Another Look #3

Another Look

Electronic Edition # 5

Perspectives Marcella L. Kyslka and Karen L. Riley

Remembering the Past, Predicting the Future: Politics and Florida Education

R

eflections on a period when the Florida state legislature required the teaching of a 30 hour course, Americanism vs. Communism that was little more than propaganda and indoctrination. It parallels the legislature‟s recent attempts at reform which foist more work on schools with little concern for funding and recognition.

Florida is in an intensive growth mode, that is fact.

No one who lives and works in the state can deny that such growth taxes the very infrastructure of our state. Our roads, our housing, our economy, our social services and, particularly, our schools are all impacted by this intensive growth. Because of this growth, many Florida taxpayers and voters are relatively new and know little about the many historical events that have affected who and what we are as Floridians. If what the people know about public education is what they read in the various local newspapers published around the state, their images of the schools and the teachers is not good. We are constantly bombarded by information that indicates our children are not performing, our teachers are not qualified, and our schools are in shambles.

We hear cries for getting more and better teachers hired in our schools. We are told that we need to attract the best and the brightest into our classrooms.

We hear criticisms from the politicians that one of the reasons we cannot attract people into the educational halls of the universities is because we put too many stumbling blocks in front of the would be teachers, making them take huge numbers of ineffective education courses, when what they really need is more content. We hear the hue and cry for alternative, short cuts to teacher certification, particularly for those individuals who wish to change professions and have chosen education as a second or third career. Yet, the very people who want “quick fixes” to teacher certification are the very same people who put all the “road blocks” into the certification programs offered through teacher education institutions.

The reality in Florida is that the State, meaning the legislature and the governor, has a history of controlling what is taught and by whom in our schools, prek-16, yet they are not willing to “pay” for what they

desire. Florida historically and notoriously has under funded education. Even in the “good” years of funding, most school districts, public community colleges and universities were just “catching up” from lean fiscal years that are more the norm. Yet, in spite of these problems, teachers in our schools have done and are doing remarkable jobs. They have learned to “work around” much of the legislation and funding challenges in order to provide “appropriate and meaningful” learning experiences for the students in our schools. This article is a reflection of a period in time when teachers “worked around” a horribly conceived law, Public Law (PL) 233.064 (1961) of the Florida State Statutes. The period of time is 19611991 when social studies teachers were “forced” to teach a course called Americanism vs. Communism or AVC. The new law mandated that all high school students in the state of Florida receive thirty hours of instruction in AVC as a requirement for graduation.

AVC, as both teachers and students called the course, was based upon a seven-part law. Its statement of intent referred to Communism as a political ideology that was in conflict with the principles of Democracy. The statute pointed to a growing global fear that student groups were especially susceptible to exploitation and manipulation. Therefore, free people everywhere, reasoned lawmakers, were challenged to meet and defeat the dark forces of communism.

According to the law‟s formulators, the most expedient method of meeting this challenge was to provide students with “a thorough understanding of the entire communist movement, including its history, doctrines, objectives and techniques.” (PL 233.064 of the Florida Code, 1961). Subsequently, teachers taught the tenets of Communism, while Americanism was supposed to be portrayed as the only reasonable political system of a free world, even though “Americanism” is neither a political nor even an economic system. According to the new curriculum‟s goals, the course was designed as a bulwark against Communism, in that its primary purpose was to instill “in the minds of the students a greater appreciation of democratic processes, freedom under law, and the will to preserve that freedom” (PL 233.064 of the Florida Code, 1961). Other goals, according to the law included student understandings of the American economic system as the one which “produces higher wages, higher standards of living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any other system of economics on earth.”

In advancing these ideas, the wording of the statute urged teachers to warn students about the misery of living under “godless” Communism, the political and economic system of the United States‟ greatest peace -time enemy, the Soviet Union. Lawmakers charged teachers with placing “particular emphasis upon the dangers of Communism, the ways to fight Communism, the evils of Communism, the fallacies of Communism, and the false doctrines of Communism (PL 233.064 of the Florida Code, 1961). They went so far as to insist that the State Textbook Council and the State Department of Education use the official reports of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security subcommittee of the United States Congress as instructional guides. Moreover, none of the textual materials selected for Florida schools, or any teacher assigned to teach the AVC course, reminded lawmakers, were permitted to favor Communism or present it as preferable to the system of government of the United States. Florida legislators, either out of ignorance, or a certain superiority, even went so far as to claim that the free-enterprise system was indigenous to the United States.

Florida lawmakers likely viewed students as natural candidates for exploitation and in need of such defensive measures as the newly-mandated AVC social studies program. This inoculation approach to curriculum development and implementation seemingly guaranteed that Florida youth were armed with an appropriate quantity of knowledge about the dangers of Communism and as such would be in a position to serve the state well as classroom soldiers and citizens. Escalating events in Vietnam may have been one reason lawmakers sought to keep the image of the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire,” fresh in the minds of graduating seniors, whose civic responsibilities might later include military service. Viewed from that perspective, AVC had the potential to contribute to both the recruitment of soldiers, and as a public relations endeavor, which would make military involvement in Vietnam palatable.

A second theory, and one advanced by a teacher interviewed for this paper, involved influential South Florida businessmen and former Cuban citizens. According to this teacher, powerful Cuban businessmen in Miami feared the Castro government and persuaded South Florida lawmakers to support an antiCommunism program for high school students.

However, none of the curriculum materials surveyed to date are anti-Castro; they focused exclusively on

as a comparative government course, examining the economic and political systems of both the United States and the Soviet Union. In the early years of implementation, teachers who took this approach to teaching AVC were often seen as “subversive” and called “Commies” and “Pinkos” by those who taught by the “letter of the mandate” and used the prescribed textbook written by J.Edgar Hoover.2 Most of the teachers interviewed indicated their belief that teachers who reverted to name calling and disapproval simply failed to understand the nature of the statutes or the course being taught. Furthermore, these teachers contend that most students saw the course as an indoctrination course, filled with propaganda, and frankly disliked the course.

All the teachers interviewed for this paper expressed a deep and abiding belief that the system of government in the United States was the best. However, each stubbornly resisted what they perceived to be state intervention in the classroom for the purpose of indoctrination, when as social studies teachers, most tried to encourage their students to develop the skills of critical thinking. Their collective perception that the state‟s motive was a kind of “brain washing” endeavor, likely found expression in the classroom, and may account for student attitudes toward the course. What tends to support this claim is that while teachers knew exactly why they opposed the state-mandated curriculum, former students interviewed lacked any understanding as to how they came to dislike their AVC course.

Like other “special interest” curricula (and Florida is replete with them), the AVC course was not supported through in-service training. This lack of support for state-mandated educational programs seems to be a common oversight by zealous congressmen who often sacrifice the educational needs of teachers and students at the alter of the voting both. However, this failure of vision is frequently mitigated by the very individuals whose needs are neglected. While Florida lawmakers may have the power to pass education laws such as the Americanism vs.

Communism curriculum, Florida teachers have the power to determine just how they will teach to “the law,” behind the closed door of their classrooms.

The Textbook as Propaganda In the early years of implementation, most social studies teachers, without benefit of in-service training, or, the customary textbook, relied on the sensationalized treatment of Communism written by J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit: What the Communist Bosses are Doing Now to Bring America to its Knees (1958). In the foreword of his book, J. Edgar Hoover cautioned readers about the dangers of the Soviet system of government.

“Communism is more than an economic, political, social, or philosophical doctrine. It is a way of life; a false materialistic „religion.‟ It would strip man of his belief in god, his heritage of freedom, his trust in love, justice, and mercy. Under communism, all would become, as so many already have, twentieth-century slaves.” (1958, p.vi) These strong words, used for the purpose of instilling fear, naturally overwhelm his more cautionary rhetoric to Americans regarding the dangers of making false claims of sabotage, or exercising reasonable judgment if one found incriminating evidence.

