Islander, non-Hispanic Black or African American, non-Hispanic Hispanic, no race specified Hispanic, race specified More than one race, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Total to create the sample. Any student that did not indicate English as their native language was classified as ELL for the purpose of the study. The final sample size of students indicating that English was not their native language was 2,571 students. Demographic information can be found in Tables 1-3. Analytical Approach Logistic regression was chosen as the analytical approach for this study.

Logistic regression has all but replaced ordinary least squares regression when it comes to the analysis of data using a dichotomous dependent variable. More importantly for my analysis, logistic regression describes the effects of the independent variables on the outcome variable in probability terms (Lewis-Beck, 2000). The practical application of how much effect a particular independent variable has on the outcome variable is

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

not only useful in interpretation, but accessible to a more broad audience consisting of policymakers, administrators, parents, students, and scholars. Logistic regression does not face the many problems that confront ordinary regression including nonnormality, nonlinearity, heteroskedasticity, and nonsense prediction (Lewis-Beck, 2000). However, violating the assumptions that accompany logistic regression can lead to â&#x20AC;&#x153;biased coefficients, inefficient estimates, or invalid statistical inferencesâ&#x20AC;? (Menard, 2002, pg. 67). The major assumption that must be checked for logistic regression is that of multicollinearity. Testing for multicollinearity was done by inspecting the variation inflation factor (VIF) of independent variables against a continuous, dependent variable using linear regression. There were no issues with multicollinearity. Aggregated Variables For the purpose of the study, multiple variables were aggregated and used to analyze the relationship of a category with the dichotomous variable. This technique was chosen because it enabled the researcher to determine if any influence of a particular organizational factor had an impact on the PSE of ELL students. For example, the variables that determined if participation in college preparatory opportunities had an effect on ELLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s PSE were an aggregate total of participation in Upward Bound, participation in Gear Up, and participation in a college preparation program for the disadvantaged. If a student participated in one of these programs, they were able to be identified

as such through the use of an aggregated categorical measure. The same procedure was applied to the School-Parent Communication category. If a parent reported being contacted by the school for one of the variables that comprised the category, they were identified as having the benefit of School-Parent Communication. This technique allowed analysis to focus on the outcome if at least one measure was reported. Benefits of this technique included ease of interpretation by using an aggregated variable as an indicator for a variable and allowed analysis to be straightforward when faced with missing values. Dummy Variables Dummy variables were created for ease of statistical interpretation and to allow nominal categories to be used as independent variables in logistic regression. When data was missing, a dummy variable for missing data was created for each category to maintain sample size. Missing data dummy variables were not included in the results or graphs as interpretation is nearly impossible. Findings Student-Level Factors Several student-level factors were significantly related to the odds of postsecondary enrollment among ELLs. Across all models, females were significantly more likely to enroll (p < .01) than their male counterparts. Additionally, Hispanic (race-specified) ELL students were significantly less likely than their Caucasian ELL counterparts to achieve PSE. Furthermore, parent influence had multiple factors that were statistically significant across various

The William & Mary Educational Review

models including mother’s graduation from two-year college, father’s graduation from college, and father’s attainment of any advanced degree. The analysis using blockentry logistic regression demonstrated that some organizational factors were significantly related to the odds of PSE in ELLs even after accounting for sex, race, family income, and parent educational attainment. Those results are outlined in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th model in Table 4. Teacher Expectations The expectation levels of both math and English teachers had statistically significant relationships to PSE. Students whose English teachers expected them to graduate from college were between 48% and 53% more likely to achieve PSE than students who were only expected to graduate from high school or receive a GED. Students whose math teachers expected them to obtain a master’s degrees saw the likelihood of PSE increase to between 56% and 66% as compared to students whose math teachers expected them to graduate from high school or receive their GED. College Preparatory Opportunities Participation in at least one college preparatory opportunity (Upward Bound, Gear Up, or a college preparatory program for disadvantaged students) did not have a statistically significant effect on PSE. The odds ratio for PSE compared to students who did not participate in a college preparatory opportunity ranged between 1.097 and 1.105. Although the odds ratios were greater than 1, indicating an increased likelihood of obtaining PSE compared to the reference group, these findings were not statistically significant.

School–Parent Communication Students whose parents were contacted by the school at least once were 22.8% more likely to enroll in a postsecondary institution than their peers whose parents did not report any school-initiated communication. Similarly to college preparatory opportunities, the odds ratio was greater than 1, but was not statistically significant. Discussion The logistic regression analysis helps to clarify the impact that organizational factors have on English language learners. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) identified the significant others as those individuals that informed, motivated, and influenced students on their decision to attend college. However, their work assumed that students have significant others outside of the school that are familiar or engaged with their decision to attend a postsecondary institution. Their framework does not take into account many of the factors that ELL students encounter including lack of parental involvement with the school, cultural differences, and other mitigating factors. This analysis rectified that by focusing solely on the ELL subset and investigating if organizational factors influenced PSE and to what extent. The analysis discovered statistically significant predictors of PSE within organizationallevel factors. Other factors, although not statistically significant, demonstrated a positive relationship between their occurrence and PSE among ELL students. Teacher Expectations Matter The organizational factor that mattered the most in influencing ELL

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

Table 4 Odds Ratios for Postsecondary Enrollment Among English Language Learners Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Student-level factors Female Male (reference) American Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic (No race specified) Hispanic (race specified) More than One Race White, non-Hispanic (reference) Total Family Income Quartile 1 Total Family Income Quartile 2 Total Family Income Quartile 4 Total Family Income Quartile 3 (reference) Mother's Highest Level of Education Did Not Finish High School Attended 2-Year School, No Degree Graduated From 2-Year School Attended College, No 4-Year Degree Graduated From College Completed Master's Degree or Equivalent Completed PhD, MD, Other Advanced Degree Graduated From High School or GED (reference) Father's Highest Level of Education Did Not Finish High School Attended 2-Year School, No Degree Graduated From 2-Year School Attended College, No 4-Year Degree Graduated From College Completed Master's Degree or Equivalent Completed PhD, MD, Other Advanced Degree Graduated From High School or GED (reference) High Expectations (English Teacher Expectations of Student) Don't Know Less Than High School Graduation Attend or Complete 2 Year College/School Attend College, 4-Year Degree Incomplete Graduate From College Obtain Master's Degree or Equivalent Obtain PhD, MD, Other Advanced Degree High School Graduation or GED Only (reference) High Expectations (Math Teacher Expectations of Student) Don't Know Less Than High School Graduation Attend or Complete 2 Year College/School Attend College, 4-Year Degree Incomplete Graduate From College Obtain Master's Degree or Equivalent Obtain PhD, MD, Other Advanced Degree High School Graduation or GED Only (reference) College Preparatory Opportunities Participated In At Least One College Prep Opportunity Did Not Participate In College Prep Opportunity (reference) School-Parent Communication School Communicated With Parent At Least Once

Student

Parent's Education

High Expectations

College Prep Opportunities

Model 5 School-Parent Communication

1.661***

1.667***

1.659***

1.654***

1.65***

0.481 1.191 0.915 0.712** 0.581*** 0.868*

0.489 1.274 0.874 0.845 0.653** 0.875

0.509 1.258 0.932 0.853 0.666** 0.869

0.517 1.198 0.977 0.881 0.674** 0.771

0.51 1.203 0.978 0.872 0.668** 0.773

0.781** 0.992 1.330**

0.905 1.097 1.095

0.893 1.105 1.085

0.882 1.064 1.088

0.879 1.063 1.096

0.803* 1.302 1.543** 1.256 1.009 1.606* 1.101

0.796* 1.314 1.546** 1.26 1.003 1.612* 1.078

0.771** 1.228 1.491* 1.202 0.92 1.496 1.06

0.775** 1.229 1.473* 1.205 0.918 1.502 1.046

1.115 1.418* 1.375 1.096 1.368** 2.087*** 1.815**

1.131 1.416* 1.342 1.071 1.344* 1.991** 1.759**

1.164 1.344 1.38 1.1 1.353* 1.857** 1.785**

1.16 1.34 1.376 1.101 1.343* 1.838** 1.769**

1.28 0.89 1.077 1.171 1.54** 1.3 1.47

1.245 0.894 1.078 1.213 1.48** 1.267 1.501

1.252 0.903 1.08 1.229 1.483** 1.265 1.493

1.003 1.227 1.364* 1.017 1.316* 1.665** 0.863

1.026 1.358 1.323 1.004 1.28 1.562* 0.812

1.025 1.359 1.324 1.014 1.285 1.585** 0.814

1.097

1.105

1.228

School Did Not Communicate With Parent (reference) Number of Cases in Analysis: 2,571 Nagelkerke R2 -2 log likelihood ***p<.001

**p<.05

*p<.10

0.054

0.08

0.094

0.141

0.142

3184.093

3133.167

3104.033

3009.577

3007.862

The William & Mary Educational Review

PSE was teachers having high expectations of the student. This finding supported previous work that suggested high expectations were related to positive outcomes (August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996; Callahan, 2005; Tung et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2007). The likelihood of an ELL student enrolling in a postsecondary institution was statistically significant (p<.05) when the English teacher expected the student to graduate from college across all models when compared to an expectation of only completing high school or obtaining a GED. However, all students for whom the English teacher had an expectation above high school graduation or GED had odds ratios above 1. The expectation of success appears to have manifested itself in PSE by these students. Math teachers had similar results when they expected their students to obtain masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees. The increased expectation linked to significance might be explained by the mitigation of language as an obstacle that the universal nature of math provides. Students that were expected to obtain a masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree by their teacher were between 56% and 66% more likely to enroll in college than their counterparts that were only expected to graduate from high school or obtain a GED. Students that had teacher expectations beyond high school graduation all had odds-ratios greater than 1 except for students expected to obtain a PhD or other advanced degree. The results indicate that a school that fosters a culture of high expectations for all students encourages students to pursue PSE upon graduation. Students perform up to the expectations that are placed upon them. Schools that view

ELL students as unable, unprepared, or at a disadvantage are doing a disservice to the students that they serve. Interestingly enough, students that were expected to pursue PSE by an English teacher all demonstrated odds-ratios above 1. Despite potential language concerns, the mere expectation of PSE was associated with increased PSE compared to students only expected to graduate from high school or obtain their GED. Administrators would be well served to instill core principles and cultural norms that address maintaining high expectations of all students. Recommendations include incorporation of ELL students into immersion learning experiences and not relying on self-contained classrooms to handle all instruction. Additionally, ELL students should be exposed to a rigorous curriculum outside of their language acquisition classes. Furthermore, the possibility that teachers are providing integral information about PSE to students is very real. Normally parents are directly involved in information acquisition, motivation, and advice when it comes to college choice. However, if parents are not familiar with the process or disconnected by their lack of language skills, teachers might act as the buffer for ELL students. Parents who attended college in other countries might still be unfamiliar and intimidated about their role in and navigating the unchartered territory of the college choice process. Teachers with high expectations of students are more likely to communicate the possibilities that PSE bring and help guide students through the process when parents might not be equipped to do so.

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

School-Parent Communication Might Matter While school-parent communication was not statistically significant, students whose parents reported being contacted by the school at least once were 22.8% more likely to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Hossler et al. (1999) stated that parents were among the most important individuals in a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision to pursue PSE. However, parents of ELL students are less inclined to participate in school activities and be actively involved in their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schooling. School-initiated communication is imperative to connect ELL parents with information and updates relevant to their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education. Schools should consider finding unique ways to engage that particular demographic beyond traditional PTOs, parent-teacher conferences, and outreach events. The effect on PSE is sizable and should factor into the decision to dedicate resources to engaging the families of ELL students in meaningful ways. The impact that parents have on student choices including PSE is also sizable and should be as informed as possible. College Prep Opportunities Might Not Matter As Currently Constituted Participation in a college preparatory opportunity mattered the least of the three organizational factors offered. Any interpretation should be aware that there were a relatively small number of ELL students who participated in any of the programs. Limited participation might be due to the lack of appeal of traditional college preparatory opportunities to the ELL student population. Therefore, students do not participate in the offerings.

Language is a major consideration to take into account when trying to get students involved in such programs. Much like the unique challenges that parents of ELL students present to the school and its attempts to involve them, so might ELL students present to these types of programs. Administrators, program directors, and practitioners need to carefully target and address the needs of ELL students including diverse language challenges, cultural differences, lack of parental encouragement, and first generation issues. Limitations Every study has limitations and this particular study is no different. In particular, the use of ELS:2002, a large national dataset, presented unique challenges that must be addressed. The study was limited by missing values for certain variables. As a result, aggregated variables were used to identify if at least one occurrence of a factor had occurred for school-parent communication and college preparatory opportunities. This deliberate choice demonstrated if a factor was present for a student, but did not allow for any analysis regarding the frequency of those particular variables. The study measured if the factor was present or not and did not take the quantity of occurrences into consideration. Similarly, there was no indication of the quality of the variables contained within the dataset. The analysis simply showed that a variable had occurred or not occurred. Variables that most closely measured or appeared relevant served as proxies for constructs, but did not address the depth of the experience for students.

50 The William & Mary Educational Review

Teacher expectations and school-parent communication variables were only available for the base year, so analysis for these variables is limited to the student’s 10th grade year. The two years leading up to a student’s decision to apply and ultimately enroll in college are not factored into the analysis. Expectations change and communication could increase or decrease over the course of the two years from 10th grade to 12th grade, but was not represented in the data. This study did not account for individual student’s abilities. Independent variables might be correlated to ability, and further research should control for aptitude when investigating the relationship between organizational factors and postsecondary enrollment. Lastly, the analysis could not measure the influence of peer effect on postsecondary enrollment. Hossler and Gallagher (1987) stated that peers have a profound influence during the predisposition phase, but the variables within the dataset did not contain proxies to account for the influence of peers. Suggestions School leaders should be cognizant of how their operations, programs, and choices affect specific populations that they serve. The research presented addressed the three research questions and provided insight into how organizational factors affect the ELL population. In particular, the research supported schools creating a culture of high expectations within their staff for all students. In line with Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) framework, teachers have a significant impact on the college enrollment decision of their students, but their relationships might be even more important for ELL students.

