FEL - Another Look #2 by FL Assn Supervision & Curric Development

Another Look

Electronic Edition # 4

This issue of FEL—Another Look features articles from the second issue of FEL in March, 2001. Enjoy. Standardized Testing and Accountability: A Vision for the Future - Rose Pringle P. “If schooling is about learning and test results are interpreted as a measure of learning, how can these standardized test be utilized towards such improvement.” Concerns about the establishment of Tests as a measure of school accountability were raised from the beginning. They are as true today as then.

What Makes A Leader Effective? - Susan Lynch The author describes the characteristics of leadership that makes that person effective in leading.

The Future of Arts Education in Florida - Susan W. Mills P. The said in 2001, “Without the opportunity for arts education, Florida’s children and communities are condemned to less opportunity for cultural achievement and overall enjoyment of life. Has her projection of the future come true today?

Research Participation - Jennifer Deets The author describes various strategies for conduction informal, but valid, research in schools.

School Administrators as Educational Technology Leaders - Cathy Cavenaugh P. In 2001 there may have been projections that educational technology would quickly pass away, as many educational theories have in the past. This article discusses the way to use technology in schools to advance the curriculum, not to replace it with another theory.

Items of Interest Editorial Staff & FASCD Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Back cover FASCD Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 12 Writing for Florida Educational Leadership Journal . . .Page 6 Thanks to Johanna Lang, Broward County Schools, for the cover photo.

FEL—Another Look

From Issue # 2 - March 2001

Standardized Testing and Accountability: A Vision for the Future

Rose Pringle

“

schooling is about learning and test results are interpreted as a measure of learning, how can these standardized tests results be utilized towards such improvement?” What do they really test? Questions and more questions, but, where do we look for the answers? I am not sure…” 1

onya pushed the door open and announced, “I‟m home, anybody here?‟ “For a change, yes, I am here”. I responded as she entered the room. “Well, I told you I could not do English. See, I have the FCAT results”. “What?” I asked. “I made a four on the FCAT English.” “Ok, so what about the Mathematics?” I asked, as she handed me the slip of paper with her results and some information about interpreting the grades. Looking at the results, I thought, “Ah! So, she made a five on the Mathematics and a four on the English. What does this mean? She has two weeks left at the school, will we be able to address her seeming weaknesses in the eighth grade English before she begins grade nine? What really do these scores from the standardized tests communicate to me as a parent, as a teacher or even a concerned citizen? What do they mean to my daughter? For one, she has decided why she did not make a five in English –

She does not know English!”

dardized tests, therefore, should be used alongside other strategies as a tool for accountability and towards continuous learning (Ravitch 1984; Brown, 1988). In this paper, I will discuss some of the reported effects of the political call for accountability and standardized tests on public schooling, and the need for other measures of accountability in the K12 classrooms. In seeking other means of addressing accountability that will enhance learning, I will propose and discuss the following:  That parents and the general public should be made aware of the goals of schools and the functioning of schools should be made visible.  That there should be adequate funding for all schools.  That there is a need for multiple means of assessment strategies in conjunction with „high‟ quality standardized tests.

tandardized tests appear to be transforming K12 classrooms and perhaps not for the better. Each school year, many public school students are subjected to a variety of tests geared at linking accountability with assessment. Described as a sample of items with definite directions for administration and scoring (Joint Committee on Standards, 1981), standardized tests are designed to measure levels of achievement in various content and skill areas among some general reference group under similar conditions. The compilations of these tests are most often accomplished by data on statistical reliability and validity and sometimes by normative information (Tuckman, 1988; Jennings, 1998; Barclay, 1968). Each year as the results of the standardized tests are released the media seem to go off on the usual frenzy, reporting pages and pages of reports or sound bytes of varying length and increasing momentum, all geared at focusing on schools and their seeming ineffectiveness. Unfortunately, as Popham (1998) declares, the chief indicator by which most communities judge a school‟s success is student performance on these standardized tests, and this occurs for want of a better system of accountability. While the need for accountability is not all bad, current means of interpreting test results have become barriers to effective teaching and learning. I think, and we can all agree, that, by their very nature, standardized tests should be used as one measuring device, an assessment tool that can be used but never as an end it itself. The agreement among educators is that the resulting single test score does not reflect a measure of many educational skills, neither does it provide any useful leverage for reform in classroom. The stan-