Hoover‟s warning to Americans was contained in 352 pages under topics such as, “How Communism Began,” The Communist Appeal in the United States,” “The Communist Trojan Horse in Action,” and “The Communist Underground.” He sought to inform readers not only about the birth of Communism, but more importantly, how the Soviets planned to take over the United States. In 1962, Hoover published his second book, A State of Communism, as a textbook, he claimed, largely as a response to teachers‟ requests for instructional materials. In the fly page of his book his qualifications as a researcher and author of communist studies include: “J. Edgar Hoover is eminently qualified as an authority on communism. Since 1924, he has been Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the broad responsibilities of which include jurisdiction in internal security matters involving communism, espionage, In this book, Hoover began his comparative study

Florida Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

9

the following: 1) fear of the Soviet Union as a threat to democratic forms of government; 2) Communist theory and doctrines; and 3) infiltration techniques.

Another former teacher believed that Florida lawmakers “were aghast at the number of defections in Korea,” which may offer some strength to the notion that the AVC program was, in part, a public relations endeavor. 1 However, the most plausible reason behind the implementation of the AVC social studies program emanated from rumors and suppositions.

Several former teachers believed that the one-time governor of Florida, Charlie Johns, head of the now infamous communist-hunting committee, the Florida Investigative Committee (frequently referred to as the Johns‟ Commission) along with his cronies, were behind the mandate.

It seems that Johns spearheaded a Communist “witch-hunt” on the campuses of the University of Florida, during the 1950s (a decade marked by the highly profiled investigations of the United States‟ Senator, Joe McCarthy) and the University of South Florida in 1961. According to informants, Johns or his minions, in true McCarthy style, held inquisitions in local motel rooms in and around Gainesville and Tampa. Brutal allegations toward University of Florida and South Florida faculty members were leveled and many faculty members were fired or resigned. Hence the 1961 law, which mandated the Americanism vs. Communism high school curriculum, was likely an outgrowth of the fear and hysteria whipped up by Charlie Johns and his supporters.

Thus, a reasonable interpretation of lawmaker thinking might be that if students were inoculated before enrolling in one of Florida‟s liberal institutions of higher learning, the teachings of communist professors not ferreted out by the Johns‟ Commission, would at least make the students resistant to subversive teachings.

Teachers’ Views of AVC Although Florida‟s lawmakers mandated thirty hours of instruction in AVC, most schools throughout Florida implemented it as a full semester program of study. Some schools organized large group instruction held in their auditoriums; others treated the class as any other subject in their school curriculum. Regardless of how the course was organized, teachers who taught the course came under heavy scrutiny by their colleagues, both social studies teachers and other teachers in their schools. Many of the teachers who found the mandate inappropriate, taught AVC

with a series of questions, one of which asked the following: “Why is our free society inherently superior to communism?” (p. v) Hoover‟s deliberate attempt to show the Soviet Union in the worst possible light while glorifying the United States‟ system of government was equal only to his treatment of follow-up activities for students. One question for review asked: “Does the fact that so many different motives can be listed as part of the psychological attraction of communism tell you anything about the over-all nature of communism‟s attractions?” (p. 15) The logic of that question defies pedagogical understanding. Unlike his earlier book, this new textbook contained sub-topics of manageable size for high schoolers, albeit without prior experience with subjects such as economics or philosophy, most students would find the text daunting. The density of the material was likely behind such responses by former students as, “The class was boring,” or “I don‟t remember a thing.”

The same year, Florida‟s State Department of Education, in conjunction with the Florida Bar Association, published a guide to teaching AVC, entitled, A Resource Unit: Americanism vs. Communism. The authors of this state-commissioned work assured teachers that “more than a year of careful research and study went into the development and critical examination of this work.” (p.iii) This resource unit was divided into two sections: an introductory background for teachers; an outline of topics, including “The Communist Party,” “Communist Ideology,” “The Soviet System,” “Krushchev in Power.” In its introduction, writers outlined what they called the “real threat” to human freedom: The totalitarian Communist Party, which “uses infiltration, espionage, subversion, propaganda, agitation, and other stratagems and tactics in its effort to conquer the world” (p.1).

Despite the resource unit‟s language, which asserted that students would be exposed to a comparative government or comparative economic system‟s approach, writers clearly stated “this type of study is similar to that of a scientist who examines the poison in order to offset its evil effect” (p. 12). Curriculum designers had already decided, based upon the language and intention of PL 233.064, that Florida‟s AVC course would serve the purpose of inoculating high school students against the dangers of Communism by exposing them to the evils of communist poison.

In 1963, Dan Jacobs, a University of Miami profes-

sor, published his version of an AVC textbook, The Masks of Communism. The front cover of the book contained a photograph of an individual, cropped so that only a pair of menacing, narrowed eyes peered out between black and red borders. In Hooverian style, Jacobs introduced his textbook as one that would demonstrate that the “United States is threat ened by an enemy dedicated to destruction - communism, whose leaders promise that in two generations or less they will „bury‟ the American way of life and the system it represents (Introduction, no page). The textbook did not provide teachers with much of an alternative to the existing Hoover book. By 1967, Democracy and Communism, Theory and Action (Allen, Bartlett, & Colegrove) was available for teacher use. This textbook was far less impassioned or emotional in treatment of the political and economic practices of the Soviet Union. Its authors stated that the audience for the book was upper grades of senior high and that they expected the students to be “well aware that the ideals and practices of democracy do not always coincide... [however] most Americans continue to strive to bring democratic practices ever closer to democratic ideals (preface, no page).” Democracy and Communism, at this point, appears to be the first officially state-adopted textbook purchased for the AVC program. With the adoption of this book, AVC took a more traditional political and economic studies approach and by the 1970s, it was taught as a broad-based comparative government class. By the mid-1980s it all but disappeared from the school curriculum, perhaps getting some attention in World History classes and finally in 1991, AVC faded from the law books, it had become a thing of the past and all but forgotten.

The story of AVC and its nearly thirty year reign as part of the Social Studies curriculum of our schools is an example of how misguided and misinformed legislators, and the voters who put them into office, can “force” ideas and concepts into the curriculum of our schools. When classrooms become the feeding ground for “propaganda” and “indoctrination” of narrowly defined ideas rather than bastions of exploration and understanding of broad ideas and concepts, then our schools and our students are in jeopardy. We need to praise the many social studies teachers who found the courage to challenge the law and to present a sensible, balanced approached to Americanism vs. Communism. Those teachers and their colleagues who supported them truly understood the meaning of “Democracy” and of our rights as citi-

zens of the United States to engage in freedom of thought, freedom of speech and to question decisions made by our government. Florida‟s current political climate” of wanting to control what is taught, how well it is taught, when it is taught, and by whom it is taught closely resembles the AVC period of our history. Lest we ere, it is best to remember our past so we can predict our future. The minds of our children are in the hands of the teachers–let‟s hope they continue to make the right decisions.

References Allen, R., Bartlett, H, Colegrove, K. (1967). Democracy and communism: Theory and action. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand & Company, Inc. Americanism versus Communism. PL 233.064. The Florida Code, 1961.

Florida Department of Education. (1962). A resource unit: Americanism vs.

Communism. Tallahassee, FL: State Department of Education Hoover, J. E. (1958). Masters of Deceit: What the communist bosses are doing now to bring America to its knees. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Hoover, J.E. (1962). A study of communism. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Jacobs, D. (1963). The masks of communism. New York: Harper & Row.

Marcy Kysilka is Professor Emerita at UCF. She may be reached at kysilka@bellsouth.net

Karen L. Riley is Associate Professor, Foundations, Secondary and Physical Education, Auburn University at Montgomery, AL E-mail: kriley@edla.aum.edu

If I ran business the way you run education , I’d be broke.

If we ran education the way you run business, we’d fire all the teachers, send the kids to Indonesia for education and give the superintendent a 5 million dollar raise.

Perspectives Richard L. Allington

Unfairness Inherent in Value-Added Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness

T P

he rich get richer. Teachers of high socio-economic classes are assured of “value-added” recognition when test time comes around.

“Not fair,” the author says.

olicy makers and politicians have begun bantering about educational “pay-forperformance” schemes. At the center of such proposals is a technique called “valueadded assessment.” This procedure seems to be garnering much attention as a “fair, objective measure of the effects of the system, the school and the individual teacher on the academic progress of student popultions.” (Sanders, 1998) and the Florida legislature has mandated its use in evaluating Florida schools. But is this system for estimating student academic growth actually “fair”?