These students may lack input from other sources of information including parents, family members, and peers that were identified as being integral in the college choice process as well (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Hossler et al., 1999). Even if parents had attended college in their native countries, there is no guarantee they have the familiarity with and insight to successfully help their ELL student to navigate the college choice process. Therefore, high expectations from teachers in regards to students’ abilities might also measure teacher involvement, help, and motivation to engage in PSE. A school culture or organizational expectation that high expectations be expressed would surely help foster such relationships. Other factors, although nonsignificant, were positively associated with PSE in ELL students. Schools need to be aware that communicating and engaging the parents of ELL students is more difficult than with the parents of non-ELL students. Therefore, new and creative approaches should be attempted. In particular, engaging ELL students in a way that is safe and language supported would increase the likelihood of starting a meaningful dialogue. College preparatory opportunities that specifically cater to the ELL population might be a starting point to see if these types of interventions have the desired effects. Although traditional college preparatory programs typically address firstgeneration students, they do not address the language and cultural barriers that ELL students carry with them. As the ELL population rises in this country, a program that accounts for language in addition to first-generation college status

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

might be a successful avenue to address the ELL population. Future Research Suggestions for future research involve using other national databases to analyze whether the same type of trends exist. Additionally, a multilevel analysis

that investigates school- and district-level trends would be useful to determine the breadth and consistency of the findings. Lastly, a program evaluation of specific college preparatory programs and their impact on ELL PSE would be key to see if the ELL population is well-served under the current models in place.

References

Hanson, K., & Litten, L. (1982). Mapping the road to academia: A review of research on women, men, and the college selection process. In P. Perun (Ed.), The undergraduate woman: Issues in education. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35-67. Hein, V., Sambolt, M., & Smerdon, B. (2013). Predictors of postsecondary success. Washington, DC: College and Career Readiness and Success Center. Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207-221. Hossler, D., & Palmer, M. (2008). Why understand research on college choice. In National Association for College Admission Counseling (Eds.), Fundamentals of college admissions counseling (2nd ed.) (pp. 42-53). Retrieved from www. researchgate.net/publication/267941859_ Chapter_3_Why_Understand_Research_on_ College_Choice Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press. Jackson, G. A. (1986). Workable, comprehensive models of college choice [Technical report]. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED275224 Kim, J. (2011). Relationships among and between ELL status, demographic characteristics, enrollment history, and school persistence. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. (1985). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lewis-Beck, M. (2000) Series editor’s introduction. In F. C. Fampel (Ed.), Logistic regression: A primer (pp.v-vi). SAGE University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 9(132). Lucas, T. (2000). Facilitating the transitions of secondary English language learners: Priorities for principals. NAASP Bulletin, 84(619), 2-16.

Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 17-31. American Youth Policy Forum. (2009). Moving English language learners to college- and career-readiness [Issue brief]. Retrieved from American Youth Policy Forum website: www. aypf.org/documents/ELLIssueBrief.pdf August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating languageminority children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. August, D., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Attributes of effective programs and classrooms serving English language learners. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive learning communities for ELL students: Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Educational Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 145-151. Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328. Callahan, R., Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Rumberger, R. (2004). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1-54. Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 490-505. Cromley, J., & Kanno, Y. (2013). English language learners’ access to and attainment in postsecondary education. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 89-121. Flores, S. M., Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2012). The educational trajectories of English language learners in Texas. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English-learners: What the research tells us. Education Week, 25(43), 34-36.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Menard, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression analysis. SAGE University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. 7(106). National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ els2002/index.asp Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004). English language learner (ELL) programs at the secondary level in relation to student performance (Technical report). Portland, OR: Author. Paulsen, M. B. (1990). College choice: Understanding student enrollment behavior (Report No. 6). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Paulsen, M. B., & St John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 189-236.

Tung, R., Diez, V., Gagnon, L., Uriarte, M., Stazesky, P., de los Reyes, E., & Bolomey, A. (2011). Learning from consistently high performing and improving schools for English language learners in Boston public schools (Technical report). Washington, DC: Center for Collaborative Education. United States Department of Education. (2014a). Increase college degree attainment in America (Technical report). Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/goals. html United States Department of Education. (2014b). The departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FY 2014-15 priority performance goals (Technical report). Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/goals. html Williams, T., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., Kirst, M., & Levine, J. (2007). Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A follow-up analysis, based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and EL students [Technical report]. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

About the Author Lee D. Flood is a Graff Scholar and Graduate Research Assistant in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at The University of Tennessee. Leeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current research interests include social justice leadership in international contexts, organizational factors that affect educational outcomes for English language learners, and critical quantitative inquiry using large datasets. Before pursuing his doctorate, Lee was a high school head football coach and teacher in Center, Colorado.

English Language Learners and Postsecondary Enrollment

Appendix Variable Codes and Descriptions Dependent Variable F3ILEVEL Level of attended postsecondary institution Independent Variables [Background] BYSTLANG Whether English is student’s native language - composite BYSEX Sex - composite BYRACE Student’s race/ethnicity - composite BYINCOME Total family income from all sources 2001 - composite MOTHERSED Mother’s highest level of education - composite FATHERSED Father’s highest level of education - composite [School Parent Communication] BYP52A School contacted parent about poor performance BYP52B School contacted parent about school program for year BYP52C School contacted parent about plans after high school BYP52D School contacted parent about course selection BYP52E School contacted parent about poor attendance BYP52F School contacted parent about problem behavior BYP52G School contacted parent about positive/good behavior BYP52H School contacted parent about fundraising/volunteer work BYP52I School contacted parent about helping with homework BYP52J School contacted parent to obtain information for records [High Expectations] BYTE20 How far teacher expects student to get in school (English) BYTM20 How far teacher expects student to get in school (math) [College Prep] F1S23 Participated in college preparation program for disadvantaged F1RAPIB Total AP/IB courses High School Transcript F1RAPIBP Total AP/IB Courses – categorical F1S24B Highest grade of participation in Upward Bound F1S24BA Participated in Upward Bound in 9th grade F1S24BB Participated in Upward Bound in 10th grade F1S24BC Participated in Upward Bound in 11th grade F1S24BD Participated in Upward Bound in 12th grade F1S24BE Did not participate in Upward Bound F1S24C Highest grade of participation in Gear Up or other program F1S24CA Participated in Gear Up/other similar program in 9th grade F1S24CB Participated in Gear Up/other similar program in 10th grade F1S24CC Participated in Gear Up/other similar program in 11th grade F1S24CD Participated in Gear Up/other similar program in 12th grade F1S24CE Did not participate in Gear Up/other similar program

The William & Mary Educational Review

The Evolving Role of Instructional Coaches in U.S. Policy Contexts Sarah Galey

Abstract In recent years, instructional coaching has emerged as an important policy lever for districts to improve instructional practice. Yet, there is little conceptual agreement in educational research on the role of instructional coaches in the current policy environment. This article attempts to address this gap in the literature by synthesizing existing policy research on instructional coaching and providing a conceptual framework for understanding the multiple roles of instructional coaches. I begin with a discussion of the policy roots of instructional coaching in U.S. contexts before turning to key themes in the current policy literature on instructional coaching. I find that coaches play at least three important roles in education policy implementation: a cognitive role, an organizational role, and a reform role. I discuss these three themes before concluding with a discussion of some of the gaps in the literature and directions for future research. Keywords: instructional coaching, standards-based policy, teacher leadership, educational policy, policy implementation, professional development

Standards-based state and federal reform efforts, like No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (RTTT) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have emphasized the need for teacher policy learning around academic standards. In relation to the increased demands that federal initiatives have put on local school districts to improve teacher practice, policymakers continue to revamp and expand statewide teacher evaluation systems that hold teachers accountable for student learning (Anagnostopoulos, Jacobsen, & Rutledge,

2013; Galey, 2015; McDonnell, 2013). Consequently, district leaders are under constant external pressure to improve teacher practice in order to produce student achievement growth. But how to do this is largely underspecified, leaving districts scrambling for ways to prove that they are making a difference (Elmore, 2004). In response, a rapidly growing number of schools and districts are turning to instructional coaching an important policy lever for improving teacher quality and implementing instructional reform. Recent research

Instructional Coaches

shows that the popularity of instructional coaching has significantly increased in the era of standards-based reform with the staffing rate of coaches doubling over the past 15 years (Domina, Lewis, Agarwal, & Hanselman, 2015). In this context, instructional coaches are playing an increasingly important role in district-level policy implementation as “professional sensemakers” that develop expertise in academic content standards to help administrators and teachers translate them to classroom practice (Domina et al., 2015). Sometimes referred to as instructional strategists, instructional coaches mediate standards-based policy implementation by, for example, helping districts coordinate textbook adoption, developing curricula, and providing professional development and mentoring to teachers. For district and school leaders, the theory of action behind instructional coaching provides a clear way forward as a promising new form of professional development that is “content-based and intended to support teachers in meeting the aims of schoolor district-based instructional reform” through “embedded and situated work that includes observations of classroom teaching, demonstration of model practices, and cycles that includes preand post-conferences with practitioners” (Gallucci, Lare, Yoon, & Boatright, 2012, p. 922). In practice, coaching often involves striking a balance between mentoring individual teachers and engaging in whole-school, system-wide improvement (Knight & Cornett, 2008; Knight & Nieuwerburgh, 2012). Despite the increasing prevalence of coaching, however, and the abundance of literature based on practical experience (Costa & Garmston,

2002; Knight, 2007; Marzano & Simms, 2013), there is surprisingly little peerreviewed research on the role of coaches or their work (Gallucci et al., 2012; Taylor, 2008). In other words, while we generally understand the various parameters of instructional coaching and some of its effects, there is little systematic examination of both what kinds of coaching work best in which contexts and the broader institutional factors that shape coaching policy and practice. This review seeks to synthesize existing policy research on instructional coaching and provide a conceptual framework for understanding the multiple roles of instructional coaches in the existing policy environment. I begin with a discussion of the policy roots of instructional coaching in U.S. contexts before turning to key themes in the current policy literature on instructional coaching. I find that coaches play at least three important roles in education policy implementation: a cognitive role developing teacher practice, an organizational role building instructional capacity, and a reform role helping local leaders implement instructional policy. I discuss these three themes before concluding with a discussion of some of the gaps in the literature and directions for future research. U.S. Policy Context and Instructional Coaching The historical development of instructional coaching policy has strong institutional roots in supporting literacy instruction. Coaching policies became more popular in the 1990s following groundbreaking research on peer coaching, which showed teachers are more likely to integrate newly learned instructional strategies into their

The William & Mary Educational Review

daily practice if they are provided with coaching from peers or experts (Joyce & Showers, 1988). The increased use of coaching intersected with several major federal literacy initiatives during this time period, culminating with the 1999 Reading Excellence Act, which implemented literacy coaching with the support federal funding. Around the same time, the Reading First initiative, under 2002’s NCLB, significantly accelerated the expansion of literacy coaching—as evidenced by subsequent high-profile, comprehensive school reform efforts, such as America’s Choice and Success For All, that prominently feature literacy coaches in their program design. Coaching in mathematics and other subjects, meanwhile, became more common later in the 2000s in response to policy demands for the use of “evidencebased” practices to improve student achievement (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009; Dole, 2004). The growth in the scale and diversity of instructional coaching programs popping up across the country in a relatively short amount of time (over the past five to seven years) has been driven in large part by standardsbased education policy. RTTT reforms, for example, rewarded many states and districts with grants that included coaching as an intervention strategy, while Title I funding is, also now, frequently earmarked for instructional coaching programs. In addition, the implementation of CCSS has accelerated the need for districts to provide instructional support for teachers by providing experts that can help teachers interpret standards and develop new classroom strategies aligned to standards (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012). Currently,

instructional coaches are becoming a standard feature of educational systems with more than 90% of students now enrolled in school districts that employ at least one instructional specialist who provides coaching support (Domina et al., 2015). Why Instructional Coaching? Research on school organization shows that instructional coach positions can support teacher learning and changes in classroom instruction (Camburn, 2010; Coburn, Choi, & Mata, 2010; Coburn & Russell, 2008; Firestone & Martinez, 2007; Mangin, 2009). In the past, finding effective ways to reform and improve instruction has been a challenge—education policy scholars have long lamented the difficulties in translating policy into practice, noting that classroom teaching is “decoupled” or “loosely coupled” with broader school infrastructures and its institutional environment (Elmore, 2000; Firestone, 1985; Fuller, 2008; Weick, 1976). Common obstacles to education policy implementation include a lack of resources, a resistant workforce, and insufficient knowledge, skills, or understanding (Cohen & Hill, 2001; McLaughlin, 1987; Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). A growing body of work shows that instructional coaches have an impact on formal and informal school infrastructures in ways that frequently more tightly couple teacher practice with ongoing curricular and instructional reforms by building important capacities for implementation (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Hopkins, Spillane, Jakopovic, & Heaton, 2013; Spillane, Parise, & Sherer, 2011). However, the increasing popularity of instructional coaching goes beyond simple technical compliance and policy

Instructional Coaches

fidelity; instructional coaching is a visible example of updated understandings and beliefs about teacher professional development. In recent decades in the U.S., and partly in response to increased demands on teachers’ classrooms, the assumptions and expectations of how teachers participate in professional development have undergone dramatic shifts: “The traditional notion of teachers as passive recipients has been largely rejected for a more active conception of teachers as co-constructors and contributors to the pedagogical knowledge base” (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2010, p. 115). Educational research has shown that changing teacher practice is challenging; implementing ambitious content standards and the associated transformations in instruction requires teachers to undergo extensive professional learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Elmore, 2004; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). However, past accounts of teacher professional opportunities have found them to be “thin, sporadic, and of little use when it comes to teaching” (DeMonte, 2013, p. 1). In response, the educational community has recognized the need to improve professional development for teachers, including more sustained, intensive forms of professional learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Joyce & Showers, 1988; Resnick & Scherrer, 2012). Research indicates that teacher professional development programs, like coaching, that are school-based, collaborative, focused on instruction, ongoing, and context specific are

linked to improved instructional quality (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Garet et al., 2001; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). In this new policy environment, district and school leaders recognize the importance of teacher collaboration for learning new instructional programs and pedagogies. Coaches often work alongside individual and groups of teachers, helping teachers, for example, reflect on practice, make sense of academic standards, align curricular plans to state assessments, and use student data to improve instruction (Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen, & Zigmond, 2010; Coggins, Stoddard, & Cutler, 2003). Importantly, coaches can also provide essential organizational capacities that facilitate teachers’ learning from one another, such as organizing peer observations, coordinating shared professional development needs, and pooling and distributing teacher-made resources (Deussen, Coskie, Robinson, & Autio, 2007). Thus, instructional coaching is prominently associated with emergent forms of “ongoing,” “job-embedded” teacher professional development concerned with the quality of teacher learning opportunities around instructional reform efforts (Demonte, 2013; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Poglinco & Bach, 2004). Overall, the current policy context creates a climate where instructional coaches must reform teachers’ practices according to the desires and goals of policymakers, while also supporting and collaborating with teachers to improve instruction. Mounting evidence indicates this can often place instructional coaches in a difficult position because they must support teachers’ self-directed learning,