Political call for Accountability Merely increasing the funding for schools or adding programs no longer satisfies parents or the general public who pay for education. Recently, elected public officials have increased demand related to the effectiveness of schools. This effectiveness is to be demonstrated by students‟ performances on standardized tests within and among schools. Here lies the heart of the current issue of accountability in education. In the Oxford English Dictionary, Simpson (1989) defines accountability as: “liable, to be called to account or to answer for responsibilities and conduct.” Stated as such, accountability has legal, moral and economic connotations. According to Wiggins (1993), accountability exists when the service pro-

vider is obligated to respond to criticism from those whom the provider serves. It follows therefore that schools are obligated to the learners, the parents/local community, state and eventually the nation as a whole. However, Stake (1973), takes issue with how the dimensions of accountability are defined with respect to education. He declared,

they should not be used to judge a school‟s successes. What is required is a better system of responsiveness to the everyday frustrations of the public as they are bombarded with the results of the standardized tests. That is, informing the public on how best to interpret these test scores, what they represent and also educate the public about other means of assessment.

“Most state accountability proposals call for more uniform standards across the state, greater specification of objectives, more careful analysis of learning sequences and better testing of student performance. These plans are doomed. What they bring is more bureaucracy, more subterfuge and more constraints on students‟ opportunities to learn.”

Influence of Standardized Tests on Public Schools Today, because of the emphasis being placed on standardized tests as a measure of educational successes and accountability, it appears that they are transforming the K-12 classrooms. According to Jones, Jones, Hardin, Chapman, Yarbrough and Davis (1999) one of the typical effects of standardized testing is a narrowing of the curriculum. When faced with the demands of an overcrowded syllabus and a climate of accountability that prioritizes the acquisition of factual knowledge, teachers tend to emphasize managerial aspects of their practice, concentrate on “getting through” the content and disregard meaningful learning (Popham, 1998). The temptation to teach students to do well is almost unavoidable when performance on such tests influences how entire school systems are evaluated and in some cases their level of funding. Many teachers, in attempting to make sure that their students are prepared for the test, must and do abandon the innovative and interesting instructional strategies such as collaboration and cooperation designed to promote meaningful learning and development of learning communities and meaningful learning. While standardized tests furnish useful quantitative indicators that can be used for comparisons between performances, educators seem to agree that such indicators are external to the needs of the learners. If learning is the goal then learners do not necessarily need to know how they rank among the other members of their grade. Rather, they should be provided with opportunities to picture their own learning in the light of an understanding of what it means to get better (Black & William, 1998). Teachers in a frenzy to prepare students for the tests have begun to focus on information that will be tested and are mimicking the format of test items. Since teachers focus specifically on the information that will be tested, material that involves higherorder thinking and problem solving often is not attended to (Jones et al 1999). In reported incidences,

Unfortunately, Stake‟s charges still hold today. As Popham (1998) sees it, the chief indicator by which most communities judge a school‟s success is student performance on standardized tests. If test scores are low then teachers are seen as ineffective. If they are high then the schools are considered to be doing a good job. When viewed as such, the test scores are being interpreted and used in ways other than the purposes for which they were designed. To be accountable, according to Wiggins (1998), is to be responsible for one‟s work and responsive to its effects. This means that teachers have an obligation to attend to learning outcomes. It follows, therefore, that every level of schooling should judge the quality of its program by the successes of its students at each succeeding level of schooling and into adulthood. Wiggins (1998), continues his discussions by stating that any hope we have of becoming excellent teachers depends on accountability. He believes that feedback and selfadjustment are at the heart of accountability and operate as regulatory mechanisms. True accountability thus involves the obligation of teachers to learn from assessment of student performance in the broadest possible sense and to act on that learning in a timely and effective way. In this manner both responsibility and responsiveness can be identified. Eisner (1978) posits that as a profession, we have been unable to provide the public with an adequate assessment of occurrences in our own schools in ways that reflect what we really do and what is of utmost urgency. He contends that if test scores in their conventional form do not reveal what really matters in schools then