Ideally, value-added assessment uses annual student performance on tests designed to be wellcorrelated with curricular goals to estimate teacher (or school or district) effects on student achievement. For instance, consider students enrolled in two different second-grade classrooms. At the end of the

year both groups of students achieve an averaged 3.0 grade equivalent on the end-of-year reading achievement test. Now imagine both groups of students go, intact, into two different third-grade classrooms.

Imagine that the students in one of these third-grade classrooms achieve an averaged grade equivalent of 4.3 on the end-ofthird-grade test and the students in the other class achieve an averaged 4.1 grade equivalent. In this comparison the value-added model considers the first third grade teacher to be a better teacher because her students’ reading achievement seems to have grown more.

Leaving the problems with using standardized tests as the measure of achievement growth for others, I would like to suggest that even if the tests used in a value-added assessment model were wholly reliable and valid, the process could yet remain patently unfair for two simple reasons that are elaborated below.

Summer reading loss When students leave school for the traditional extended summer vacation period, many, if not most, experience some loss in academic performance. The problem seems particularly acute in the case of student reading proficiencies.

In a meta-analysis of the available published scientific research literature (Cooper, If 80 percent of Nye, Charlton, theachievement Lindsay & Greathouse, differences are not 1996), the differential impact of accounted for in a summer vacation periods on more value-added model, and less ecohow can it be “fair”? nomically advantaged students’ achievement was well-documented. “Middle-class students appeared to gain on grade-level equivalent reading recognition tests over summer while lowerclass students lost on them. There were no moderating effects for gender or race...” (Cooper, et. al, 1996, p.

227). This pattern of differential effects of summer vacation resulted in an annual achievement gap of roughly three months between the more- and lesseconomically advantaged students. The differential pattern of summer gains/losses produced an accumulated gap of over one and one-half years between first- and sixth-grade achievement levels! Such achievement differences occur even when the teachers teaching the two groups produce comparable gains during the school year – when teachers of the two groups are equally effective. Thus, using annual testing in a value-added model will typically underestimate the effectiveness of teachers working in high-poverty schools.

Entwisle, Alexander and Olson (1997) also demonstrated the differential impact of summer vacation on reading achievement. In their longitudinal study, students from schools serving more- and less- economically advantaged neighborhoods were tested twice each year – in the fall and again in the spring. This procedure allowed the researchers to estimate the effects of summer vacations on reading achievement across students’ elementary school careers.

Pooling test gains over all 5 summers shows that the low- socioeconomic status students gained a total of less than one point in reading comprehension ...

By contrast, over the same 5 summers high socioeconomic status children gained a total of 47 points in reading. (Entwisle et al., p. 35) Interestingly, the researchers found no significant group achievement differences when measuring gains made during the school year – from Fall to Spring. Nonetheless, the reading achievement in schools serving primarily students from lower-income families lagged several years behind the achievement of schools serving more advantaged students by the end of the elementary school years. This 2+ year difference in average reading achievement at the end of the sixth grade was wholly accounted for by a combination of small initial achievement differences (observed when students began school) and the cumulative effects of summer vacation on reading development. They noted that without the twice yearly assessments, differences in school achievement patterns would have been easily misinterpreted as in differences in instructional effectiveness of teachers in the different schools. Their data demonstrate the acute limitations of once- . . . the differential and yearly testing in valuedemonstrated effects of added models. summer vacation and Similarly Hayes and parent-funded Grether (1983) studied interventions still work Fall and Spring reading achievement data for students in 600 New York City elementary schools. They reported that “up to 80 percent” of the achievement differences found in schools serving economically more- and lessadvantaged students could be attributed to the differential progress the different groups made during the summer vacation periods and only a small portion of the differences could be attributed to differences in teacher effectiveness. If 80 percent of the achievement differences are not accounted for in a valueadded model, how can it be “fair”?

Now, given these findings, let’s return to those two third-grade teachers. If the students who achieved the better test performance happen to be more economically advantaged students and the students with the lower test scores happen to be economically disadvantaged, these studies reviewed above suggest that the two teachers may be equally effective. In fact, the

teacher who produced the lower achievement may actually be the more effective teacher. In other words, a two-month test score advantage achieved by teachers of more advantaged students may derive more from the summer reading gains of students. At the same time, teachers of the less-economically advantaged students may be penalized by the strong possibility of summer reading loss among their students.

Value-added assessment models assume the achievement differences are the result of differences in classroom instructional effectiveness. But the replicated evidence from several large-scale studies suggests that substantial portions of the differences in the reading achievement of more- and less- economically advantaged students stem from the different effects of summer vacation periods on reading development – a period when teacher effects are an unlikely source of the achievement differences.

Parent-funded tutoring and book access.

Now imagine that parents of struggling readers in economically advantaged schools use their added financial resources to enroll their children in private tutoring in an attempt to remedy the situation. If the tutoring is successful, any achievement gains are attributed to the child’s teacher under current valueadded assessment models. Perhaps those parents also order many books that seem to be of interest to their children. They might even order juvenile magazines of interest to their children. The data available suggests that middle-class parents are the parents most likely to use their resources in these ways (Allington, 2001). Gains achieved from the private tutoring and the more extensive reading activity are also attributed to the child’s teacher even though the teacher has little to do with either. Again, then, teachers working in high-poverty schools are themselves disadvantaged by the limitations of current models of value-added assessment.

disregards initial achievement differences among different groups of students. But while value-added assessment models tilt the playing field a bit towards level, the differential and demonstrated effects of summer vacation and parent-funded interventions still work against teachers in high-poverty schools.

In short, value-added assessment models are not fair estimates of teacher effectiveness.

If teachers of Florida’s economically disadvantaged students must produce two-to-three months of additional annual achievement gains (to overcome the effects of summer reading loss and parent-funded interventions) in order to stay “even” with teachers of Florida’s more-advantaged students, a real but largely ignored danger is that it won’t take good teachers in high-poverty schools long to figure out the playing field isn’t level and decide to move to schools serving more economically advantaged students. This would, then, disadvantage the economically disadvantaged students – the students who currently pose our most intractable educational policy problem.

References Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based interventions. New York: Longman.

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta- analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227-268.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, schools, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hayes, D. P., & Grether, J. (1983). The school year and vacations: When do students learn? Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 17, 56-71.

Sanders, W. L. (December, 1998). Value-added assessment. School Administrator, 55 101-113.

2403 Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville FL 32611-7048. He may be reached at (352) 392-9191 or e-mail dicka@ufl.edu

Conclusion Teachers obviously play a critical role in fostering student reading development. Perhaps because of this, pay-for performance schemes do seem attractive. More expert teachers who routinely produce real better-than-expected student performances probably should garner rewards beyond those offered less-expert teachers. And the value-added assessment system is a real improvement over the current Florida system that simply compares student attainment of an established achievement standard but wholly

Richard L. Allington is professor of education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

E-mail: rallingt@utk.edu

Perspectives Jeffrey S. Kaplan

The Art of Reflective Practice: A Cure for Teacher Burnout

I

t is the end of a long school day. Robert Jones, a math teacher with seventeen years of teaching experience under his belt, approaches his blackboard with the world-weariness of a defeated warrior. “Six more years,” he mutters under his breath, “and I can begin to collect.” He erases his blackboard with the vigor of someone who is trying to eliminate curse words from the side of a brand new painted building. Cautiously, he steps back to examine his work, and then noticing a slight smudge on the side, he hurries to erase the annoying spot even more. “Six more years,” he mutters again.

“Here,” she says.

Mr. Jones glances back from the blackboard with a sideward glance, as if to say, “what now?”

“Here are the dittoes I promised you,” says the young teacher, standing practically on her tiptoes and smiling eagerly at the veteran teacher.

“Dittoes?” he mutters.

“Yes! You know the ones I promised that has the neat math puzzle. I am sure your students will enjoy it. Mine do.”