The William & Mary Educational Review

while also being responsible for getting teachers to implement specific instructional approaches advocated by school or district leadership (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015; Obera & Sloan, 2009; Otaiba, Hosp, Smartt, & Dole, 2008) Importantly, the reforms being promoted by instructional coaches often challenge the existing mindsets and beliefs of teachers. Among other things, instructional reforms can ask teachers to redefine how they problematize gaps in student learning, reconsider their pedagogical approaches, restructure the content of their lessons, and integrate new skills (i.e., data-use) into their professional repertoire (Hill, Rowen, & Ball, 2005; Huguet, Marsh, & Farrell, 2014; Mangin, 2009; Marsh, McCombs, & Martorell, 2010). As agents of educational change, instructional coaches are placed squarely in the middle of many potential conflicts between policy and practice. The following section teases out the complex work of instructional coaching in local educational systems and attends to how coaches balance the multiple demands on their time and efforts. For example, what does the current research base tell us about how instructional coaches mediate between their role as reformers and supporters of teacher practice? What is the nature of this role? And in the context of ongoing policy efforts, what factors and practices seem to support (or constrain) instructional coaches and their ability to influence standards-based curricular reform? Managing From the Middle: The Multiple Roles of Instructional Coaches Reviews of instructional

coaching in education describe the role as “inherently multifaceted and ambiguous” (Gallucci et al., 2012, p. 922). Despite the growing prevalence of coaching, there is no standard model or definition of an instructional coach; this is no coincidence as coaching is often intentionally framed as a multi-purpose policy tool that can be modified to meet local needs (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). Coaching programs are typically externally derived from broader systemic reform, such as Reading First or America’s choice, but also can be informally developed by local educators (Taylor, 2008). Coaching initiatives can adhere to any number of models, including clinical supervision, cognitive coaching, instructional consultation, student-focused coaching, peer mentoring, or mixed models (Bukowiecki, 2012; Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009). Other research has identified different categories of instructional coaching, such as dataoriented, student-oriented, managerial, and teacher-focused, which can mean individual teachers or groups of teachers (Deussen et al., 2007). The equivocality of the coach’s role is born out in the practitioner-oriented literature as well, which proposes a variety of position descriptions, rationales for coaching, types of coaching interventions, and approaches to teacher development. Leaving aside the variety of practitioner definitions, from a policy perspective, instructional coaches are “seen as a way to provide on-site professional development to assist teachers in making changes in their practice in the direction of policy” (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012, p. 5). In this sense, instructional coaches can fill a variety of educative and political roles. Based on the current body of

Instructional Coaches

instructional coaching research, these roles may be usefully illustrated on a continuum ranging from positions that are “closest” to teachers’ practice and concerned with the micro-processes of individual cognition around educational reforms, to roles that are “furthest” from the classroom and focused on the macro-structures of school organization that promote instructional capacity. Importantly, instructional coaches also play an important reform role in district policy implementation as brokers of district policy messages. In doing so, they must also learn how to adapt, modify, and buffer policies and programs when they meet the realities of school context and classroom teaching. I summarize these ideas below in Table 1.

In the cognitive role, coaches focus on teacher development at the classroom level, working with individual and groups of teachers to improve classroom practice. Next, in their organizational role, instructional coaches focus on instructional capacity-building to manage and diffuse knowledge between teacher classrooms. Finally, instructional coaches also have a reform role as a part of larger policy implementation efforts by schools and districts, using their position to influence educators and adapt reforms to the local context. Significantly, researchers have noted there are inherent conflicts between these two ends of the spectrum, and issues arise when coaches try to balance their roles as a lever for systemic vis-à-vis individual reform (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). As “meso-level” implementers that occupy a space

Table 1 The Multiple Roles of Instructional Coaches Cognitive Role Organizational Role Area of Focus

Teacher development

Main Activity

Work with individual or groups of teachers to improve instruction

Drivers of Coaching

Informal social influence and semi-structured interactions

Reform Role and Instructional capacity- Coherent effective policy building implementation Positioned as part Charged with of a larger reform knowledge effort and/or in the management and of other building structures for context reform efforts teachers collaboration must adapt andand and professional modify new policy development (e.g., information given PLCs) local context Formal and political Formal organizational informal influence influence and semiand reform structured time drive accountability/ interactions fidelity drives interactions

The William & Mary Educational Review

between policymakers and educators, instructional coaches face many unique opportunities and challenges. The remainder of this section fleshes out what we know about the role of coaches and coaching in the educational system as well as the factors that contribute to the ability of coaches to shape policy and practice according to the conceptual framework presented here. Cognitive Role: Building Trust for Teacher Learning Rooted in literature on peer coaching and teacher mentoring, a substantial portion of existing literature on instructional coaching is concerned with the cognitive aspects of coaching that address teacher development, either individually or in groups. From this vantage point, instructional coaching is seen as a “non-supervisory role,” where “instructional coaches do not typically have positional authority to evaluate other adults; they do not work from a position of supervisory power and must use expertise and relationships to exert influence” (Gallucci et al., 2012, p. 922). In this role and in the context of reform, coaches are focused on facilitating continuous and collaborative teacher learning around new and existing instructional practice. This research stream supplies ample evidence that instructional coaches influence teachers’ instructional beliefs and behaviors. Evidence suggests that coaches help teachers develop professional knowledge, or “professional capital” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), understand and utilize new curricula and/or pedagogies (Coburn et al., 2010), use data to identify and address gaps in practice (Marsh et al., 2010), and collaborate in groups around instruction (Knight & Cornett, 2008).

An emergent theme in the teacher development literature shows that coaches help educators interpret “policy messages” about instruction, a process widely referred to as “sensemaking” in educational policy studies (Coburn, 2001; Spillane, Diamond, Burch, Hallett, Jita, & Zoltners, 2002). Drawing on a cognitive framework for understanding policy implementation, sense-making is the process by which implementing agents access and apply prior knowledge to guide “the noticing, framing, and connecting of new ideas and events to what is already encoded in memory” (Spillane et al., 2002, p. 394). Research suggests that instructional coaches can and do facilitate teacher sense-making around standards-based reform, which allows them to help teachers gain deeper understandings of new instructional ideas and influence classroom practice, helping build teacher trust (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Coburn, Russell, Kaufman & Stein, 2012; Huguet et al., 2014). Organizational Role: Developing Instructional Capacity for Knowledge Management A second distinct theme in coaching literature emphasizes instructional coaching as a “capacitybuilding strategy,” referring to the coach’s role in “the development of skills and knowledge in both individuals and in the organization as a whole. It often involves creating new structures and roles to broaden participation” (Coggins et al., 2003, p. 3). In this role, coaches are focused on “resources-for-teaching” and organizational structures that support the development and use of instructional resources rather than individual teacher learning—processes rather than practice (Jaquith, 2012).

Instructional Coaches

Coaching can also address scalability issues when the costs of implementing an innovation in a different context are not fully considered: “non-financial challenges, such as being able to find enough highly skilled people, can be just as significant and are often underestimated in discussions of scaling” (Levin, 2013, p. 10). In other words, there is an issue with turning high-impact “small scale” innovations into systemwide “large scale” solutions to which instructional coaching attends. Instructional coaching also represents an important form of “distributed leadership”—an organizational approach where leadership responsibilities for instructional change are shared amongst several administrators and teachers (Blackman, 2010; Spillane & Keaney, 2012). Research shows that giving teachers formal leadership roles builds a sense of collective responsibility for learning and increases commitment to organizational goals (Spillane & Kim, 2012; Stoelinga & Mangin, 2010). From an organizational standpoint, instructional coaches have the potential to address scalability issues by fostering leadership and local capacity-building around instruction. Put differently, instructional coaches build “instructional capacity,” or the capacity of schools and districts to support instructional improvement and support teaching in a manner that enables high levels of student learning (Jaquith, 2012; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Spillane & Louis, 2002). Research shows that coaching in this sense addresses “wholeschool” organizational improvement in a variety of ways, such as building capacity for instructional leadership, managing knowledge resources, and building

capacity for teachers to support their peers (Coggins et al., 2003; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Reform Role: Brokering Policy Information for Implementation Another emergent dimension of instructional coaching is the political role that coaches play in carrying out reforms. In contrast to the educative roles of coaches (i.e. their role in teacher professional development and instructional capacity-building), research has paid relatively little attention to their role in policy implementation (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015; Woulfin, 2014). Past literature suggests that conflict is only inherent when coaches are given authorities or evaluative roles, implying that supportive roles are apolitical in nature; but, recent research indicates otherwise (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015; Obera & Sloan, 2009). Even the smallest interactions between coaches and teachers have political implications because they are frequently interactions about instructional reform initiatives. As a result, studies clearly indicate that they are viewed by stakeholders across the educational system, including themselves, as agents of reform. In this way, even when mentoring coaches can become “turnkeys for conveying district messages regarding curriculum” to teachers (Marsh et al., 2005, p. 51). In this role, coaches take on reform-oriented roles at the complicated intersection of power and learning, between policy and practice. In this sense, coaches are concerned with navigating the conflicting demands placed by policymakers on practitioners that are manifest in their interactions with administrators and teachers.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Evidence indicates that some political moves by coaches are more effective than others. In a study of Reading First implementation, Coburn and Woulfin (2012) identified three coaching activities that involved politics: pressuring, persuading, and buffering. Pressuring involved using explicit power to get teachers to change their practice according to Reading First guidelines by invoking specific sources of authority, like the principal or the grant funding. Persuading, meanwhile, involved engaging teachers in new ideas by pointing out connections and filtering policy information in ways that convinced teachers that Reading First approaches were aligned with their existing practice—a process researcher refers to as “shaping teacher sensemaking” (Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2007; Coburn, 2005) or “sensegiving” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). In contrast, buffering involved protecting teachers from others, particularly when external administrators demanded specific compliances with Reading First policy. Persuading was the most successful strategy for getting teachers to change their practice, while pressuring yielded more inconsistent results. Interestingly, teachers were more responsive to pressuring and persuading by coaches in comparison to other colleagues and administrators, indicated coaches may have had special influence in coupling policy and practice. A significant and related narrative in the research on instructional coaching indicates one critical source of power may exist in the structural location of coaches in school and district networks as “boundary-spanners” or “bridgers.” In this way, for example,

coaches can play key “gatekeeping roles” providing educators with information about particular aspects of policy to embrace, while telling them to ignore others (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012, p. 23). Because coaches work with many groups of teachers and administrators, they are uniquely placed to access, append, and diffuse policy information vertically and horizontally within and between schools (Daly, Finnegan, & Moolenaar, 2014; Huguet et al., 2014; Swinnerton, 2007; Woulfin, 2014). This is important for building knowledge and capacity. One of the constant themes in policy implementation literature emphasizes the importance of leaders in the framing and coordination of reform activity (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Daly & Finnegan, 2012; Honig, 2012). In this role, educational leaders “broker” reform-related information between different groups, bridging for example district leaders with principals and school-level leadership. This role of broker, however, appears to vary depending on the reform and policy context and is determined by how wellsuited coaches are in terms of expertise and bridging abilities (Coburm & Rusell, 2008; Swinnerton, 2007). I now turn to some of the factors that influence instructional coaching in their multifaceted roles. Factors that Influence Coaching While the literature on the factors that impact coaching is still growing, existing evidence suggests that the quality and quantity of teacher-coach interactions have important implications for effective instructional coaching. Poglinco and Bach (2004), for example, found that teachers are more likely to modify their own instructional practices when coaches model instructional

Instructional Coaches

techniques in their classrooms. Research by Lord, Cress, and Miller (2008) also document the effectiveness of this “show and tell” strategy for improving and changing teacher practice. Teachercoach collaborations around the analysis and utilization of data also appear to impact instructional practice by helping teachers identify specific student learning needs and address those needs with the appropriate instructional tools (Marsh et al., 2010). The individual and professional attributes of coaches are also critical to successful teacher development. Research shows, for example, that teacher leaders with subject area content expertise are able to identify gaps in teachers’ content knowledge and facilitate teacher learning in areas of deficiency. Teachers in turn develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter and desired practice, as well as the knowledge and skills, needed to enact that practice (Manno & Firestone, 2008). Research also shows instructional coaches with well-developed interpersonal and communication skills are better at facilitating change at individual and systemic levels (Knight & Cornett, 2008; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Not surprisingly, trust is an important part of this equation and is well documented as a critical aspect of instructional coaching (Harrison & Killion, 2007; Poglinco & Bach, 2004; Taylor, 2008). Based in literature on the link between relational trust and effective schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2002), building a trusting relationship with teachers is emphasized in the professional development literature for coaches (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Knight, 2007; Marzano & Simms, 2013)

and appears to be a necessary stepping stone for more advanced collaborations around instruction (Bean et al., 2010). In schools with high levels of relational trust, “teachers…value others who are expert at their craft and who take leadership roles in school improvement. Teachers in these schools also typically report that they trust, confide in, and care about one another” (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p. 95). In short, engagement in intense interactions around instructional reform must be built on good relationships, which is as much of an attribute of individual connections as it is of the broader organizational environment. Coaches thrive in schools where people trust them and each other. Significantly, case analysis, including many first-hand accounts, credits successes in coaching with having an established identity at the schools where they work and a prior trusting relationship with teachers and administrators (Coburn & Russell, 2008). Put differently, coaches hired “from within” appear are more likely to be effective, at least right away, because they do not have to invest time and energy in establishing new relationships. In an intense study of 20 instructional coaches, Bean et al. (2010) found that coaches who were new to their building had difficulty establishing trust and legitimacy with their teaching staff. Earlier work by Bean (2004) suggests that coaches can develop trust with teachers by initially engaging with teachers in informal, low-intensity settings, like hallway conversations, and slowly working their way up to more intense, formal interactions with greater effects on instruction, such as modeling lessons and