valuable class time is spent drilling students on the mechanics of how to take tests such as shading in procedures for correctly marking answers. Such trivial classroom behaviors are replacing the many skills and qualities valued in education and, according to Wiggins (1998) will have the effect over time of lowering intellectual standards. Students unwittingly are therefore being taught an incorrect view of intellectual performance which is then carried over into post-secondary education, undercutting the students‟ need for a right to user friendly feedback from ongoing assessment on clear and worthy targets for achievement (Wiggins, 1998). Unsubstantiated reports also indicate that because of the simplistic overreaction of some administrators, in some instances teachers are forbidden to teach subjects not included in the testing programs. What is being observed is that the standardized tests to a large extent are dictating the curriculum being implemented in schools. Clearly, this is not in the best interest of the learners or the nation at large in whose interests testing and education should best serve. According to Apple (1988), many of the systems of testing are quite reductive and relatively unreflective. While they do guarantee some form of quality control, putting considerable pressure on teachers simply to teach to the test reduces teaching from a professional to a technical vocation. This technical vocation involves checking off right answers and sorting students into academic file and ranks. This action, laments Ravitch (1984), is a deliberate attempt at deskilling teachers, reducing them to mere technicians and removing the locus of control from the classroom and placing it into the hands of politicians. Though not supported by documentary evidence, there is also widespread report of uneasiness among children in school as they are made ready for these tests. There are reports of much nervousness and a variety of stress-related behavioral issues. Upon reflection, placing too much importance on standardized tests has caused a shift in emphasis from competence to selection and accountability. This has diminished the sense of confidence that students carry away from their school experience (Reineke, 1998).

exclude higher order thinking and the need for students to analyze and synthesize information. Above all, they trivialize abilities such as creativity, drive, imagination, other ways of thinking, socialization and self esteem (Ravitch, 1984). From another perspective, Madaus and Stufflebeam (1989), state that standardized tests do not furnish information about what our students have learned. Instead, they measure very limited goals and thinking indicating how far a student is above or below the average score of the group with which she or he is compared. But school learning is much more than ranking, more than being able to identify facts while operating under restrictions and control. After all, school learning toward empowerment and emancipatory citizenry (Grundy, 1988) encompasses more than the narrow spectrum of cognitive abilities. According to Wiggins (1993), modern testing systems are built upon an ancient human urge to perpetuate a marking‟ and „classification‟ system. This became entrenched in human societies. Then, as bureaucracy, a permanent structure with a system of rational rules emerged, there was the greater need for the coordination of the actions of large number of individuals. According to Max Weber (1946), as the society became more bureaucratized, it promoted a „rationalist‟ way of life, creating the need for special examination geared at selection and monopoly. Examination and testing therefore became a powerful tool in maintaining the structure of the society. Barclay (1968), in contributing to the debate on the rise and use of standardized tests, stated that by defining the characteristics needed for successful functioning as determined by the tests, society was making sure that the right individuals were promoted to certain positions. When used as such, tests and schooling became agents for cultural transmission while maintaining and perpetuating the status quo (Giroux, 1983). These tests can be viewed then as corrupting education and subjugating millions of students to their mechanistic requirements while limiting access to educational opportunities. Children come to schools not only to do well on tests but to become educated individuals, capable of functioning effectively in an ever-changing society. For this, schools should be held accountable. However, there is the need to move away from relying on standardized test-driven accountability towards educating and involving the public in classroom life. In the following sections I will argue that parents need to become more cognizant of the experiences schools

But, what do these tests measure? Standardized tests typically measure only a narrow spectrum of abilities with emphasis on discrete facts and skills because they are easy to measure. The consensus is that by their very nature, standardized tests

provide, that adequate funding be allocated for all schools and that there is the need for multiple means of assessment strategies in conjunction with „high‟ quality standardized test.