Mr. Jones stops erasing the smudge on the board, and walks over to glance at the dittoes. “Looks like busy work to me,” he mutters. “They‟ll probably rip it up.”

“Oh, no! They‟ll love it! Trust me!”

“Whatever you say.”

“Well, if you don‟t want them?”

“No, leave it, I am always eager to give these animals something to do.”

“Are they that bad?”

“Could be worse,” Mr. Jones mutters.

“Mr. Jones,” “Yes?”

“Is there something wrong?”

“Nothing that retirement could not cure.”

“Oh. Tired are you?”

“These kids are getting to me. That‟s all.”

“Well, try the puzzle. It might help.”

“Nothing works with these kids. Trust me. I have been at this business for more years than I care to recall. And nothing works. Believe me.”

Mr. Jones returned to his blackboard and continued erasing as if the board was still not completely clean.

“Well, just try it, okay?” returned the young teacher. “And then maybe we can talk about it?

Okay?”

Mr. Jones stopped what he was doing. Gave a sideways glance to the young teacher and said, “Okay.”

“Thanks,” said the young teacher, as she bounced out of the room.

“You‟re welcome,” said Mr. Jones, as he watched her leave.

Sound familiar?

Do you have teachers in your school systems that have reached the end of their line? They are “burnt out” from teaching and are down on practically eve-

rything and everyone. Are they resigned to teaching just because it is a job, and really lack the enthusiasm to make teaching a meaningful and positive endeavor? And are you stuck – as an administrator and a colleague – as to what to do for these muchbeleaguered teachers?

There are no easy answers for teacher burnout. All of us – whether we are new or experienced teachers and administrators, - have felt the sensation of simply “not caring anymore.” Fortunately, for many of us, the feeling is only passing, and before we know it, we are eagerly attacking the next challenging problem.

For some though, teacher “burnout” is a very real and persistent problem. Stuck in a feeling that they are “pushing rocks uphill only to have them fall down again,” these stressed and haggard souls march to work each morning, only to face dilemmas that they find insurmountable. They are stuck in a routine that they find numbing, unexciting and nonproductive. So, the question becomes, “what are they to do?”

Often, the answer begins with some simple soul searching. Teachers who find themselves not eager to teach must first ask themselves “what it is they want to do?” Do they really want to teach, or is it time to select another line of work? And for some, the answer is another career, but for those, who are eager to teach, but just frustrated that what they are doing is not working, the answer is something “deeper.”

The answer is not another hot teaching idea; attendance at a special workshop; or an even a graduate level education class. No, these all might spark good ideas for improving one‟s teaching, but somehow, they might just miss what a teacher really needs to improve their classroom performance. They simply might need a chance to reflect. They might need an opportunity to reflect on their own teaching experiences, and to underline what it is they have learned from their experiences.

By providing teachers with a chance to reflect on their teaching career, they are given the opportunity to share from their perspective – not the perspective of outside consultants or teacher educators – about what it is about their teaching, and their students that both excites and frustrates them. This is simple task – reflecting on what is and articulating on what could

be better – can be a bold and simple task towards teacher revitalization and rejuvenation.

A Model of the Reflective Process Reflective practice is a term most often associated with the work of Donald Schon (1983). Schon‟s idea of reflective practice can best be described as problem-solving, making moves, analyzing the results of moves, and reframing. Each step is intricate to understanding the whole for by isolating an experience into “bit parts,” the practitioner is able to examine their own understandings and perceptions.

Problem solving is defining the problem to be studied and framing it within a context. Making moves is generating possible solutions to a problem. Analyzing the results is critiquing solutions to the problem, and reframing is defining a new model or perspective from which to view the problem. Schon‟s steps are instrumental in helping teachers see their work as a part of a continuum of concerns, dilemmas that can be evaluated and revisited with each step towards self-understanding.

In the College of Education at the University of Central Florida, our teacher educator model is the reflective practitioner. We are constantly asking our students – both in class, in their student teaching portfolio application process, and in their clinical experiences, to reflect on their own experiences. We believe this constant process – problem solving, making moves, analyzing, and reframing - offers a unique opportunity to see themselves as not only future teachers, but thoughtful, reflective professionals.

Teacher Burnout – Suggested Remedies Teacher burnout need not be. There are many techniques that teachers, administrators, and colleagues can institute in their own immediate school setting to spark an interest “that once was,” in the lives of stressed, but earnest educators. Here are a few:

Open Discussion Groups Often teachers need a safe haven to discuss their concerns. Sometimes, just meeting at a local restaurant or teacher home can provide just the opportunity for teachers to come together to share common problems and frustrations. Yes, teacher‟s lounges are usually the place where „haggard teachers‟ let off steam, but when the setting is removed from school, often, the atmosphere enhances a feeling of camaraderie that

speaks of a seriousness of purpose and a recognition that teaching is a lifestyle, and not just a job.

Personal Narratives When teachers speak, they talk from the heart. Good, bad or indifferent, they often speak in “multi-layered tongues” about their day, underlining in vivid terms their own perceptions of their teaching, students and colleagues. Yet, teachers tend to neglect that this raw emotion – these feelings of both frustration and joy – can be shared on paper. Motivating teachers to keep a journal of their experiences might seem silly at first, but when handled with care by supportive administrators, they can become living diaries for what is right and good in their teaching. Instead of lesson plans, teachers can share the personal stories of their teaching experiences on paper with their colleagues and administrators, thereby sharing a “part of themselves” that perhaps, can prove to even more informative than a mere outline of classroom lessons.

Teaching Others Sometimes, teachers feel “left out” or “downtrodden” because they believe their expertise is being wasted. Yes, they are teaching young people and influencing future leaders, but when they deeply believe that these very young people are not listening and participating, they are often more apt to feel as if they are “wasting their time.” One technique to improve teacher attitude is to encourage such teachers to share of themselves with professional colleagues.

By teaching other teachers “about what you know about teaching,” reluctant educators can begin to see a new sense of purpose in their career choice. Suddenly, they realize that I do know something, and that “granted I might not be having a wonderful day, I can still impart what I know to others.” Simply, sharing with eager listeners can do wonders.

Writing for State Journals We write to figure out what we know. Professional writers often do not know what they know until they conceptualize their thoughts in words. And only then, with refinement and feedback, do writers really know if what they were thinking makes sense to others. Teachers – of all ilk, novice and experienced, excited and defeated, - should be encouraged to write their “personal narratives” of their own journeys in teaching. Often, teachers think that they must write “fancy, descriptive, highly-objective, research reports,” to appear in professional educational journals.

And while this may be true for some journals, it is, by no means, true for all. Instead, teachers should

recognize that their life stories – their personal, intimate perspectives on who they are and what they have learned teaching both young and old alike – are just as valid as recognized works of research. In fact, that is why this journal includes a section called “Voices from the Field.”

Observing and Reflecting Finally, just a simple “walk in the park” in general, can often cure personal “blues” about teaching and life. Teaching is an isolating profession, and quite often, teachers believe „they are the only ones who are experiencing their dilemma.‟ They are only ones bothered, troubled, and depressed about their work.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Teachers need to take time to watch others teach. If only to learn how their students are performing in another teacher‟s classroom. Or perhaps, to watch another teacher share of themselves and their own special talents. Sometimes, just watching another teacher in action can be just the antidote for teachers who think they are the only ones frustrated by lack of “eager to learn students” and “troublesome troublemakers.” By observing others, we see parts of ourselves, and in turn, we learn to recognize the smartness and weaknesses of all human beings.

Conclusion The vignette at the beginning of this essay was meant to demonstrate the validity of sharing among professionals. The tired math teacher and the eager young teacher were meant as metaphors for what teaching can and should be – a sharing of old and new, a dialogue of good and bad, a coming together of two perspectives – and can be when true professionals work together towards a common purpose.

Teacher burnout need not be inevitable. Teachers need not hit a wall in their teaching and suddenly, decide their eagerness has dissipated to nothingness.

Instead, all teachers should recognize their voices within, for it is those voices that tell stories of what true learning is.

References Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. London, Maurice Temple Smith.