The William & Mary Educational Review

co-teaching—a theory corroborated in the Bean et al. (2010) study. Meanwhile, social network research reveals that coaches may also be able to build trust and credibility by giving teachers access to important instructional resources. Teachers with connections to coaches and formal instructional leadership through schools’ social networks appear to be important when teachers have limited access to other forms of professional development (Penuel, Frank, & Krause, 2010). Networks are critical “pipes” into schools for external instructional expertise delivered by coaches, which research suggests can lead to spillover effects within schools enhancing professional development and enhance the credibility of coaches, which in turn build respect and trust (Sun, Penuel, Frank, Gallegher, & Young, 2013). Next, the potential success for instructional coaches is frequently outside their direct control and left in the hands of district and school administrators. Scholarly and practitioner-oriented literature on instructional coaching suggests that the relationship between principals and coaches is an important part of coaching work (Ippolito, 2009; Knight, 2007, 2011; Kowal & Steiner, 2007; Matsumura, Sartoris, Bickel, & Garnier, 2009). A growing number of studies find that principals’ beliefs and behaviors significantly affected teachers’ relationships with their instructional coaches (Matsumura et al., 2009). One level up, the way districts frame coaching policies to principals and coaches, their available resources to support coaching, and the pre-existing policy environment all appear to have a significant impact on

show instructional coaching is implemented in schools (Mangin, 2014; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). In one study by Mangin (2009), for example, district administrators chose not use literacy coaches because reading specialists were already being used in many schools from previous intentions. These individuals, who were already deeply institutionalized and well respected by the staff, would have been supplanted by coaches, and, in such cases, district officials did not want to “rock the boat.” Not surprisingly, coaches themselves report operating best when their role is well defined and when they have professional and institutional support (Mangin, 2014; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015; Matsumura et al., 2009). Regardless of how clear their role is, however, there are some kinds of activities that appear to better legitimize and establish coaches within school culture, creating more or less coherence around reform efforts. Interestingly, data-use appears to be an important avenue for building a collaborative culture (Marsh et al., 2010). In one study, researchers observed that careful data analysis helped reorient teachers’ mentalities about student learning, making teachers more aware of their need for instructional support. Meanwhile, districts that introduced coaching via an external program that defined and accounted for coaching in its design resulted in higher levels of teacher receptivity to working with coaches (Mangin, 2009). Finally, it is also worth noting that capacity-building in schools, especially those labeled as “lowperforming,” is significantly affected by states’ varying abilities to monitor reform

Instructional Coaches

efforts and provide technical assistance to local school districts (Chubb & Clark, 2013; Elmore, 2004; Kober & Renter, 2011; McGuinn, 2012). Thus, district and school decision-making about instructional coaching is also determined by the external federal and state policy environment. Literature Gaps and Directions for Future Research There is growing empirical evidence that links coaching to improved teaching practice (Lockwood, McCombs, & Marsh, 2010) and some indications that it leads to higher student achievement (Bright & Hensley, 2010), but overall the research on the outcomes of instructional coaching policy has not kept pace with its implementation (Mangin, 2009). Although there is already a large and growing body of high-quality research—and, in many cases, empirically rich—that provides a solid starting point for further investigation, the understanding of the effects instructional coaching on, for example, teacher practice, district policy implementation, school reform, or student learning is still nascent. One of the major drawbacks of the literature on instructional coaching is the narrow focus on case studies, although not the diversity of cases themselves. Large-scale evaluations of coaching are somewhat limited to studies that focus on either literacy or mathematics coaching exclusively, and this research almost always takes place when coaching is the key component of a specific professional development program. Overall, research on school organization shows that instructional coach positions can support teacher learning and changes in classroom

instruction (Biancarosa, Bryk, & Dexter, 2010; Camburn, 2010; Coburn et al., 2010; Coburn & Russell, 2008; Firestone & Martinez, 2007; Mangin, 2009), but consistent findings on coaching effects are not currently available. The growing consensus on instructional coaching seems to be that, while an improvement as compared to “one-stop” professional development models of the past, coaching does not necessarily improve classroom practice (Garet et al., 2001). At the same time, a growing number of case studies and some preliminary empirical analyses demonstrate the potential of instructional coaching for turning around low-achieving schools (Picucci, Brownson, Kahlert, & Sobel, 2002), improving teacher practice (Knight & Cornett, 2008), and raising student achievement (Biancarosa et al., 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010). More uncertain is the array of factors that support instructional coaching programs, including the appropriate selection criteria, organizational model, and professional development plan (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LaMahieu, 2015). Thus, like many educational interventions of the past, we have a limited understanding of what institutional and social conditions are optimal for cultivating effective instructional coaching practices (Bryk et al., 2015) or how to scale up successful coaching programs (Elmore, 1996). This review indicates that the multi-faceted nature of the instructional coaching role is reflective of the broad application of coaching policy by district and school leaders in response to the complexity of teacher learning in the current policy environment. Instructional coaches essentially exist in an

The William & Mary Educational Review

intermediary space between encouraging self-directed learning and implementing specific instructional approaches. This position requires training that goes beyond their educative roles, such as developing trust with colleagues, organizing systems-based approaches to instructional change, and coordinating policy initiatives efficiently and effectively. Moving forward, policymakers and researchers should be sensitive to the multi-dimensionality of instructional coaching in their work as well as pivot towards a common understand of instructional coaching that represents the work coaches actually do. In this essay, I capture the multi-dimensional nature of instructional coaching by organizing their overlapping roles into a three-part framework that includes their cognitive role in developing teachers, their organizational role in building instructional capacity, and their reform role in district policy implementation. In closing this review, I utilize this framework to make recommendations for future lines of inquiry. In their cognitive role, instructional coaches focus on developing teacher practice to meet the diverse learning needs of students. One key part of understanding this dimension of instructional coaching involves a more rigorous investigation of the various kinds of support that instructional coaches provide and that, by definition, teachers need. In particular, there is almost no work that explicitly compares and contrasts how instructional coaches support English language arts versus mathematics instruction. At least one study by Spillane and Hopkins (2013) directly addresses the distinct behaviors of elementary mathematics and literacy

coaches, finding that literacy networks appear to have more subject-specific leaders and specialists than other subjects, which they linked to more collaborative networks. Similarly, there are very few studies that systematically examine differences in coaching for different levels of instruction (e.g., elementary, middle, and high school), kinds of teacher experiences (e.g., novice, mid-career, and veteran), or stages of implementation (e.g., early, middle, and late). Finally, much more research is needed to investigate the best instructional coaching practices for supporting teachers working in schools with high concentrations of traditionally underserved populations, including special education students, minority students, students living in poverty, and English learners. The organizational role of instructional coaches is particularly relevant for district and school capacitybuilding, which involves the effective structuring of time, people, and resources around instructional support and improvement. Studies show that coaches spend only a fraction of their time working with teachers, and while this may represent a majority of their time, their activities are often focused at the systems-level, coordinating resources, managing data and consulting (Bean et al., 2010; Coggins et al., 2003; Deussen et al., 2007). Research in this area is growing and is pushing the boundaries of coaching literature to more fully integrate the meso-level nature of coaching. Neufeld and Roper (2003), for example, coin the terms “change coaching” and “capacity coaching” to conceptualize coaching activities that support wholeschool reform and capacity-building (p. 4). At the same time, more theoretical

Instructional Coaches

development and research is needed to understand the organizational dimensions of instructional coaching. In this regard, social capital theory and social network analysis may be particularly useful. There is growing evidence that instructional coaching is linked to the development of social capital in schools, although the exact mechanisms behind this process are still being articulated (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Coburn et al., 2010). Social capital formation facilitates the organizational flow of knowledge and resources and is linked to trusting and collaborative school environments that support instructional improvement and build capacity (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). The formal nature of their position appears to give coaches access to important institutional and social resources unlike informal teacher leaders; for example, coaches are more likely to be nominated as experts in instructional advice–seeking and information–seeking school networks (Spillane, Healey, & Kim, 2010). Still, past network analyses of organizational processes in educational settings often aggregate coaches and other school leaders together, meaning more work is needed that is focused on the social capital effects of coaches specifically. Additionally, much of the current work on instructional coaching focuses on the school-level processes, the various coach and teacher configurations that influence instruction, the kinds of tasks performed, and the factors that support and constrain coaches’ work. To compliment this work, more research is needed to understand how instructional coaches build capacity at the district level as well, given the evidence that their

activities include regularly interacting with district administrators, decisionmaking around district policy, and boundary-spanning between district and school leadership (Swinnerton, 2007). Finally, with respect to their reform role in policy implementation, much of the existing research on the topic has been limited to case studies that examine a small number of schools and districts, which often include thorough, comparative accounts of different structures and processes that shape the work of instructional coaches. While rich in detail, this work draws on a relatively limited number of theoretical paradigms (e.g., sense-making, distributed leadership, and collective efficacy) that tend to explicate instructional coaching according to cognitive and organizational theories of action. Consequently, the discourse around coaching has generally gravitated towards understanding its structural and educative implications, as opposed to analyzing coaching using policy or political frameworks that may better situate coaching in contemporary policy contexts. The work of Coburn and Woulfin (2012) notably focuses on the politics of coaching but remains an exception to the rule. In this regard, the framing of instructional coaches as “professional sense-makers” by Domina et al. (2015) is an especially powerful concept that attends to their reform role at the intersection of standards-based reform and educational accountability. More specifically, academic standards, like the CCSS, state assessments aligned to those standards, and teacher evaluation that, in turn, includes student growth measures on state tests are regular features of contemporary district policy

The William & Mary Educational Review

environments; all of which overlap and shape power and resource structures with important consequences for coaching work. We know, for example, that teachers who transition to the role of coaches are perceived as sharing leadership for reform with school- and district-level administrators (Taylor, 2008). Even when coaches do not see themselves as authority figures, teachers are inclined to see them this way given their formal designation (Obera & Sloan, 2009). How do these kinds of complex relationships impact policy and reform processes within both districts and schools that include teacher learning? Decades of policy implementation research demonstrates the importance of policy alignment References

and organizational arrangements for educational-reform efforts. Coupled with the rapid expansion of instructional coaching in U.S. school districts, implementation models must more explicitly include a role for instructional coaches that fully considers their work at the intersection of policy and practice. Departing from this standpoint, future research should try to better understand how coaches can leverage their roles as middle managers to help educators appropriately adapt new, instructional reforms into their practice, while also helping administrators create and maintain a coherent and productive policy agenda.

Bright, E., & Hensley, T. (2010). A study of the effectiveness of K–3 literacy coaches. Washington DC: National Reading Technical Assistance Anagnostopoulos, D., Jacobsen, R., & Rutledge, Center. S. A. (Eds.). (2013). The infrastructure of Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & accountability: Data use and the transformation of LaMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard How America’s schools can get better a getting better. Education Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. A. (2007). Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: Making sense of school sanctioning policies A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell in urban high schools. Teachers College Record, Sage Foundation. 109(5), 1261-1302. Baker-Doyle, K. J., & Yoon, S. A. (2010). Making Bukowiecki, E. (2012). The literacy coach: Preparation, practice and reflection. In M. expertise transparent: Using technology W. Strong & A. B. Jay (Eds.), Promoting quality to strengthen social networks in teacher assurance in literacy instruction: The preparation, professional development. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), inquiries and practices of literacy professionals (pp. Social network theory and educational change (pp. 25-33). Philadelphia, PA: New Foundations 115-126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing. Press. Camburn, E. M. (2010). Embedded teacher Bean, R. (2004). Promoting effective literacy learning opportunities as a site for reflective instruction: The challenge for literacy coaches. practice: An exploratory study. American Journal The California Reader, 37(3), 58-63. of Education, 116(4), 463-489. Bean, R. M., Draper, J. A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, Chubb, J. E., & Clark, C. (2013). The new state J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and achievement gap: How federal waivers could make it coaching in Reading First schools: A reality worse—or better. Washington D.C.: Education check. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), Sector. 87-114. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A. S., & Dexter, E. R. about reading: How teachers mediate reading (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of policy in their professional communities. literacy collaborative professional development Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), on student learning. Elementary School Journal, 145-170. 111(1), 7-34. Blackman, A. (2010). Coaching as a leadership development tool for teachers. Professional Development in Education, 36(3), 421-444.