school already disadvantaged not having the readiness to deal with school learning at that particular level. In most cases as reported, these children do come from parents of low socio-economic status. It is therefore important that provisions for adequate funding be made regardless of the school‟s location. This will allow the schools to provide equality and equity in educational opportunities and ensure that the wide range of varying students‟ needs is met. Research has shown that schools in affluent neighborhoods are more effective in terms of results on standardized tests than the ones in communities deemed as low socio-economic (Tschinkel, 1999). Invariably, students from these schools are the ones who become „successful‟ adults, promoting the notion that schools function to maintain the status quo. Without even delving into the sociology of the parents and their influence on students‟ achievement, interest, attitude, and motivation, we have to be careful when comparing outcomes on levels in which there is inequality at the initial level of input. Ironically, according to Allen (1998), one of the lessons learned from standardized testing is that schools are not equal and that equity in funding needs to be addressed if students are to be effectively prepared for society.

Parent and Public Involvement as One Means of Ensuring Accountability Any plans for accountability in education should begin at the local level with a common understanding between the community and the schools on the established educational goals. Only when these goals are public knowledge can teachers be truly held accountable for their actions (Wiggins 1998). Open communication should therefore be encouraged at all levels and the functioning of schools should be made visible to the general public. The community needs not only to be keen observers of the results of tests. They need to understand what tests do and do not tell us and become cognizant of all the activities in classrooms. According to Allen (1998), when everyone participates, everyone learns. Teachers benefit from the observations and questions from those outside the classroom and school. The „outsiders‟ learn about what is really happening within the classrooms: What do the students actually do? What does their work look like? How do teachers assess the work? This is a powerful way to encourage dialogue and participation among the stakeholders of education. A level of involvement beyond the usual parent/ teacher conference and periodic school functions would also occur. I do not expect the stakeholders to be under the feet of the teachers. But, as teachers implement non-traditional teaching strategies, embrace current philosophies in teaching and learning, strive towards the development of cooperative and social skills, the public will become better informed that learning is really not restricted to finding the one correct answer among a number of possibilities.

Multiple Means of Assessment Evaluation and assessment have become critical policy issues in education. How much testing is needed? What kinds of assessment strategies should be used? What exactly do the results indicate? The answers depend on what the information is needed for. I think that as a potential for enhancing teaching and learning, assessment needs to provide meaningful and positive descriptors of what children can do while providing the necessary feedback to enhance learning. If the testing done in the name of accountability is still one event, year-end testing, we will never obtain valid, fair, and usable information (Reineke, 1998). The system becomes more treacherous when all students are judged by the same set of standards. This one set of standards suggests that all students have similar and equal exposure to teaching and learning activities. This is far from reality because even within one classroom, children exposed to the same activities leave the room with differing levels of experiences. However, asking students to demonstrate their competence is legitimate from an instructional point of view. Everyone agrees that teachers need to assess the effectiveness of their in-

Adequate Funding for Schools Public education, often criticized for ineffectiveness, has increasingly been forced to do more with reduced budgets (Muro, 1995). Per-pupil expenditure, class size, class texts, availability of teaching and learning resources, library facilities, and the presence of support staff are all factors that influence school effectiveness (Burrup, 1974). The practice of allocating school funds based on the wealth of the tax base of the local community has afforded wide differences in educational opportunities and educational outcome. Along with this are children who come to

struction, and „high‟ quality standardized tests are one tool that should be used. These tests should therefore be designed in the light of models of specific knowledge structures, so that the interpretation of the feedback can serve the purpose of making inferences about students‟ cognitive mechanisms (Black & William, 1998). Any accountability related testing should reveal the value-added component a school embraces. The onus is on teachers to inform the public and politicians that learning is a process of sense making, involving the development of skills, attitudes and values and not only an accumulation of facts. If we are to be true to the multiplicity of abilities and skills that exist among learners then teachers and schools should use multiple ways of examining and reflecting on students‟ work within and across their classrooms and school communities (Allen, 1998; Gardner, 1993). More credence should therefore be given to the use of portfolio assessment, profiling, journaling, self and peer assessment, and other alternative assessment strategies. However, while many teachers are already using these strategies, quite ashamedly, these are relegated to levels of lesser importance when the issue of accountability is raised.