Jeffrey S. Kaplan is co-editor of Florida Educational Leadership and Assistant Professor of Educational Studies, UCF. E-mail: jkaplan@mail.ucf.edu

Voices From The Field Faith Spitz

Through the Looking Glass Teacher Evaluation Through Self-Reflection

T

he roadmap for teacher vision model and knew such evaluation in the Readchange necessitated Board of ington Township School Education support, we conDistrict led nowhere in vened a district-wide comthe fall of 1996. Items such as mittee composed of teachers, “maintains proper lighting and administrators and BOE ventilation when possible,” and members. Some staff ex“has appropriate appearance” pressed concern that having were used on a teacher observathe Board of Education tion checklist which was graded as “If you don’t know where you are going, members involved would “commendable”, satisfactory” or any road will take you there. ” inhibit teachers from “needs improvement.” Because a “speaking their mind.” In Alice in Wonderland checkmark in “satisfactory” often reality, this did not deter resulted in a teacher‟s written rebuttal, most teachers “lively” dialogue, and having the Board memreceived a commendable rating in all areas. Adminisbers hear the discussion helped greatly in gaining trators and teachers agreed this method did nothing to Board of Education support for a major paradigm improve or change student learning. shift. This core committee functioned as building At a time the district was eager for change, we reliaisons throughout the three-year revision process. ceived an ASCD publication, Enhancing ProfesCommittee participants read the research on supervisional Practice, A Framework for Teaching sion and concluded that teachers would only change (Danielson, 1996), which became the backbone and educational practice when they began to reflect on the springboard for a major change in our district‟s their own practice against standards for excellence. supervision practices. The administrators came to In September 1997, each staff member received a consensus that we needed to develop Readington copy of Enhancing Professional Practice: FrameTeaching Standards to define what teaching excelworks for Teaching (Danielson, 1996). Time for dislence should look like in our suburban, middle class cussion of teaching standards was provided through district of 2,100 grade K-8 students. early release time days and one full day of staff deBecause we envisioned major changes in our supervelopment. Staff discussed and reflected on the do-

mains of teaching as set forth in Danielson‟s framework. Our staff, through long and sometimes heated discussions, agreed to four domains that they considered the essential broad aspects of teaching: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities.

Next came the difficult decisions as our staff sampled, tasted, chewed, and discarded or swallowed the component standards under each of these domains.

Over a period of several months, teams of teachers discussed what excellent teaching looks like.

The complexity of teaching required discussions regarding what occurs in the classroom as well as outside the classroom walls. Teachers did not entirely accept the standards as noted in Danielson‟s framework, but used them as a springboard for designing our own. The process was as important as the finished product. Readington‟s staff decided that it was important to write the standards at a “proficient” or “distinguished” level since these are the high levels to which all are expected to perform. On June 9, 1998, the Standards were adopted by the Board of Education and the teaching staff.

Several themes run through the Standards. These include high expectations, developmental appropriateness, accommodating students with special needs, equity, cultural sensitivity, and appropriate use of technology. Once the Standards were established, they represented the “what” (criteria for judging teacher performance) of evaluation. The discussion then turned to the “how” (method to be used). Everyone agreed that a 50-minute c1assroom observation one to three times annually did not improve instruction, although this had been a primary task of all building principals and some central office administrators.

The committee proposed a differentiated model of assessment that would encourage and facilitate professional growth and enhance performance. Performance would be directly linked to the identified Standards for Effective Teaching, which provided staff with a common language for defining competence.

Our rationale for a differentiated model included:  Teachers as professionals should be offered options and choices.  Collegiality is fostered by enabling teachers to work together.  Administrators focus efforts on those teachers needing or requesting assistance.  Teachers focus on student learning outcomes.

Tenured staff have many options for assessment.

These include interactive journals, portfolios, action research, curriculum projects, collegial partnerships, mentoring, peer coaching, and teacher-designed projects. Tenured teachers may choose an alternate model that is mutually agreeable to the teacher and the administrator. The alternate option may be completed independently or in collaboration with colleagues. Tenured staff could still choose to have a more traditional classroom observation; however, their evaluation now reflected the four domains specified by the Standards and included areas of strength and areas for growth in each domain. It is no longer the norm to be “commendable” in all areas.

Teachers reflect on the areas of the domains in which they need to grow. Principals encourage growth in areas that may not reach the high level of expectation held for all staff. Interestingly, very few tenured teachers have opted to keep the traditional observation model.

All options require teachers to set goals, timeframes, designate responsibilities, and discuss progress and outcomes. Teacher professional improvement plans reflect the year‟s experience and inform goal setting for the following year.

Non-tenured teachers are placed in a developmental program to enhance their instructional skills. Staff development and supervision, including three observations that reflect the Standards, are a part of this process. The teacher is asked to continually selfreflect and is coached by an administrator and a mentor. In addition to classroom observations, the nontenured teacher may choose an option from the same variety available to tenured staff. Proficiency in all four domains is used to make tenure decisions.

For the very few tenured staff who may be in need of assistance, an action plan is collaboratively designed and implemented to assist the teacher in meeting the expected leve1 of proficiency required.

During the 1998-99 school year, we began to pilot this new system. We had hoped that the teachers on the core committee would volunteer to try the alternate supervision options. We were overwhelmed with the staff response.

At our middle school, 28 tenured teachers engaged in portfolio development, peer coaching, curriculum projects, collegial partnerships, and teacher-designed projects. Twenty-two tenured teachers opted to use the classroom observation model. At the elementary schools, the results were even more remarkable. At Three Bridges School, 24 out of 25 teachers chose the alternate models. At Whitehouse Elementary

School 28 teachers engaged in new model options, while six teachers chose classroom observation.

To assist teachers in the new roles, we hired a consultant to work with staff. Throughout the year, we provided opportunities for staff to meet together and with this consultant. Administrators also met with the consultant to seek advice and assist in future planning. We were all learning together. Giving up some measure of “control” was a concern. Though we had hoped administrators would have more time by instituting the new model, this was not the case.

The teachers were very excited by the projects, journals, portfolios, etc., reflecting their growth and the growth of their students, and they wanted to share this with administrators at many junctions along the way. Thus additional numerous informal meetings and discussions took place even though we had built into our process formal opportunities for teachers to meet with administrators twice yearly.

At the conclusion of the pilot year, we reconvened our core committee and discussed concerns and next steps. All agreed that the projects were exceptional.

Teachers had reflected on their practice and shared areas in which they wanted to grow. They described the problems they encountered as they struggled with real problems to better meet the needs of all of their students. The committee agreed the biggest problem was finding time to implement the projects.

The 1999-2000 school year dawned with 82 tenured teachers requesting to pursue alternate supervision projects. Only 37 tenured teachers continued to pursue the traditional observation model. Although the teachers knew the alternate models required greater effort on their part, most felt the rewards justified the means.

In the 2000-2001 year, we asked all staff to reflect on their performance and on their growth plan. Our teachers have shown that given time, encouragement, and resources, they are capable of assuming responsibility for much of their own professional growth and development. In an effort to provide this support, our district designed and offered several Continuing Education Unit (CEU) courses to assist staff.

Many of the projects and CEU courses involved differentiation of instruction, using technology to enhance learning, and developing literacy. In addition, we offered a course in alternate supervision so teachers could collaborate and dialogue on professional practice. Professional Development opportunities greatly assisted staff as they worked to self-assess and improve.

Teachers presented the progress of their models at Board of Education meetings and to other faculty members. At the 3rd-grade level, the entire staff of ten teachers, seven tenured and three non-tenured, worked on a two-year curriculum project entitled “The Millennium.” During 1999-2000 they planned and researched the integrated thematic unit and during 2000-01 they implemented the program as part of the 3rd-grade curriculum. As the 1999-2000 year came to a close, each teacher provided his/her administrator a reflective summary The teachers were very of the progress on excited by the projects, his/her project and the four domains journals, portfolios, etc., of teaching which reflecting their growth led to the development of a growth and the growth of their plan for the 2000students, and they wanted 2001 school year.

Keys to Success

to share this with administrators at many junctions along the way.

Constituent Involvement Having the members of the core committee represent all constituent groups was key to our success.