Instructional Coaches Coburn, C. E., Choi, L., & Mata, W. (2010). “I would go to her because her mind is math”: Network formation in the context of a districtbased mathematics reform. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 33-50). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235. Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137-182. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5-30. Coggins, C. T., Stoddard, P., & Cutler, E. (2003). Improving instructional capacity through school-based reform coaches. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Daly, A. J., & Finnegan, K. S. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41-71. Daly, A. J., Finnegan, K. S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014). The critical role of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level. In A. J. Daly & K. S. Finnegan (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. New York, NY: Spring International Publishing. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters? How Teachers Learn, 66(5), 46-53. DeMonte, J. (2013). High-quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training to improve student learning. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150-175. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). “Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. Portland, OR: Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Dole, J. A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 462-471. Domina, T., Lewis, R., Agarwal, P., & Hanselman, P. (2015). Professional sense-makers: Instructional specialists in contemporary schooling. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 359-364. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with successful educational practices. In S. Fuhrman & J. O’Day (Eds.), Rewards and reforms: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 294-329). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Firestone, W. A. (1985). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. In A. C. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (pp. 3-20). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Firestone, W. A., & Martinez, M. C. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing institutional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35. Fuller, B. (2008). Overview: Liberal learning in centralizing states. In B. Fuller, M. K. Henne, & E. Hannum (Eds.), Strong states, weak schools: The benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability (Research in Sociology of Education) (Vol. 16, pp. 1-29). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Galey, S. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests and ideas. Policy Studies Journal Yearbook, 47(S1), S12-S39. Gallucci, C., Lare, M. D. V., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919-963. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 74-77. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Honig, M. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Education Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-774. Hopkins, M., Spillane, J. P., Jakopovic, P., & Heaton, R. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200-224. Huguet, A., Marsh, J. A., & Farrel, C. (2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(52), 2-31. Ippolito, J. (2009). Principles as partners with literacy coaches: Striking a balance between neglect and interference. Urbana, IL: International Reading Association and The National Council of Teachers of English. Jaquith, A. (2012). Building instructional capacity: A research brief. Stanford, CA: Center to Support Excellence in Teaching at Stanford University. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knight, J., & Cornett, J. (2008). Studying the impact of instructional coaching. Lawrence, KS: Center for Research on Learning, University of Kentucky. Knight, J., & Nieuwerburgh, C. V. (2012). Instructional coaching: a focus on practice. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 100-112. Kober, N., & Renter, D. S. (2011). States’ progress and challenges in implementing Common Core State Standards. Washington DC: Center on Education Policy. Kowal, J., & Steiner, L. (2007). Issue brief instructional coaching. Washington DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Levin, B. (2013). What does it take to scale up innovation? An examination of Teach for America, Harlem Children’s Zone, and the Knowledge is Power Program. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Lockwood, J. R., McCombs, J. S., & Marsh, J. (2010). Linking reading coaches and student achievement: Evidence from Florida middle schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 372-388. Lord, B., Cress, K., & Miller, B. (2008). Teacher leadership in support of large-sclae mathematics and science education reform. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to reform and inform (pp. 55-76). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Mangin, M. M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: How district context influences reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 759-792. Mangin, M. M. (2014). Capacity building and districts’ decision to implement coaching initiatives. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(56), 1-23. Mangin, M. M., & Dunsmore, K. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179-213. Manno, C., & Firestone, W. A. (2008). Content is the subject: How teacher leaders with different subject knowledge interact with teachers. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Instructional leadership roles: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 36-54). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Hilary Darilek, Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the institute for learning. Santa Monica, CA. Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making. Educational Policy, 24(6), 872-907. Marzano, R., & Simms, J. A. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory. Matsumura, L. C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D. D., & Garnier, H. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655-693. McDonnell, L. M. (2013). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy, 27(2), 170-189. McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136-159. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178. Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity, promises and practicalities. Washington DC: The Aspen Institute. Obera, S., & Sloan, M. (2009). The evolving role of a mathematics coach during the implementation of performance standards. The Professional Educator, 33(2), 1-33. Otaiba, S. A., Hosp, J. L., Smartt, S., & Dole, J. A. (2008). The challenging role of reading coach, a cautionary tale. Journal of Educational Consulting, 18(2), 124-155.

Instructional Coaches Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., & Krause, A. (2010). Between leaders and teachers: Using social network analysis to examine the effects of distributed leadership. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 159-178). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Penuel, W., Sun, M., Frank, K. A., Gallagher, H., & Youngs, P. (2013). Shaping professional development to promote the diffusion of instructional expertise among teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 344-369. Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel. (2002). Driven to succeed: high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Volume I: cross-case analysis of high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Austin, TX: The Charles A. Dana Center and The Support for Texas Academic Renewal [STAR] Center, University of Texas. Poglinco, S. M., & Bach, A. J. (2004). The heart of the matter: Coaching as a vehicle for professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 398-400. Resnick, L. B., & Scherrer, J. (2012). Social networks in “nested learning organizations.” American Journal of Education, 119(1), 183-192. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762. Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and school organizations: how the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721-747. Spillane, J. P., & Keaney, A. W. (2012). School administration in a changing education sector: the U.S. experience. Journal of Education Administration, 50(5), 541-561.

Spillane, J. P., & Kim, C. M. (2012). An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders’ positioning and information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 73-102. Spillane, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 83-104. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586-619. Stoelinga, S. R., & Mangin, M. M. (2010). Examining effective teacher leadership: A case study approach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development of science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37(9), 963-980. Swinnerton, J. (2007). Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding central-office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 195-221. Taylor, J. E. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 10-35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. Woulfin, S. L. (2014). Charting research on the policies and politics of coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(50), 2-7.

About the Author Sarah Galey is a doctoral candidate in the Education Policy program at Michigan State University and a former high school social studies teacher. Sarah’s research interests cut across the fields of organizational sociology, education policy, and political science. Her dissertation work focuses on school districts’ implementation of instructional coaching in the context of standards-based reform, and the effects of social networks in shaping school district policy processes around instructional support.

The William & Mary Educational Review

Effective 9-12 Arts Instruction: Visual Arts Assessment Strategies Kyle A. Guzik

Instructional leaders must make decisions to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The purpose of this alignment is to allow each educational component to work with the others, with the goal of helping students to achieve intended learning outcomes. The visual arts are an important but sometimes overlooked subject. Students who study the visual arts can learn to view the world in a unique way that is separate from perspectives emphasized in other subjects. This paper will consider multiple assessment strategies that have been applied in high school art education. These assessment strategies comprise the assessed curriculum and indirectly influence the taught curriculum. This paper will focus on the needs of high school students who wish to pursue careers related to the visual arts. These are students who intend to go to college to study the visual arts or related fields, such as art education or graphic design. They may also intend to complete graduate degrees in fine arts, art history, education, or other related fields. For this subset of the student population, the goal of their high school education should be to set them on a

path to become self-supporting practicing artists. While students may dream of exiting high school and immediately being discovered as artists, in reality, becoming an artist who makes a living through creative work typically takes years of effort and advanced specialized education. This paper will review a number of visual arts assessment strategies to which these students may be exposed. These assessment strategies differ markedly in their appropriateness in meeting the needs of future visual artists. Defining Visual Arts Assessment There are a variety of visual arts assessment strategies implemented at the school level in the present day. Large-scale assessments include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Arts Assessment, the International Baccalaureate (IB) Arts Portfolio Assessment, the Advanced Placement (AP) Studio Art Portfolios, and the Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT). While these include national and international tests, instructional leaders at the school level have some input in deciding if their school will participate in many of these assessments and how they will support teachers to prepare students for these tests.

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

Administrators should be aware of effective assessment strategies used at the classroom level so that they can support visual arts teachers. This support is an important responsibility for instructional leaders. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) has established a set of standards for educational leadership. According to functions described in ISLLC Standard 2, instructional leaders must create assessment and accountability systems, monitor student progress, and use data from these systems to evaluate the impact of educational programs (National Policy Board for Education Administration [NPBEA], 2008, p. 14). An important form of assessment in the visual arts is the use of the portfolio. Portfolios are collections of student work, typically including artwork students have produced independently as well as teacher-directed assignments. Portfolios can also be produced in digital form. The digital portfolio is of particular interest because its use of technology has the potential to expand student opportunities for selfreflection, as well as provide efficient documentation of student progress toward intended learning outcomes. This report also considers theories related to visual arts assessment that are relevant for an educational leader who wishes to understand how intended learning outcomes can influence assessment strategies. Willis (2014) considered the interrelationships that develop between students and teachers at the classroom level and how awareness of this context should influence assessment practices. DavisSoylu, Peppler, and Hickey (2011)

proposed an assessment staging theory that grounds their strategy of assessment assemblage. Assessment staging theory questions whether there is a division between formative and summative assessments. Formative assessments are traditionally understood as formal and informal evaluations of student progress conducted throughout instruction for the purpose of making informed decisions when modifying teaching strategies to increase student progress. The conventional description of summative assessment includes high-stakes evaluation of student learning against a standard. Assessment staging theory obviates the distinction between these two forms of assessment by proposing that all assessments have both formative and summative functions. Wilson (1996) proposed a holistic visual arts assessment strategy that is grounded in disciplinebased arts education. Visual arts assessment serves the important need of evaluating student achievement. Teachers use formative assessments to determine student progress and modify their instruction based upon data gained from formative assessment. Summative assessments allow teachers to assign grades and are the basis from which educators can determine the degree to which the taught curriculum has become the learned curriculum. Assessments allow administrators to make generalizations about the progress of a class or the entire school towards educational goals. Assessments are used to hold teachers and schools responsible for the achievement of their students. Another important use of arts assessment is the student-directed creation of a portfolio for admission to university-level arts

The William & Mary Educational Review

schools. Because of the important function of assessments it is critical that educational leaders understand the best practices regarding assessment strategies. Research Review Large-scale Assessment Multiple large-scale assessments have been used to evaluate the visual arts in the United States. The NAEP conducted visual arts assessments in 1975, 1978, 1997, and 2008; NAEP will conduct an assessment of the arts proficiency of eighth-graders that will include visual arts in 2016 (Stites & Malin, 2008; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). The 2008 NAEP Arts Assessment evaluated a representative sample of approximately 3,900 eighth-graders attending about 260 different public and private schools (NCES, 2012). The 1997 and 2008 NAEP Arts Assessments included multiple choice questions, open-ended writing questions, and performance tasks (Stites & Malin, 2008). Student drawings were photographed under controlled conditions and evaluated at a central location by trained judges (Stites & Malin, 2008). The 1997 NAEP Arts Assessment was developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and was praised for incorporating new psychometric techniques and achieving many important goals, including “building a performance assessment based on arts content standards; using complex, applied performance-based tasks to recognize and measure creative achievement in the arts; and adhering to strict administration guidelines and scoring criteria” (Stites & Malin, 2008, pp. 8-9). However, the assessment was criticized for including too small of a sample size and for using methods that

would be difficult to implement for all students on a statewide basis (Stites & Malin, 2008). The International Baccalaureate (IB) program is in use in over 60 countries, including the United States (Stites & Malin, 2008). IB assessments are highly regarded and are accepted at universities throughout the world (Stites & Malin, 2008). Visual arts students at the Diploma Programme level (ages 16-19) complete a studio and research portfolio which is used to evaluate student achievement and to graduate the students (Stites & Malin, 2008). Students put their best finished work in their portfolios and also include works in progress that document their research as well as sketches and a research notebook with critical self-reflections (Stites & Malin, 2008). An IB examiner visits the student’s school and evaluates his or her portfolio for “imaginative expression, purposeful exploration, meaning and function, formal qualities, and technical and media skill”; the examiner also conducts an interview with the student (Stites & Malin, 2008, p. 22). Photos of the student’s artwork and copies of other portfolio materials are sent to Cardiff, Wales, where trained moderators compare the work to samples identified as benchmarks for given achievement levels (Stites & Malin, 2008). Stites and Malin (2008) identified the processes of benchmarking and moderation as strengths of the IB assessment model. In addition, evaluation of portfolios and research notebooks is a more authentic and appropriate assessment method than paper and pencil tests (Stites & Malin, 2008). However, this assessment method is costly, requiring a trained examiner to visit each school and additional

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

examiners to examine each student’s work at a central location (Stites & Malin, 2008). In addition, only senior level students are evaluated; larger scale implementation of this assessment method for accountability purposes would be complex and costly (Stites & Malin, 2008). Since 1972, the College Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) Studio Art portfolio assessments have been used to demonstrate that students have met college-level standards of achievement in the visual arts (Stites & Malin, 2008). There are three portfolio programs: drawing, 2-D design, and 3-D design (Stites & Malin, 2008). Students submit slides of work that demonstrate the quality of their work, their investigation in an area of concentration, and the breadth of their work; students also submit writing samples (Stites & Malin, 2008). The AP exam requires students to meet more specific criteria than the IB exam; students are evaluated on a written numerical scale (Stites & Malin, 2008). AP raters of the artwork and readers of the written statements have experience as college art faculty or three or more years of experience as studio art teachers (Stites & Malin, 2008). The benefits of the AP assessment process are similar to that of the IB program. The assessment process itself is part of the learning experience, and the products are authentic to the field of visual arts (Stites & Malin, 2008). However the strict portfolio criteria may lead teachers to emphasize certain aspects of the visual arts curriculum over others. In addition, like the IB program, the individualized evaluation process would be expensive to implement on a statewide or nationwide scale; in order for the evaluation to be

fair all students assessed would need equal access to the materials needed to produce the portfolio products (Stites & Malin, 2008). In 2008, Kentucky was the only state with a statewide mandated assessment in the arts. The Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT) includes the arts as one of the content areas; however, only a small proportion of the test is devoted to the arts (5% at the 5th grade level, 6.75% at the 8th grade level, and 7% at the 11th grade level) (Stites & Malin, 2008). The KCCT is a traditional paper and pencil test and “the arts portion of the KCCT consists of eight multiple-choice questions and two open-response items, which can be in any of the four art disciplines (music, visual art, theater, and dance)” (p. 16). Teachers may choose to spend less time on art because the arts constitute only a small portion of the test. The test is more cost-effective but features a form of assessment that is the least authentic to the field of visual arts of the assessments described above. Although impetus for standardized assessment in the visual arts appears to be waning at the present moment, the general educational climate in which teachers face enormous pressure to prepare students to succeed at multiple-choice tests has had an impact on art education. Boughton (2005) reported, “some art teachers are required to write commitment statements for school administrators explaining what measures they will implement to improve students’ skills so that they are more likely to pass multiple-choice tests in language, arts, and mathematics” (p. 216). Boughton criticized “institutionalized assessment practices” that promote