Bibliography Apple, M. (1988). Curricula and teaching: Are they headed towards excellence? NASSP Bulletin. Allen, D. (1998). Assessing student learning: From grading to understanding. New York: Teachers College Press. Barclay, J. R. (1968). Controversial issues in testing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education Vol 5. (1). Brown, S. (1988). Assessment a changing practice. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Burrup, P. (1974). Financing education in a climate of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Eisner, E. (1978). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school program. New York: Macmillan. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Giroux, H. (1983) Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the opposition. Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey. Grundy, S. (1988). Curriculum: Product or praxis? New York: The Falmer Press. Jennings, J. F. (1998). Why national standards and tests? Politics and the quest for better schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jones, G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough T. & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaches and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan. November 1999, pp.199-203. Madaus, G.F., & Stufflebeam, D. (1989). Educational evaluation: Classic works of Ralph Tyler. Boston, MA: Kluwer McLean, J. E. & Robert, E. L. (1996). Why we Assess Students and how: The Competing Measures of Student Performance. Three Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Muro, J. (1995). Creating and funding educational foundations: A guide for local school districts. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Popham, J. (1998). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. (On-line). ASCD. www.families.com/article 01120,3-6219-0-1 Ravitch, D. (1984). Value of standardized test in indicating how well students are learning In C. W. Daves (Ed,), The Uses and Misuses of Tests: Examining Current Issues in Educational and Psychological Testing. California: Josey-Bass Inc. Reineke, R. (1998). Challenging the mind, touching the heart: Best assessment practices. Three Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stake, R. (1973). School accountability laws. The Journal of Educational Evaluation. 4(1), 1-3. Tschinkel, W. (1999, August 15). Bush plan grades student poverty levels. The Tallahassee Democrat. Tuckman, B. (1988). Testing for Teachers (2nd. Ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Translated by Gerth, H. & Wright-Mills C. New York: Oxford University Press. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. (1981). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. New York: McGraw-Hill (1983). The national commission on excellence in education. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Conclusion Teachers owe the public a timely, fair and informative accounting of what goes on in schools. This accountability should result not only from one-shot standardized tests but should encompass the range of assessment strategies being used in classrooms. Standardized tests do not indicate the full range of abilities that exist in schools. By their very nature, they seek to promote and foster basic test taking skills reducing notions of higher order thinking and important writing skills. The challenge for schools and classroom teachers therefore, is how to be true to the responsibilities as educators and the integrity as professionals while moving away from the compromise that standardized tests seem to impose. Beyond this educators need to ensure that the public understands these test results. This implies that the stakeholders, (parents, public and politicians) need to become involved in the process of education beyond the mere debates and funding. As they become educated on the real issues of teaching and learning, schools will become more visible, reducing the need for one shot tests of accountability.

Rose Pringle is assoc. professor of science education at the University of Florida, College of Education, Gainesville, FL E-mail: rpringle@coe.ufl.edu

FEL—Another Look

From: Issue #2, March, 2001

WHAT MAKES A LEADER EFFECTIVE? Susan Lynch

A Leader Defined: unenburg and Ornstein (2000, p. 114) recognize that definitions of leadership contain two common characteristics: “leadership is a relationship between two or more people in which influence and power are unevenly distributed,” and “leaders do not exist in isolation.” Less than definitive, perhaps this lack of

commonality among definitions signifies the most wonderful thing about determining the characteristics of every effective leader: it hasn’t been done.