The teachers‟ union executive board was well represented. Also represented was the Board of Education who needed to give the seal of approval to this major shift in focus. All of the teachers had major input in developing the Standards and designing the models. Teacher Self-Reflection The research is clear that organizational change is the result of individuals changing themselves and their personal practices, not of “top-down” mandates (Airaisian and Gullickson, 1997). Self-reflection gives teachers a voice and control over their own practice.

“Self reflection has been important to my professionalism and my growth, especially this year. Because this is all so new, I have been pretty demanding of myself to ‟keep track of‟ what I have done this year and consider how it has worked or fallen short. Keeping a portfolio has helped me to document some target areas. It has also caused me to really reflect on my effectiveness and growth this year. As a result, I am really looking forward to next year for a fresh start. In all, I feel I truly have grown profession-

ally this year. In essence, my whole year has been an action-research for which I have continually sought resources and opportunities to help me improve.” Middle School Teacher “I put a great deal of time into my work but sometimes still feel that I am not doing enough to „challenge‟ every child to their fullest potential. Time seems to be one of the factors, the other is having the time to share ideas and work with my colleagues to plan for more individual instruction. One person cannot do it by herself. I continue to look for new ways to enhance my lessons and am open to new ideas.

Next year I would like to continue to work on differentiating, especially in the area of math.”

Elementary School Teacher Changing Mindsets With any new initiative, some will embrace the change while others will reject it or “wait and see.”

This model treats teachers as professionals and has improved teacher motivation and morale. It also has encouraged teacher interaction and collegial sharing, which have enriched the classroom instruction and the school culture. Evidenced by faculty room conversations revolving around professional responsibility and teaching practices, teachers are engaged and invested in their professional growth.

Balancing Control This evaluation model balances the control between the administrators and the teachers. For most of the teaching staff, the major responsibility for growth is on their shoulders. Current supervision theory states that in order to be effective, supervisory practices must be regulated in large part by the teacher. The teacher decides what happens in a classroom, and instructional practice cannot improve without these decisions being the best possible. (Danielson, 1996) The role of the administrator has changed from traditional “sage on the stage” to non-traditional “guide on the side.” Providing Time and Resources There is never enough time to do everything we want to do! Everyone seeks more time. We have tried to provide this through release time during the school day, eight shortened instructional days, three full staff development days, faculty meetings, and team planning time. This model still requires that faculty members use time beyond school hours for

research and reflection. The administration provides resources such as books, professional development courses, opportunities to visit other classrooms, and videotapes. Administrators also are available for consultation and collaboration with staff as the projects evolve. Building Trust It is probably here that the greatest change has occurred. Many of the staff previously viewed evaluation as a “gottcha” model. Any criticisms were seen as punitive. In the new model, teachers are encouraged to take risks and raise the instructional bar with no penalty for failure to achieve the mark. The stress is on growth. One middle school teacher wrote: “In my traditional situation I always assessed myself in terms of effectiveness; this year I have tried to assess myself more in terms of growth.

Last year I felt that I was very good at what I did; my success could be measured by the successes of my students. I was an effective teacher.

However, I changed very little as a teacher last year. I have felt that this year has been remarkable for me in learning how to be effective again, now in my new role. Therefore, I have been assessing my practice more in terms of growth. This year I feel as though my learning curve has spiked again, and my present growth will make me an overall more effective teacher in the future.”

As a result of the new supervision model, classroom instruction has been enriched and student achievement has increased. Most importantly, teachers are treated and act as true professionals raising their own level of performance. In this year‟s selfreflections, most teachers shared areas in which they targeted their own future growth. This would not have happened four years ago!

References Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Airasian, P.W. and Gullickson, A.R. (1997). Teacher self evaluation tool kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Dr Faith Spitz may be reached at: fssptiz@comcast.net

Research in Practice Jennifer Deets

Discovering What We Know

nd yo e b ing iar s o l G mi rce fa sou re

R

esearch can be thought of in many different ways. Research can be investigating a question by conducting an experiment. Research can be exploring the nature of a problem through careful observation. Research can also be a simple as asking people about a particular concern. A research project, however grand or modest, is always enhanced by thorough attention to what is already known about the topic being studied.

A common concern of my upper-division undergraduate students who are prospective teachers is discipline in their future classrooms. Part of their concern is simple magnification and reproduction of the rhetoric that appears in popular media, university classrooms, and communities.

Part of their concern is a reaction to their experiences in schools when they observe or volunteer for their education courses. And part of their concern is a reaction to their experiences as camp counselors, substitute teachers, parents, and community members. But when explored openly and honestly, some of them find that their concern is in response to their remembered behaviors as students – they are worried that they’ll have students like themselves!

Discipline is broad enough and relevant enough to use for whole-class activities related to exploring what is already known about a topic. In class, when we list what we already think we know about discipline by ways we have heard the word used, we discover that discipline is a concept found in education, psychology, the military, criminal justice, philosophy, and religion. This recognition,

op ne ens of w up re res wor a so ea ld ur rc ce h s

.

when we move to the library and its array of resources, reminds us to go beyond the familiar places we have searched for information before.

To add awareness of the history of any topic, I require that my students find sources from six time periods – pre-1900, 1900-1940, 1940-1970, 1970-1995, 1995- 2000, and 2001.

Before I added this requirement, sources that were published before 1985 were considered old. Since the requirement has been in effect, along with the voluble grumbling at first, student responses have been amazingly positive. They are surprised to find that people were writing about discipline (and other) problems at the turn of the 20 th century. Many of them are so taken with the older writings that they select quotes from those sources as epigraphs.

Some of the students realize that several articles or authors are frequently cited and they pursue those sources. When they take this path, they seem delighted to have finally read something that John Dewey or Jean Piaget or other famous people actually wrote! This excitement, when shared in class, often spurs other students to seek out primary source documents for their semester projects down the road.

Another requirement that I have put into place during these studies of what we already know about discipline is to gather information from as wide a variety of sources as possible.

They collect print items: articles from newspapers, popular press magazines, scholarly journals, books; electronic items: e-journal articles, web page information from organizations and individuals; images: non-text photographs, films, slides, artwork; sound: audio and video recordings of radio shows, television interviews, films.

As students get into this assignment, they begin to realize the vast array of possibilities when it comes to researching a topic. They see that conducting a search on-line from home for full-text peer-reviewed journal articles, although often yielding great information, is extremely limited. Although it is surprisingly difficult in contemporary life’s hectic pace to find a block of time to spend in the library conducting literature searches, if a search is planned well at home – provided one has access to a library catalogue and databases via internet – a library search can be very focused and productive.

Focused and productive searches are good searches. But I also encourage students to allow for time to skim through the indexes of bound journal volumes while they are in the stacks.

Inevitably, they are surprised to discover how much can be found just by chance. Taking occasional detours like this can greatly enrich a literature search, which in turn, greatly enhances any research project. And all of these are simply steps that help us to situate what we want to know in the context of what is already known.

Jennifer Deets currently teaches at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. E-mail: jdeets@contextwriting.com

Book Review The Case Against Standardized Testing.

Alfie Kohn

M

ake no mistake, Alfie Kohn is against standardized testing. In this book he attacks standardized testing, of all kinds, including the FCAT and other high stakes tests. The basic premise is that test results do not give educators or, particularly, policy makers any real useful information to improve student education or schools.

The book is in the format of questions and answers. The anonymous questioner seems to be a parent who tends to ask leading questions which gives Alfie the opportunity to debunk the query. Each response provokes a follow up question enabling Alfie to bring further evidence of the harm of testing.

His responses are well documented with detailed references from just about every author who has criticized standardized testing , or its misuse. He has a comprehensive section of recent books and current (prior to 2000) articles that support his theses.

Anyone who has read or heard Alfie Kohn knows that he does not mince words about his beliefs that standardized testing, particularly high stakes testing, is not good for kids or schools.

The final section of the book is a plan for teachers, parents and students to take action against testing, including some fairly radical guerilla-type activities.

For Alfie Kohn there is no middle ground. Testing must go because he believes it is destroying the education of children.

Read A Good Book Lately?