The William & Mary Educational Review

homogeneity, assess inappropriate content, and trivialize the subject matter (p. 216). In fact, Boughton claimed, “when we think about assessing the arts the words ‘standardized’ and ‘art’ should never be used in the same sentence” (p. 216). Simple content knowledge and media skills are easy to test for the purpose of satisfying accountability requirements, but this sort of assessment encourages a pedagogy that abrogates the main purposes of engagement in the arts (Boughton, 2005). Boughton argued that students must be able to engage in autonomous individual concept development, use their imaginations, and develop a critical stance; these are intended learning outcomes that must be promoted through the use of assessment methods appropriate to art education. Art becomes a means for exploring individuality and this premise is antithetical to standardization. Portfolios The use of a portfolio for assessment is one way to align assessment with Boughton’s (2005) intended learning outcome. A portfolio is a collection of work accumulated over time (Boughton, 2005). The content of a portfolio is embedded in daily classroom instruction. However the portfolio development process should be open-ended in that students are encouraged to develop their classroom experiences into independent investigations of ideas (Boughton, 2005). This means that a portfolio should not consist of a collection of teacher-defined ‘on-demand’ tasks but instead should showcase the individual explorations of the student (Boughton, 2005). Student portfolios that are only a collection of assigned work will generally all look the same, and it will not demonstrate that

students have the capacity to take responsibility and develop the ability to work independently; these types of portfolios only demonstrate the ability of the teacher to invent tasks and direct student responses (Boughton, 2005). Good portfolios will be unique to the student, demonstrating the student’s visual cultural interests and individuality; they may contain a wide range of media and will include work the student has created outside of class (Boughton, 2005). Good portfolios should contain student-selected entries (Stecher & Herman, 1997; Castiglione, 1996). Most importantly, good portfolios should promote students’ critical self-reflection, which can be documented in written or recorded form (Wolf, 1988). Portfolio assessment has limitations. According to Castiglione (1996), there are no large-scale investigations of predictive validity based on portfolio assessment in the arts. There have been few attempts to use a formalized grading system in judging portfolios (Madeja, 2004). Interrater reliability is a threat to validity in portfolio assessment. Portfolio assessors must be trained to achieve consistency, fairness, and accuracy, and this requires time, effort, financial commitment, and explicit standards (Castiglione, 1996). Art teachers may be influenced by role conflict when assessing their own students’ work; they may be influenced by their desire to help students and consequently apply standards unfairly to pass students with unsatisfactory work (Castiglione, 1996). In addition, “portfolio reviews are less reliable. . . and more likely to misclassify students than are other means of measuring academic standing” (Castiglione, 1996, p. 7). This

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

was contradicted by Madeja (2004) who found that “art teacher judgments of student artworks were reliable at the .01 level, which indicates 99 percent or better agreement as to the quality of artworks” (p. 8). One way to address reliability concerns is through the use of well-trained, independent monitors (Castiglione, 1996). Generalizability is also a concern: Shavelston, Baxter, and Gao (1993) estimated that between 10 and 23 separate portfolio products (tasks)—all of which must be laboriously hand scored—would be needed to attain an acceptable level of generalizability. The utility of portfolios can be greatly enhanced when digital content is integrated as another medium (Boughton, 2005; Popovich, 2006). A digital portfolio can be defined as “any portfolio recorded in digital media and assembled in any format as an alternative to a collection of actual artworks” (Fitzsimmons, 2008, p. 48). Digital portfolios can increase student motivation to document their work, as well as student motivation to record reflective comments, and have the added benefit of allowing students to better review their individual progress (Boughton, 2005). In addition, “examination of information in alternative formats provides the brain with a new set of information from which new meaning must be resolved” (Fitzsimmons, 2008, p. 8). Digital portfolios provide students with the opportunity to review and evaluate their work in a new context. They also make it possible for a large amount of student work to be documented over time without taking up limited classroom space.

Crystalline Reflection and Student Dialogue It may seem from the above discussion of large-scale assessment and portfolios that the tension in visual arts assessment is between traditional standardized paper-and-pencil testing and the more authentic use of performance based assessment. However, the problem is more nuanced. Willis (2014), through the use of a simile, proposed that visual arts assessment be considered within interrelated contexts specific to artistic concepts. He wrote, “imagine people as crystals, constantly reflecting and refracting each moment and movement of the environment” (p. 149). Willis compared reflection in a crystal, where light interacts both inside the crystal and with the surrounding environment, to the cognitive process of reflection, which includes self-reflection conducted internally by the student, as well as reflections generated by the instructor and other members of the community while evaluating the student’s work. Willis described an intended learning outcome of art education: the student should acquire “visual social-culturalhistorical literacy” (p.150). Assessment then, should support this learning outcome by providing a “sophisticated critical, analytical dialogue” that is developed for the purpose of discussing “individual and communal experiences” (Willis, 2014, p. 150). Willis described individual experiences as facets in a crystal, with each classroom containing multiple crystals; therefore, the potential for reflection grows exponentially with respect to the number of relationships possible within a classroom. This makes the assessment process complex and problematic.

The William & Mary Educational Review

The socio-cultural environment in which art instruction is conducted is subject to change. This has the effect of creating a “labyrinth of reflection” where assessment may begin with a “critical/ academic approach,” but order, or the identification of points of conceptual convergence from all of the disparate reflections possible in a classroom, can be created through the alignment of assessment practices with “social/ environmental” considerations (Willis, 2014, p. 151). For Willis, effective visual arts assessment is the creation of a dialogue. Initial judgments created in this dialogue may be considered formative assessments. Summative assessments must be temporary and tentative because “the socio-cultural-personal sphere of perception is evolving” (p. 151). Willis’ (2014) critique of assessment may seem too abstract to implement in a high school art class; however his conception of what is relevant in effective visual arts assessment can have direct influence on student learning and development. If students are to understand art, they must be able to engage in meaningful dialogue about their experiences with art making and their interpretations of the art work of others. Establishment of this dialogue, the ability to talk about art and make connections between artistic concepts, can be accomplished by aligning instructional practices (development of student visual arts dialogue) with assessment practices (evaluation of student dialogue). This form of assessment may address student conceptual development in a way that performance based assessment does not. Marcel Duchamp insisted that art is an idea first rather than an object. This

proposition has had significant art historical impact regardless of whether or not it is true. Students who cannot engage in conceptual dialogue are deficient in a cognitive ability specific to art appreciation and art making; conceptual dialogue is a skill that is perhaps useful in other fields as well. Development of this ability is a meaningful learning outcome that should be approached in concert with development of technical skill. Holistic Assessment While Willis’ (2014) conception of effective visual arts assessment should not be discounted, his proposal lacks specificity on what an effective assessment system should look like. A much more concrete set of assessment practices are found in Wilson’s (1996) strategy for holistic assessment, which is a component of discipline-based arts education. Wilson compares American art education practices to those found in European nations, such as the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Wilson argued that European arts examination policies are more holistic than those in the United States. According to Boughton (2005), “student admission to universities in European and Australasian countries is based upon the results of state or national public examinations of seniorschool subjects (including art), rather than standardized university admission exams” (p. 215). Wilson (1996) argued that these examinations lead to higher quality secondary arts instruction because students are expected to complete their examination projects without teacher assistance and because teams, including the classroom art teacher, art teachers from different schools, and regional

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

examination specialists, evaluate these projects. Students benefit from objective evaluation of their artwork by professional raters. Teachers face pressure to provide high quality instruction, and students have incentive to work hard, because of the high expectations and high stakes these examinations create (Wilson, 1996). There are also potential negative effects of this testing regimen. National examinations influence the taught curriculum in Europe; teachers emphasize concepts and artistic practices that will be assessed. In the Netherlands “students take separate examinations— one in the area of critical studies (which includes visual analysis, art criticism, and art history) and one relating to practical work (art making)” (Wilson, 1996, p. 3). Students may receive excellent instruction in art history and technique, but due to the bifurcated nature of the assessments, they may not be taught to make connections between their own art work and that of practicing artists. Students frequently seem to view their own work as individually constructed and fail to perceive the influence of the greater visual culture (Wilson, 1996). Wilson (1996) argued that holistic approaches have the potential to make American art education superior to that of Europe. Wilson presented a paradigm for disciplinebased art education in the form of instruction integrated with assessment through the use of “Comprehensive Holistic Assessment Tasks,” or CHATS (p. 5). The following description of CHATS serves as an example of what effective discipline-based art education is. In CHATS, assessment units are constructed around exemplary great

works of art. Units begin with “firstdraft interpretations” where students engage in verbal and written dialogue about the work of art without any background knowledge other that what they already possess (Wilson, 1996, p. 5). In the “first-draft theme-based creation” stage students discuss how the artwork relates to large themes (i.e., “human relationships to society, to natural and built environments, to time and place, to the future, to deity, norms and values, and so on”) and create sketches and models that relate to themes found in the artwork (Wilson, 1996, p. 5). In the “discipline-based study” phase students investigate artworks “within their social, historical, cultural, aesthetic, and artistic contexts” for example by reading biographies and art historical critiques (Wilson, 1996, p. 5). The next phase is “multi-draft and final-draft creation” where students create and refine their own artworks related to the unit. (Wilson, 1996, p. 5). In the “finaldraft interpretations” phase students create written interpretations relating the ideas in the studied artwork to their own projects. (Wilson, 1996, p. 5). The culminating task is “comparing the meaning of the artist’s work to the student’s artwork,” where students “interpret the connections—thematic, ideational, stylistic, expressive, and so on—among the artworks they have created and the artist’s work at the center of the unit” (Wilson, 1996, p. 5). CHATS are most effective when specific assessment practices are built into these assessment units. Because of the complex interrelationship between art teachers and their students who create the art products, it is difficult to separate student achievement from teacher

The William & Mary Educational Review

influence (Wilson, 1996). Disciplinebased art education derives significant effectiveness from its use of communal interpretation of artworks (Wilson, 1996). In order for assessment to be aligned with instruction, Wilson explains that students can be evaluated in small groups of perhaps five students. The students are shown a work of art and are provided instructions for a group discussion of the piece. This discussion is not teacher-led; it is between the students. The students then create a written summary of the interpretations generated during their discussion that can best be supported with evidence. Wilson (1996) does not hold with those who believe there are no wrong answers in art interpretation. He wrote, “to claim that artworks mean things they clearly do not mean and to allow unjustified interpretations to stand is like telling lies about artworks. It also diminishes their power to educate” (p. 7). Authenticity itself is an intended learning outcome here; students should be able to find and explain the meaning of a work of art and support their explanations with evidence. Wilson’s (1994) assessment strategy is holistic in its applications. This set of linked assessment tasks can be used to “collect data relating to virtually all of the national standards for visual arts” (p. 8). This is advantageous because it allows all evidence of student achievement to be collected simultaneously, rather than by designing individual tasks to assess achievement in hundreds of different standards (Wilson, 1994). In this assessment strategy assessment is aligned with instruction because the assessment activities “use the same kinds of performance processes and tasks undertaken during instruction” (p. 8).

Assessment Assemblage A critique of many of the assessment strategies described above is that they focus on the needs of only a subset of all potential stakeholders in arts education. Davis-Soylu and colleagues (2011) organized the spectrum of potential stakeholders into personal, provincial, and global categories. Personal stakeholders include the teachers and students in a given classroom (Davis-Soylu et al., 2011). Provincial stakeholders include school administrators and state officials (DavisSoylu et al., 2011). Global stakeholders include government agencies, arts education associations, and art scholars concerned with broad national and international trends in art education (Davis-Soylu et al., 2011). Portfolio assessment strategies may serve the needs of classroom teachers; however, they have not provided a comprehensive solution to assessing student learning in ways that communicate to those outside the arts (Brewer, 2008; Cho & Forde, 2001; Davis-Soylu et al., 2011; Gruber & Hobbs, 2002). Likewise, while standardized assessment may provide data useful to administrators, “the degree of conformity required for [multiplechoice] formats does not work well with the unique and complex nature of learning in the arts,” particularly as enacted at the classroom level (DavisSoylu et al., 2011, p. 214). Davis-Soylu and colleagues (2011) proposed a solution: a strategy of assessment assemblage based upon assessment staging theory. Assessment staging theory bypasses the dichotomy between formative and summative assessment by proposing that all assessment tasks have

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

both formative and summative functions. These functions may be formative for some stakeholders and summative for others (Davis-Soylu et al., 2011). Assessment assemblage incorporates disparate assessment strategies and the needs of multiple stakeholders in a manner analogous to the artistic practice of assemblage, in which individual objects are rearranged to create a harmonious whole piece that is meaningful in new ways due to the interrelationships of the objects. The intended learning outcome that motivates assessment assemblage is that students become members of the artistic community. The goal is for students to participate in the arts community and to develop an identity in relationship to the arts. This is reflected in the way that personal stakeholders assess portfolios. Students participate as artists by exhibiting their work. Performance-based assessments and large-scale standardized assessments should also be designed to align with this goal. The end goal is that all stages of assessment align with the intended learning outcome. This may be easier said than done. The proposal that portfolios be used for purely formative functions, and not for assigning letter grades, raises the concern that students will not value time spent on studio work. The acquisition of technical skill is an important achievement, especially for students who are being prepared to become participants in the art community. While students will be graded on their end products (through evaluation of exhibition), the significant amount of time they will need to spend developing their artistic process will not be a part of grading. The authors recommend that

performance-based assessments be custom-designed by each teacher. This raises questions as to whether the largescale standardized assessments can be effectively aligned with the performancebased assessments of each individual teacher. The assessment assemblage strategy acknowledges that students will benefit if they can receive arts education that is aligned to standards. There should be a way to determine if particular instructional methods are effective and assessment assemblage proposes a way to get quantitative generalizable data without compromising the intended learning outcome it proposes as the end goal of art education. Conclusion: Arts Assessment and Responsibilities of Instructional Leadership This paper has reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of several effective visual arts assessment strategies. According to ISLLC Standard 2, “an education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth”; this includes the functions to “develop assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress” and to “monitor and evaluate the impact of the educational program” (NPBEA, 2008). Ylimaki (2014) elaborated on the responsibilities implied by this standard: “effective instructional leaders use formative and summative assessment measures, as essential components of a comprehensive accountability system that connects assessments, instruction, and curriculum for the whole child within local communities and beyond” (p. 113). This professional framework suggests

The William & Mary Educational Review

implications for the stance instructional leaders should take towards visual arts assessment. It is not enough for an instructional leader to implement an arbitrary monitoring system for the purposes of accountability. Any accountability system must support student learning and the professional growth of teachers. The accountability system must align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Effective arts assessment is different from traditional forms of assessment, such as high-stakes standardized assessment optimized for the production of quantitative data for accountability purposes. Large-scale assessments such as the AP and IB portfoliobased assessments come the closest to traditional standardized testing in that they assign students numerical scores that allow comparisons to be made between students. However, these assessments face the challenge of quantifying the intrinsically subjective nature of arts achievement. Regardless of whether studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; artworks are compared to exemplar ranked artworks or extensive written descriptions of criteria, the evaluation process is fundamentally aesthetic. Evaluators must consider the visual language expressed in the portfolios. In order to become fluent in this visual language, students must, in part, receive assessment that is specific to this particular form of communication. Students will not be able to excel on these large-scale assessments, or construct effective portfolios for university admissions, unless they have received instruction for technical proficiency and the capacity for selfevaluation. This requires integration of

content specific assessment throughout studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; high school careers. Mastery of the visual arts cannot be drilled into students with standardized testing. Instead, students must receive assessment that is capable of being used to evaluate subjective qualities such as creativity and self-expression. This is why these assessments must be individualized and capable of capturing the qualitative nature of art making. Familiarity with effective arts assessment can help instructional leaders make assessment-related decisions in other content areas. Instructional leaders can encourage teachers in other content areas to evaluate their students with portfolios. Portfolios are a versatile form of assessment. Collecting and periodically reviewing work in an art class helps a student become aware of his or her progress in art. Similarly, students can create portfolios to document writing projects in English or foreign language classes. The basic practice of compiling and organizing work over time could help students track their progress in a wide variety of subjects. In addition, the visual arts are not the only subject in which students should exercise creativity and engage in dialogue for the purpose of self-evaluation. Instructional leaders should consider how effective arts assessments evaluate these critical skills when questioning the utility of traditional assessments. A multiple choice math test may be able to determine if a student is able to follow the set procedures of a math operation, but it will yield little or no information about the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to apply a strategy to construct and solve a unique problem. The basic premise of effective arts assessment is that it helps evaluate creativity on an individual basis.