Florida Educational Leadership will print book reviews from our readers. We are working with several publishers to obtain their newest publications which will be given to any member who promises to write a100—200 word review.

If you already have a recent book for which you would like to write a review or if you would be interested in receiving a free book in exchange for writing a review, please contact Marcy Kysilka: kysilka@bellsouth.net

FASCD Membership This issue of Florida Educational Leadership is being sent to all members of FASCD as part of their membership benefit. If you are not a member, you can join the many Florida educators in the one organization that is ―For all who teach and learn.‖ Just go to www.fascd.org/membership/htm, complete the information and mail to the address shown for your introductory membership at the special rate of $35. If you are a member, make copies of this page and give to your colleagues. Help FASCD grow !

Research in Practice Mary E. Little

Successful School Improvement Using

Classroom-based Research The ultimate purpose of any evaluation process within schools should be to improve student learning.

What gets measured, gets done! (Peters, 1987)

A

ccountability within schools continues to be a major issue for teachers in Florida as well as nationally. Legislators, parents, community leaders, school board members, and other educators represent only some of those clamoring for increased accountability measures. The results of these accountability measures and subsequent evaluations are used for a multitude of diverse purposes: grading school performances, determining teacher salary, assessing property value, reporting in newspapers, etc. Evaluation is the process of collecting and using information for decision -making based on the perceived purpose. The ultimate purpose of any evaluation process within schools should be to improve student learning. Successful school improvement, therefore, rests within the accountability and evaluations within classrooms, with the students and teachers.

Testing of students, therefore, is at the center of the accountability debate. The purposes for this testing, however, originate and are reported both outside and inside schools and classrooms. Examples of outside accountability measures can include state-mandated tests (e.g., Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) and other assessments (e.g., Scholastic Aptitude

Test) of student learning. Even though these tests are given within the classroom, the results and impact are usually from outside the school and classroom. This more traditional approach to accountability is usually conducted and reported by someone outside of the classroom (legislature, state department, university, testing agency, etc.), who may or may not be knowledgeable of related issues that directly impact the results of the testing (e.g., transfer rates of students, primary language of students, etc). Usually these results are scored and first reported outside of the classroom (in a local newspaper, school board meeting, etc.). Additionally, the reports often do not include the complicating issues related to the results that assist specific and targeted action planning and usually occur too late in the academic year to impact instruction and learning for the students.

Information collected through assessments within classrooms can have a second purpose, however.

These evaluations and accountability measures can be an integral part of a continuous teaching, learning, and assessment process of evaluation within each classroom and school. This process provides necessary and timely information for teachers and students

as it provides consistent feedback to the instructional process directly related to the specific needs of the individual students. This process, referred to as action research or classroom-based decision-making, enhances the purposes of evaluation and subsequent decision-making for student learning within the classroom. Action research should be an integral component of the school improvement process to result in the improvement of student learning. The specific goals identified through the school improvement process become the targeted goals for each teacher within all teachers’ classrooms. Student learning, ultimately, depends on the quality of teacher thought (Friere, 1993) and classroom practice (Good & Brophy, 1994). Thoughtful connections between these two critical evaluation purposes enhance the quality of instruction and knowledge of results for the teachers and, as a direct result, student mastery of specific content.

Action Research Action research, therefore, is applied research conducted by those who want to continuously improve.

Classroom teachers use action research because they want to improve their teaching to increase student learning. Therefore, within classrooms, the teachers themselves define the focus of the evaluation: both instruction and assessments. There are only three critical guidelines:  Must be related to teaching and learning.  Must be something the teacher can change.  Must be related to the stated instructional goals and needs of students.

Therefore, teachers collect information about the impact of a new strategy, a new method, or procedure to determine its effectiveness. Teachers will know what works because the classroom-based research and decision-making is within the classroom.

Although various terms are used (action research, curriculum-based assessment, critical inquiry, etc.), the process of instructional decision-making through the thoughtful and skillful application and evaluation of various instructional strategies is well defined.

(See Calhoun, 1992; Sagor, 1992; Schmuck, 1997).

Action researchers, then, continuously self-evaluate their actions and the resulting impact of these actions on student learning. The type of action research depends on what the teacher wants to know related to student learning. For example, teachers have conducted classroom action research to: 1 Measure the impact of using various cooperative

learning structures (Kagan, 1995) to increase active engagement of all students in the classroom for increased amounts of time; 2 Measure the increase of writing proficiency by using a metacognitive visual organizer strategy; or 3 Measure a decrease in office referrals for inappropriate classroom behaviors by collecting information on student behavior after implementing a class-wide social skills program.

Therefore, the teacher is the decision-maker, data collector, and information source for action research within the classroom. Action research truly has at its focus the teaching and learning process.

The issues and concerns confronted in the classroom are the problems to be addressed and changed through this research process.

This should be a part of teaching, however, and most teachers already conduct action research on some level. Teachers who administer reading diagnostic tests (running records, placement tests, etc.), spelling pre- and post-tests for skill mastery, collect student behavioral data (on-task, homework completion, etc.) to determine how well the students are performing and learning according to the described expectations could be conducting action research. Action research, therefore, is a systematic collecting and interpreting of information directly related to school and classroom instructional and behavioral goals to make continuous decisions in the classroom!

Classroom action research has four components: 1) define the problem, 2) develop an action plan for new instruction, 3) implement the plan, and 4) consistently evaluate the plan.

Define the Problem Ultimately, a clearly defined problem statement will provide the focus for instruction and continuous monitoring of results to follow. Questions to address will include: -Who specifically is affected?

-Who or what is suspected of causing the problem?

-What kind of problem is it? (e.g., goal, instruction, skills, resources, etc.)

-What is the goal for improvement?

Although appearing relatively simple, these questions require an honest and critical appraisal of current instruction before a specific problem is identi-

fied. Howell & Nolet (2000) offer several considerations when deciding on the specifics of the problem: 1. Decisions should be based on direct observations, not indirect or reported information. What do YOU know about the situation?

2. Decisions should be based on multiple sources of information and the importance of the goal. Is this critical to the student’s future learning in many instructional areas?

3. Decisions need to consider the magnitude of the problem. Is this a “core concept” to be learned at this level?

4. The higher the stakes of the problem, the greater the need to directly align the problem statement and instruction. Will the results of this problem be publicly assessed and reported?

Relating these considerations to classroom action research, the teacher must observe specific information directly related to the suspected problem. It is best if this information is from several sources and from several days, to make sure the issues are consistent. The problem must be described in observable, quantifiable terms. Most importantly, the more “public” the goal of instruction, the increased need to align the instruction and assessment to the “outside” expectations. Therefore, when formulating the problem statement, teachers must be first keen investigators of the current situation, specifically observing clues (through interviews, observation, and testing) through direct interactions, and taking notes and collecting various assessment measures until the specific problem can be described. Collecting this data to identify the real problem to be addressed is critical to solving the problem well. Much of this initial information may be gathered as part of the school improvement process, as well. Multiple sources of information (parent interviews, review of current state and district test results, classroom informal tests, etc.) will already be available to formulate specific instructional goals for the students in the school and classrooms. For example, a school-wide goal may be established to improve the results of writing instruction for the students given the current testing results and concerns expressed by the parents, administrators, and teachers. A specific and important assessment measure for this goal may be a stateadministered competency test in particular grade levels. All of this information from the school improvement planning process is critical to the individual teachers’ action research process.

Then, defining the specifics of the problem is a fun-

damental and critical step to classroom action research. However, it is also one of the most difficult steps of this process. During this step, teachers must investigate objectively the related factors to the suspected problems and goals established for improvement within their classroom. Continuing the abovestated scenario, for example, the students in a fourth grade class are not passing the practice tests for the state-administered test in writing. Given the high stakes nature of this problem and the public accountability measures used, there is a great need for curricular alignment and accurate self-assessment of the current information.

Develop an Action Plan For New Instruction Once the issues within the classroom have been thoroughly identified, collecting tests is not enough!

Specifically, an action plan must be created to address the problem that can be implemented and monitored by the teacher through classroom-based research. Therefore, the above-stated questions to consider include: -Who specifically needs what specific skills?