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

An understanding of how these forms of assessments benefit students will help instructional leaders recognize assessments that evaluate creativity on an individualized basis in other content areas. If instructional leaders wish to promote assessment strategies that meet the needs of students who wish to pursue careers in the visual arts, a number of suggestions are warranted. These students should be encouraged to take AP or IB visual arts classes if these classes are available. The AP and IB assessments provide credentials that can help students gain admission to university arts programs. Regardless of whether AP or IB classes are available, instructional leaders should encourage art teachers to assess students with portfolios. Visual arts professionals will need to create portfolios throughout their careers, whether they seek to gain admission to an educational program, obtain gallery representation, or submit a proposal for a grant. Portfolio assessment in high school is authentic to the career level assessments these students will face as practicing artists in the future. Students should also receive dialogue-based assessment as described by Willis (2014). Practicing artists must be able to talk about their work with other artists and with members of the community. An important part of any portfolio is an artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statement that explains the concepts the artist explores with his or her artwork. Instructional leaders should avoid assessment strategies that promote compliance and conformity. This includes assessment strategies, like the KCCT, focused solely on generating quantitative data for the purposes of accountability. Holistic

assessment and assessment assemblage are two assessment strategies designed to address the administratorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need for generalizable data without compromising the purpose of study in the visual arts. At the same time, instructional leaders should be mindful of the potential unintended consequences of implementing these strategies. Simply mandating that all art teachers will assess their students with portfolios will not ensure that students will receive effective instruction. Effective portfolios should be the end product of a rich instructional sequence that exposes students to the work of other artists and prepares them to engage in criticism. A portfolio can effectively document student learning and creating; it is an authentic learning task, but freedom and risk-taking could be inhibited if students must question whether every piece they create, even every brush stroke they take, will be good enough to serve the purpose of filling the portfolio. In addition, instructional leaders may be tempted to avoid the potential extra effort that is required to assess student visual arts achievement effectively by simply categorizing the visual arts as less important than other subjects. They could argue that it is too difficult to create generalizable data to assess the progress of art students at their schools so why bother going through the trouble. In fact, assessment assemblage and holistic assessment do provide ways to collect this data, although instructional leaders will need to expand their conception of what data is relevant for accountability. Instructional leaders have the responsibility to familiarize themselves with assessment strategies and theories of assessment that are aligned to the

The William & Mary Educational Review

intended learning outcomes associated with study in the visual arts. These forms of assessment may produce data that is more qualitative in nature than that produced by traditional assessment methods. It may require effort to evaluate the insights these assessments provide, because the data they produce is more

nuanced than a numerical score on a scale of proficiency. Effective visual arts assessment strategies can provide evidence that students are developing as whole individuals who can use art to take personal responsibility and investigate questions of meaning and truth.

References

National Policy Board for Education Administration. (2008). Educational leadership Brewer, T. M. (2008). Developing a bundled visual policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Retrieved from arts assessment model. Visual Arts Research, http://www.vide.vi/documents/general/24034(1), 63-74. educational-leadership-policy-standards-2008/ Boughton, D. (2005). From fine art to visual file.html culture: Assessment and the changing role of Popovich, K. (2006). Designing and implementing art education. International Journal of Education exemplary content, curriculum, and assessment through Art, 1(3), 211-223. doi:10.1386/ in art education. Art Education, 59(6), 33-39. etar.1.3.211/1 Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. Castiglione, L. (1996). Portfolio assessment in art (1993). Sampling variability of performance and education. Education Policy Review, 97(2), assessments. Journal of Education Measurement, 2-9. 30, 215-232. Cho, M., & Forde, E. (2001). Designing teaching Stecher, B., & Herman, J. (1997). Using portfolios and assessment methods for diverse student for large-scale assessment. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), populations. International Journal of Art Design Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 491-516). Education, 20(1), 86-95. doi:10.1111/1468London: Academic Press. 5949.00253 Stites, R., & Malin, H. (2008). An unfinished canvas. Davis-Soylu, H. J., Peppler, K. A., & Hickey, D. A review of large-scale assessment in Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 arts T. (2011). Assessment assemblage: Advancing education. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. portfolio practice through the assessment Willis, S. (2014). Crystalline awareness: A staging theory. Studies in Art Education: A suggestion for arts assessment. Visual Arts Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education, Research, 40(1), 149-152. 52(3), 213-224. Wilson, B. (1996). Arts standards and Fitzsimmons, D. (2008). Digital portfolios in visual fragmentation: A strategy for holistic arts classrooms. Art Education, 61(5), 47-53. assessment. Arts Education Policy Review, 98(2), Gruber, D. D., & Hobbs, J. A. (2002). Historical 2-9. doi:10.1080/10632913.1996.9935092 analysis of assessment in art education. Art Wolf, D. (1988). Opening up assessment. Education, 55(6), 12-17. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 24-29. Madeja, S. S. (2004). Alternative assessment Ylimaki, R. M. (2014). The new instructional leadership: strategies for schools. Arts Education Policy ISLLC standard two. New York, NY: Routledge. Review, 105(5), 3-13. National Assessment Governing Board. (1994). 1997 arts education assessment framework. Washington, DC: Author. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). More about NAEP arts. Retrieved from https://nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/arts/moreabout. aspx

About the Author Kyle Guzik is an M.A.Ed. student in Gifted Education at the College of William & Mary. His current research interests include post-conceptual art, discourse analysis in gifted and talented education, and quantitative methods in art education. He will graduate this summer and begin a doctoral program in Art Education at Virginia Commonwealth University in the fall.

Visual Arts Assessment Strategies

The William & Mary Educational Review

Addressing Religious Diversity in the Public Institution Kristen Tarantino

Existing in institutions of higher education is an ever-present doubt as to whether higher education should be addressing the religious and spiritual needs of its diverse student population. In public institutions, there is an assumption that religious neutrality promotes inclusivity, but this assumption does not negate the existence of religiosity and spirituality that permeates the lives of students. Emphasizing the value of a diverse student body cannot stop at merely establishing racial and ethnic diversity. Indeed, cultural diversity often has a religious or spiritual element that is overlooked in favor of adding diverse ways of thinking to a classroom or campus. Faculty, as a result, have diverse classrooms that may include students with any number of religious or spiritual backgrounds, and they are not always able to manage such diversity in a way that promotes positive learning for all students. In the midst of political correctness, a consuming fear of constitutional infringement, and an increasing population of various religious cultures in the United States, institutions of higher education must establish

programming for religiously diverse students that encourages an open understanding of the other, facilitates mutually beneficial dialogue between faith and spiritual traditions, and provides support for the individual studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s faith or spiritual journey. However, administrators who work with students on a regular basis may not have the knowledge or experience that would be beneficial to provide support for students who may have spiritual or existential crises. In cases where institutions do not meet these needs, students may seek out their own support networks or student-run organizations. However, these organizations face barriers with the institution when they enforce their religious values on participation policies. This article argues that institutional responsibility for student religious or spiritual needs should be met through opportunities to facilitate dialogue about and between faith and spiritual traditions, institutional accommodations that support religious diversity, fiscal support for student organizations, appropriate classroom management, and inclusive learning environments and policies.

Addressing Religious Diversity

Who is Responsible for Students’ Religious or Spiritual Needs? On college campuses across the country, the question of addressing religious diversity and how to address it appropriately is an ever-present concern. Unfortunately for many students, “public higher education has enacted a strict and sometimes literal interpretation of the separation of church and state doctrine” (Magolda, 2010, p. 4). Such an interpretation suggests that colleges and universities leave questions of religion and spirituality in the hands of community faith leaders. Supporting this idea, Possamai and Brackenreg (2009) proposed that institutions may have less responsibility in meeting the worship and other spiritual needs of diverse students because local faith communities are more equipped to address them. Because of the growing population of various religious cultures within higher education, there developed a need to analyze how institutions were, or were not, addressing religious diversity in the student population (Laurence, 1999). This project, known as the Education as Transformation Project, discovered that not only were there significant increases in religious diversity, interest in religion, and religious organization development, but also that universities had failed to establish programming for students that targeted these trends (Laurence, 1999). Many have come to believe that encouraging students to examine and think critically about different cultures and belief systems will prepare them to be better global citizens. Bryant (2006) proposed that, “the well-being of the nation and its people depends on learning to live with compassion and kindness as we

encounter difference” (p.2). The role that religious diversity plays in student learning has been the main focus and justification for advocating the recognition of, and services for, a student’s faith or spiritual development. “Research has found that during a college experience frequent religious changes occur including a decrease in importance of religious values, increased skepticism about God, the church, and religious activities and lowered religious orthodoxy and fundamentalism” (Madsen & Vernon, 1983, p. 127). Because this is a time of questioning, of cognitive dissonance, students need the support of the college community to work through how they feel about these changes and how what they are learning is affecting their religious beliefs. Cole and Ahmadi (2010) argued that the power a student’s religious or spiritual identity has on his or her academic and personal success is directly relational to whether an institution “can facilitate or provide opportunities for such growth to take place within a religiously diverse campus environment” (p. 136). However, some institutions such as the University of Michigan report that this aspect of learning is met through religious studies departments and other academic courses, not extracurricular programming. Kaplan (2006) explained that: Institutional funds do not support the various campus chaplaincies and religious organizations at Michigan, and personal religious views, practices, and identities have been treated as private matters. This tradition of institutional separation from issues of faith is, however, being challenged by growing political and social movements that emphasize the importance of religious faith in all aspects of

The William & Mary Educational Review

intellectual life, including the sciences. (p. 42) While the range of disagreement with incorporating religious and spiritual needs into university programming varies, the majority of concerns stem from a need to “avoid legal pressure under the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution” (Grubbs, 2006, p. 8). Proponents of addressing religious diversity do so with caution. Stoppa and Lefkowitz (2010) suggested that the impact of religion and spirituality among students is evident in associations with various health-related and college adjustment outcomes. Additionally, “a religious community support network may be able to ease [students’] transition to college by providing access to religious leaders and fellow students who they can turn to for coping assistance in times of stress” (Duffy & Lent, 2008, p. 366). Furthermore, Kuh and Gonyea (2006) reported that, “spirituality-enhancing activities do not seem to hinder, and may even have mildly salutary effects on, engagement in educationally purposeful activities and desired outcomes of college” (p .46). There seems to be a consensus that the best way to foster relations among students of diverse religious backgrounds is by sponsoring dialogue initiatives dealing with issues of faith and spirituality (Magolda, 2010). Though much of university diversity initiatives have focused on race, gender and sexual orientation, it is becoming more necessary to concentrate those efforts on the prevalence of religious diversity and what that means for the student community.

Embracing Dialogue to Counter Misunderstanding In a post-September 11 society, U.S. citizens are more aware, and often critical, of individuals who emphasize their diversity. A result of this hyperawareness is a recognition, yet also a misunderstanding, of various cultures and traditions. It is important to note that “religion is commonly given as the reason behind various cultural practices: it can influence the way people dress, the food customs they engage in, their socio-political views or the nature of their interpersonal relationships” (Tomalin, 2007, p. 625). For example, though individuals can recognize that a woman wearing a hijab is most likely a Muslim, people frequently mistake such a display of religious observance with antifeminism and oppression. This principle extends to college campuses where “religious diversity provides an additional layer of socially complex structures to those visually and culturally identified through racial/ethnic differences” (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010, p. 136). Students at institutions across the nation are exposed to the same groups of diversity that exist on a larger scale outside the campus community. As such, there is a need to recognize all religious groups on campus and to understand the differences among them so that students can be further prepared for encounters with diverse individuals in society after graduation. When looking at the various religious groups that exist on college campuses, it is also imperative to examine intra-group, as well as inter-group, interactions. There is a risk that members belonging to religious organizations will not foster the types of dialogue that

Addressing Religious Diversity

encourage openness and understanding of other faiths. In a study done on Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish students, “members of each religious group directed less prejudice against their own religious group than was directed against them by members of other religious groups” (Blum & Mann, 1960, p. 100). However they may feel about one another, students who are members of religious groups on campus seem to exhibit the most amicable attitudes toward the college (Nelson, 1939). This suggests colleges should not ignore the presence of students who are actively engaged in religious organizations on campus, because it may be a rich avenue for colleges to explore while developing future student involvement initiatives. Because of the historical prevalence of Christian tradition in U.S. society, many higher education policies have taken on a Christian subtext, privileging those that practice Christianity over another faith tradition. The academic calendar is a prime example of how institutions capitalize on Christian privilege. One could hardly fault universities for organizing the calendar around Christian holidays such as Christmas, considering it has developed into a major cultural holiday; however, “any campus that fails to formally acknowledge the existence of many nonChristian religious holidays is sending a subtle yet powerful ethnocentric message concerning which holidays are worth knowing about, and which ones are not” (Schlosser & Sedlacek, 2003, p. 32). This message reverberates through a university’s actions or inactions as well. When public institutions decide to adorn the campus with Christmas trees and various other Christmas

decorations, students may feel as though the university only values students from the Christian tradition. Campus leaders should reach out to the various faith traditions by sponsoring other holidays (holy - days), not just those practiced by the majority. In order to create opportunities for students to explore what it means to value diversity in religious and spiritual traditions, institutions must design a structure that truly supports interfaith dialogue. Schlosser and Sedlacek (2003) suggested that universities should “distribute an annual calendar of religious holidays,” “incorporate religious curricula into established diversity programs,” “establish the position of ‘coordinator of campus multifaith activities,’” and “ensure that campus policies, including final exam schedule[s], reflect religious diversity” (p. 32). By providing equal access for interaction with religiously diverse students in an environment free from judgment and endorsement of one religious tradition over another, institutions have the foundation to begin bridging the gap in understanding between students of different faith traditions. Institutionalizing Religious Accommodations When the students from diverse backgrounds attend the same institution, it is necessary for that institution to provide the appropriate accommodations sought by those students. Universities already provide such accommodations for students with disabilities and for international students. To preserve the religious heritage that many students subscribe to upon entering college, institutions should be prepared to offer the same types of accommodations that