-What is suspected of causing the problem?

-What kind of writing skills is expected on the state test? What kinds of skills do the students currently demonstrate?

-What skills does the teacher possess to teach to the goals established?

-What support (instructional, resource, staff development, etc.) is needed to instruct to the identified goals for the students?

-What is the specific, observable goal as related to the specific goal of the high stakes assessment instrument? (See Action Research forms) -What measures will provide important information to assess the mastery of the goals?

When considering the same scenario, when reviewing the specific opportunities for writing within a week in the classroom, the teacher observed that less than thirty minutes/week had been allocated to actual paragraph writing and that specific skill feedback had not been provided to date. Paragraphs had received a letter grade for quality of content only, with no specific written or verbal feedback regarding quality, specific skills, mechanics, or edits. Clearly and honestly identifying the specifics of the problem are critical to developing a successful action plan.

The ultimate goal is to develop an action plan of instruction that addresses the issues of the classroom

problem.

An example of a Problem Statement from the above-stated scenario would be: Problem Statement: The students in this fourth grade need to be able to write a five-sentence paragraph, including a topic and summary statement and three supporting and related details. Spelling, capitalization, punctuation must not detract from the meaning of the paragraph. Transition words must be used in the paragraph. There has been less than 30 minutes per week allocated to actual writing, with little to no specific feedback or instruction given to these specific criteria. It appears that there is a discrepancy with the stated goal of the fourth grade language arts curriculum (paragraph writing) and the amount and type of instruction and feedback within the classroom. Two specific instructional goals have been targeted to increase the paragraph writing proficiency of the students: 1. To provide increased and more specific instruction using graphic organizers and transition words for eliciting a five-sentence paragraph.

2. To write specific feedback using a rubric to each student for every written paragraph. Individual writing folders containing student samples and scoring rubrics will be used to track progress on specific goals. Student learning will be charted in their individual folders.

Implement the Plan It is critical to plan the work, then work the plan.

Despite other activities within the classroom, it is critical to instruct and collect the student samples as written in the action plan. The written action plan can keep busy teachers focused on the critical goals and specific implementation plan to improve student learning. Continuously check the instructional quality (both content and strategies used) and the time committed to the plan. Remember that the results achieved will be directly related to how closely the action plan for new instruction has been followed.

Many successful action researchers prepare the instructional materials (in this case, graphic organizers, rubrics, calendar, etc.) at the time of the development of the action plan, to increase the probability of quality implementation when time diminishes and activities may be re-prioritized. Other successful action researchers leave reminders of the action plan and calendar in conspicuous places on their desk, in their lesson planning book, etc., to remind them daily of

the commitment to the important goals and activities identified in their action plan.

Consistently Evaluate the Plan Consistent with the action plan for instruction, systematically collect student products and evaluate related to the goals of the plan. In this example, feedback regarding use of transition words in a clearly organized paragraph should be provided using the rubric for each writing sample from each student as planned. This process provides individual and specific information as to the current status of student learning related to the instructional goal. Important revisions to the instructional process (e.g., reteaching, enhancements, additional resources, etc.) can be incorporated into the current instructional process to insure student mastery of the instructional goal by each student is achieved. This critical step ties the purpose of evaluation within the classroom with the ultimate purpose of accountability: that being, student learning!

Final Thoughts Ultimately, classroom action research is a reflective process of change. That is often a difficult process.

Therefore, most importantly, the questions teachers need to address before embarking on classroom action research include: 1. Are the goals and activities within my sphere of influence as a classroom teacher? Can I affect the changes necessary and/or do I have the support necessary to complete the changes necessary?

2. Is this research tied to what is currently done or needed to be done? Will this make my teaching better for my students and me?

3. Is this research focused? Will I know when the goal has been reached?

4. Are the necessary resources (time, materials, skills, etc.) to complete this action research available? Do I have what I need to complete this action research well?

5. Will this solve a problem worth solving? Will this effort be of benefit? Will I make a difference?

Are there accountability measures?

If the answer is “YES� to each of the above-listed questions, the action research proposed will address identified critical needs of great benefit to students and teachers alike. Issues of accountability within classrooms and schools will be based upon student learning through classroom-based research. Legisla-

tors, parents, community leaders, school board members, and other educators will see evidence from within the classrooms through increased accountability measures of continuously monitoring student learning through classroom-based action research.

Action Research Data Collection/Problem Solving Sheet Problem Statement: Specifically write a problem statement describing who is affected, supported cause of the problem, the goal for improvement, and what might be done about the problem as stated.

Data Collection: Research Question (s)What do I want to know?

Data Collection What are 3 sources of information regarding each question?

1.

1.

List of Tasks Who? When?

A. B. C.

2.

2.

A. B. C.

What new instructional strategies or routines will I use?: What support will I need from colleagues?:

References Calhoun, E.F (1994). How to use action research in the Self-Renewing School.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD Friere, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the City. New York: Continuum.

Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1994). Looking in Classrooms. 6th Ed. New York: Harper Collins.

Howell, L. & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based Evaluation: Teaching and Decision Making. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Kagan, S. (1995). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. San Diego, CA: Elbaum Sagor, R. (1992). How to Conduct Collaborative Action Research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Schmuck, R.A. (1997). Practical Action Research for Change. Arlington Heights, IL Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.

Mary E. Little is asst. prof. at the Daytona Beach Campus of UCF. E-mail: mary.little@ucf.edu

Writing For Florida Educational Leadership Florida Educational Leadership is a peerreviewed journal for its major articles in distinct sections of the journal: Perspectives: Articles which focus on contemporary issues and hot topics. We are looking for a variety of viewpoints on these issues and topics, including historical perspectives. Some ideas could relate to the grading of pre-k-12 public schools, new standards for teachers, new teacher induction, new standards for students, vouchers or charter schools.

Voices from the Field: Articles which share ideas, opinions, activities of teachers, administrators, or teach educators and can inform others. Articles can be stories, perceptions, observations, or opinions. They can be essays on successes or failures, but most importantly they share with others who are “working in the fields.�

Student Voices: Essays from students in K-12, college or universities are invited and will be considered.

Research in Practice: Articles which focus on research in classrooms, colleges, universities. What can we learn from research activities? Both qualitative and quantitative studies on single subject or large population studies will be considered. Writers should avoid standard formal research paper format.

Instead focus on writing that will attract and interest all Florida educators. Abstracts, complicated tables, figures and statistics or overly long articles are not appropriate.

Technology in The Schools: Articles focusing of the use of technology in classrooms, colleges and universities can describe new ways to use technology to motivate students as well as frustrations and successes with technology.

Florida Educational Leadership will also accept book reviews and short informational items. The deadline for submission of materials is July 1. All manuscripts, book reviews or other items should be sent to: Florida Educational Leadership Editors at: kysilka@bellsouth.net

Editorial Staff Editor Marcy Kysilka is Professor Emerita at UCF. She may be reached at kysilka@bellsouth.net

Associate Editor: Voices From The Field

Associate Editor: Perspectives

Jeffrey Kaplan is Associate Professor UCF. He

Vicki Zygouris-Coe is professor at UCF. She

may be reached at JKaplan@mail.ucf.edu

may be reached at vzygouri@mail.ucf.edu

Associate Editor: Student Voices

Associate Editor: Research in Practice

Sherron Killingsworth Roberts is

Ann I. Nevin, is Professor Emerita, Arizona

Associate Professor at UCF. She may be reached at skrobert@mail.ucf.edu

State University. She may be reached at: DrAnnNevin@comcast.net

Associate Editor: Technology In The Schools Mark Geary is asst. prof. at Dakota State University, Madison, SD. He may be reached at: Mark.Geary@dsu.edu

Officers and Board of Directors of FASCD

Alina Davis President

Pat Melvin

Sallie Payne

President-Elect

Vice-President

Johnny Nash Past-President

David Magee Allan Dornseif Treasurer Interim Exec Dir

Directors: Dona DePriest, Jason Flom, Kevin Kjellerup, Lois Lee, Brian Marchman, Marcy Kysilka, Mike Mizwicki,