The William & Mary Educational Review

are already present for other students. These accommodations could be as simple as providing space for student organizations to meet or for students to engage in prayer and meditation. However, for many religious students, accommodations for their beliefs can be much more personal and may not be under the institution’s control. For Muslim women, the issue of veiling raises an important point from which to open dialogue among students. While being a religious tenet that women chose to follow, “veiling in [the] college environment create[s] barriers in [students’] academic and social spheres, which affect[s] their sense of belonging in the educational community” (Cole & Ahmadi, 2003, p. 65). Because other students do not understand why female students would subject themselves to a symbol of female oppression, Muslim women on campus are in effect shunned from what would normally be called a “typical college experience.” Interestingly, when considering why they chose to veil, “students who feel coerced by alienating college experiences appear more likely to reinvestigate the purpose of the veil” (p. 65). These female students should not be made to feel as though they need to alter their embodiment of religious beliefs just because the campus culture does not agree or understand. By encouraging an open dialogue among students, institutions will in effect be supporting the rights of expression that religious believers deserve. Another area for which institutions can have responsibility is providing meals in which any student, regardless of religious tenets, can partake. Particularly in Islamic and Jewish traditions, followers adhere to strict

dietary laws that can be overlooked by student organizations as well as by dining halls and university receptions. Tomalin (2007) indicated, “the ‘alcoholled’ student culture was cited as a cultural impediment to ‘fitting in’ for many students, as was the absence of halaal or kosher food at catering outlets, as well as social events” (p. 628). By providing environments that do not endorse one particular tradition over another, institutions sometimes fail to consider how students of a certain faith perceive those environments. Institutions may not think that, in organizing a reception for an honor society induction, they would need to consider how refreshment options would be perceived by religious cultures that are different from the mainstream. Additionally, there is a concern that students from diverse religious backgrounds need educational environments that support their individual beliefs. Educators must develop an understanding of the various faith traditions that culturally are not supported in the U.S. higher education system. For example, in class environments that promote collaboration among students, “the reluctance of some students to work in mixed sex groups and ethical or cultural objections to course content...also raised difficulties for educators” (Tomalin, 2007, p. 628). In support of a model that promotes dialogue, educators should establish opportunities for students that encourage self-expression orally and in writing and does not endorse argument or debate (Shady & Larson, 2010). The reality for educators is that religious beliefs have a powerful impact on class discussion and student participation. Therefore, faculty

Addressing Religious Diversity

and staff members need to learn more about the differences in these religious cultures so that they can create a course framework that will emphasize equality and understanding. Funding for Religious Student Organizations Campus religious organizations are a prime outlet for students to associate with others who hold the same beliefs or even to explore dialogue between various groups. These groups, like many other student-run organizations, generally require funds to operate. For many campus organizations and clubs, this funding is distributed by the Student Government Association (SGA) or similar council. While this does not present a problem for most campus organizations, institutions fear supporting religious organizations because it suggests direct endorsement of that religion. This has led to institutional policies prohibiting religious organizations from receiving funds. In June of 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision regarding Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. In the case, a Christian student organization claimed its constitutional rights were violated when the University refused to provide funds for their Christian newspaper on the grounds that it would be supporting religious activity (Jaschik, 1995). Siding with the student organization, the Court “approved of university support for a religious publication that was not directly affiliated with a church. At the same time, the Court stood by its longtime prohibition on direct support for a church” (Jaschik, 1995, para. 4). The implications of this decision are that institutions, particularly public

institutions, are now responsible for ensuring that student-run religious organizations receive equal funding as long as those funds do not directly support a particular church or similar institution. Additionally, colleges and universities must consider where they get their funding. Institutions of higher education are subject to federal statutes regarding discrimination, including Title IX and Title VI (Hamilton & Bentley, 2005). In order for them to continue to receive federal funding, these institutions must be sure that they, and any organizations associated with them (including student organizations), are following the discrimination provisions set forth by the federal government. While both statutes state that “a university may lose its federal funding if a student is subjected to discrimination in an educational program on the basis of certain traits such as sex, race, color, national origin, disability, or age” (Hamilton & Bentley, 2005, p. 621-622), there is no mention in either about a student being discriminated based on his or her religious views. In a time of decreased state and federal financial support, institutions are also forcing budget cuts across the board. New programs that focus on interfaith dialogue may be seen as extraneous and offering little support as to their significance in the lives of students. Administrators would be more likely to cut these programs before they even start because the need for funding current programs outweighs the need to support a program that might not reach the entire student population. The general concern among students and university personnel is that the more an institution funds any

The William & Mary Educational Review

kind of religious activity, the less secular and liberal those institutions portray themselves to be. Some students and administrators might argue that religion has no place in the university whatsoever and that religious students should seek to attend private universities where those needs can be met more appropriately. However, with the cost of tuition increasing at a rate that few people can keep up with, as well as the increase of grants to attend public institutions, there is more incentive for students to attend a public university compared to a private institution. What then does this mean as far as a public institution addressing the religious and spiritual needs of those students? Managing Religious Diversity in the Classroom The question that faces higher education is how to maintain an environment of equality and acceptance in the face of various religious beliefs. Faculty and staff must also face this question in their classrooms. Many staff are concerned that they cannot teach effectively because they do not have sufficient knowledge about different cultures and religions. Others are worried that they may unwittingly discriminate against a student on cultural or religious grounds from a position of ignorance. (Tomalin, 2007, p. 622) Because faculty members may not be prepared to teach students from diverse religious backgrounds, trying to establish a mode of dialogue between students and professors has become a real concern in higher education. Professors express their frustration with students who do not come into class with an open mind. How do you teach a fundamentalist Christian the theory of

evolution when they adamantly believe the world was created as the Bible dictates? In attempting to develop some sort of common ground, Shady and Larson (2010) suggested that “educators have a responsibility to find a proper balance between building open relations with students and respecting each student’s personal autonomy by acknowledging their otherness” (p. 82). Furthermore, Shady and Larson (2010) argued that: Enabling genuine dialogue about diverse ideas requires a consideration of both the interpersonal dynamics of the relation between teacher and student, as well as the interpersonal dynamics of the pursuit of truth itself. This model of education promotes a shared reality where all partners in the dialogue come to understand each other’s position, even if they do not entirely agree with it. (p. 83) By challenging students to engage in dialogue, even about course topics, faculty members can at least attempt to reach out to those students. Under this model, there is no direct pressure on the student to discard his or her belief system. Educators have a responsibility to educate students, not evangelize and convert them to their way of thinking. Another concern in higher education is that faculty members ultimately have the power to overstep their bounds. In trying to foster an environment where all religions are welcome and free from persecution, it is important to recognize the power that professors have in the course material they choose to highlight. Professors run the risk of proselytizing their views in favor of one tradition over another if they are not careful. Though many professors may do this inadvertently by

Addressing Religious Diversity

providing only one religious point of view on a topic, some may decide to take it to the extreme by stating that a particular religious tradition is the only belief system or the correct belief system. Anti-Discrimination or Anti-Religion Policies? Without a doubt, the most prominent obstacle in addressing religious diversity is the fear of violating the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution. This fear overshadows every decision that an institution makes regarding funding, accommodations, organization oversight and university programming. Not only does the institution have to be concerned with violating Constitutional rights, but it also must be aware of violating the antidiscrimination statutes discussed earlier. For administrators, “the secularization of education has also been a response to the growing acceptance of religious diversity in the U.S. populations. Yet the effect of secularization has been to deny the significance of the very foundation of religion” (Laurence, 1999, p. 11). With regard to student organizations, administrators have final approval in whether or not an organization will be recognized by the institution. What remains to be seen is whether universities have the right to determine who can be members of those organizations or not. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Healy v. James that just because a college president does not agree with the ideology of the organization does not mean that he or she can keep those students from exercising their first amendment right to association and be an organization on campus

(Hamilton & Bentley, 2005). However, Hamilton and Bentley (2005) stated that: If a college can prove that the non-discrimination provision of its disciplinary code as applied to a potential student organization’s selection of its members and officers is a ‘reasonable campus law,’ Healy seems to offer support that a university may enforce such a campus law. (p. 617) What this means for student organizations is that if a university develops a policy that states, “No organization will discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation,” all organizations will have to abide by that policy regardless of their religious creed. For example, if a Christian organization tries to keep gay or lesbian students from joining because the organization does not support homosexuality, the university can force them to include those students or threaten to remove university support from the organization. This brings up a controversy over allowing students to celebrate their traditions in such a way that emphasizes their autonomy. Subjecting student organizations to include students that do not follow the same ideology seems to be a negative way of achieving inter-group interaction. Ultimately, university administrations have the authority to enforce anti-religious policies as they see fit. The concern is that by establishing those types of policies, institutions are creating an environment that seeks to maintain liberal secularization and not celebrate the diversity that exists among students in the most fundamental capacity—religion and spirituality. Focusing on the repercussions of allowing room for dialogue about religious beliefs “seriously undermines

The William & Mary Educational Review

[the] commitment to diversity and [the] ability to fulfill an important educational priority (that is, educating students about other religious traditions)” (Schlosser & Sedlacek, 2003, p. 31). Conclusion and Implications In a society that values objectivity, tolerance, and neutrality, religion has been shut away from college students as a viable means of self-expression. Public colleges and universities that should be concerned with the holistic development of the students they serve mostly ignore the importance that religion and spirituality play in the lives of students. Administrators do not have the resources available to educate themselves on the various religious traditions that are present on campus and are therefore ill prepared to serve the vast majority of students in this area of their development. By providing a means to explore one’s religion or spirituality, institutions can begin to bridge the divide that exists between faith traditions. In order to do that, colleges and universities must place interfaith dialogue first. Fostering an open and judgment-free environment where dialogue can flourish will lead to students learning from one another about other traditions and becoming not only tolerant of other faith traditions, but also inclusive of those traditions within their own experience. Institutions of higher education have the deck stacked against them if they attempt to include religion and spirituality in student programming. Not only do these institutions have to fight for financial support from sources that also believe in religious and spiritual development, but they must be able to

provide equal access to all traditions including students who may consider themselves atheists. While this may seem like an easy goal to accomplish, the reality is that most administrators and faculty members do not have the resources or education necessary to facilitate this development or these types of discussions with students. The fact remains that religion or spirituality is a vital element in the lives of most individuals, even if one might identify as atheist or agnostic. Since colleges and universities serve that same population of individuals, potential students will also practice certain religious beliefs or, at the very least, will be searching for a higher meaning and purpose in life. If the goal of higher education is to facilitate the education of the whole student, institutions would be remiss in fulfilling this goal if they did not factor in a student’s religious or spiritual development as a mediating factor in the learning process. References Blum, B. S., & Mann, J. H. (1960). The effect of religious memberships on religious prejudice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 52(1), 97-101. doi :10.1080/00224545.1960.9922064 Bryant, A. N. (2006). Exploring religious pluralism in higher education: Non-majority religious perspectives among entering first-year college students. Religion and Education, 33(1), 1-25. Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of muslim women who veil on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 47-66. doi:10.1353/ csd.2003.0002 Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of muslim students’ experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 121-139. doi:10.1353/ jhe.0.0089 Duffy, R. D., & Lent, R. W. (2008). Relation of religious support to career decision self-efficacy in college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(3), 360-369. doi:10.1177/1069072708317382

Addressing Religious Diversity Grubbs, S. (2006). The administrative oversight of campus religious groups in the southeast. Journal of College and Character, 7(8), 1-17. Hamilton, D. G., & Bentley, E. D. (2005). Enforcing a university’s non-discrimination provision for a student organization’s selection of its members and officers. Journal of Law and Education, 34(4), 615-626. Jaschik, S. (1995, July 14). Religious-activities decision may force colleges to alter rules. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 41(44), A22-A23. Kaplan, M. L. (2006). Getting religion in the public research university. Academe, 92(2), 41-45. Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006). Spirituality, liberal learning, and college student engagement. Liberal Education, 92(1), 40-47. Laurence, P. (1999). Can religion and spirituality find a place in higher education? About Campus, 4(5), 11-16. Madsen, G. E., & Vernon, G. M. (1983). Maintaining the faith during college: A study of campus religious group participation. Review of Religious Research, 25(2), 127-141. Magolda, P. M. (2010). An unholy alliance: Rethinking collaboration involving student affairs and faith-based student organizations. Journal of College and Character, 11(4), 1-5. doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1734

Nelson, E. (1939). Extra-class activities and student activities. American Sociological Review, 4(6), 823-826. Possamai, A., & Brackenreg, E. (2009). Religious and spirituality diversity at a multi-campus suburban university: What type of need for chaplaincy? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(4), 355-366. doi:10.1080/13600800903191989 Schlosser, L. Z., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2003). Christian privilege and respect for religious diversity: Religious holidays on campus. About Campus, 7(6), 31-32. Shady, S. L. H., & Larson, M. (2010). Tolerance, empathy or inclusion? Insights from Martin Buber. Educational Theory, 60(1), 81-96. Stoppa, T. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2010). Longitudinal changes in religiosity among emerging adult college students. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(1), 23-38. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00630x Tomalin, E. (2007). Supporting cultural and religious diversity in higher education: Pedagogy and beyond. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5-6), 621-634. doi:10.1080/13562510701595283

About the Author Kristen L. Tarantino, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral researcher working with the Higher Education department at the College of William and Mary’s School of Education. Her research interests include teaching and learning in higher education, the graduate student experience, and college student transition.