For example, can you think of someone in a leadership role who:  is a leader without vision?  is a leader without specific knowledge?  is a leader without the characteristics of care? For each defining characteristic, an effective leader can be found who is an exception to the rule. Hitler, for example, was a highly effective leader. His interpretation of “care” was grossly maligned with common thinking of today, however he combined a strong vision and knowledge about how to obtain this vision to motivate great numbers of constituents. Recognizing an effective leader cannot come from a checklist of characteristics. Someone wishing to lead cannot “do” the list and become this generation’s Thomas Jefferson. There is a synergistic reaction that occurs with certain combinations; combinations that generate more than a sum of the characteristics alone.

leader’s sense of balance is based upon that individual’s interpretation framed loosely across three human needs. In pedagogical terms, we refer to these human needs as domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (Jacobsen, Eggen & Kauchak, 1999). And these themes are repeated elsewhere, too. In reflective practice at the University of Central Florida (2000), these components are referred to as relevance (think), reaction (feel), and responsibility (do). Problem posing, a circular procedure for “doing” critical pedagogy consists of naming, reflecting, and acting (Wink, 2000). Similarly in leadership, one must balance the head, heart, and hand (Sergiovanni, 1992). Balancing emotions with thoughts and actions has a recognized importance. An effective leader must find a personally relevant balance of these three dimensions that sustains a consistent personal behavior pattern. For, it is difficult to follow what cannot be predicted. Thus, the balance between these three domains determines a leader’s style. Simplistically stated, a leader is recognized in any combination of having crucial knowledge (head), attending to the needs of human condition (heart), and/or being able to get the job done (hand).

Synergy Just as each person has a unique fingerprint, each has a unique way of interacting with the world. One’s observations quickly become interpretations and theories on how the world behaves. It is these interpretations that determine how one will balance personal characteristics for public interaction. Lest you think that balance infers being divided into equal parts, it is crucial to recognize that balance is defined differently for each interacting individual. A

Head Al Gore might be considered a leader who values the dimensions of this domain modestly above the others.

A leader who values knowledge is passionate about obtaining power through information and education. A person valuing this dimension may deem emotional arguments illegitimate since they are often devoid of standard procedures of reasoning and research. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, two speeches delivered information. One was emotive and the other academic. In that scenario, the emotional argument won over the masses. The more educated the populace, the more one would assume that knowledge would prevail. In any case, the leader who leads with the characteristic of gathering knowledge believes that good decisions are based upon research and facts. Charisma and affect come second.

organization (i.e. bringing care to a knowledge-based environment), by organizing the several domains represented by individuals, or serving to provide a “doable” vision for a like-minded organization. In other words, the leader must have knowledge of self as well as knowledge of self in a larger context. The effective leader knows how to balance one’s own characteristics to meet the needs of the larger context. If this personal “balance” serves the needs of those who follow her, she will maintain her leadership. Trust is established in this leader if she maintains her predictability and success. If you know a leader whom you would follow through outside opposition and hardship, you have defined what “balance” you value. And if you were to switch organizations, you may find that you value a different “lead.” In an extreme example, a leader of a nation might require a different “balance” of these domains than a youth camp counselor for troubled teens. Though they both may be effective leaders, interchanging the balance of the two would not be wise. We must continue to remain flexible with our definition of effective leader. But the characteristics of an effective leader are contained within an intrapersonal interpersonal and use of the domains: head, heart, and hand. One might conclude then that an effective leader is “in the eyes of the beholder.” And the effectiveness of a leader is determined by the completeness by which the needs of the organization are met.

Heart Mother Theresa valued this dimension most in her attempt to balance her leadership principles. This leader strives to understand the emotional and spiritual needs of those around her to inform her actions. While knowledge may be the underpinning of decisions, daily decisions are based upon the mantra, “I don’t care how much you know until I know how much you care.” This leader is most likely receptive to new ideas and views people as her most valuable asset. Hand Michael Jackson might embody the “doer” personality. This leader leads by example. To “do” one must have both a vision and the knowledge of how to get there. This effective leader may grow impatient in waiting for research; instead this “doer” is generating the data. This leader is susceptible to great errors and great successes as she is quite often most interested in production and achieving.

References Jacobson, D.A., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1999). Methods for teaching: Promoting student learning. New Jersey: Merrill Publishing Company. Lunenburg, F.C., & Ornstein, A.C. (2000). Educational administration (3rd Ed.). Stamford, CT: Thompson Learning. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. University of Central Florida Portfolio Guidelines. (2000). Orlando, FL: Retrieved February 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://reach.ucf.edu/ ~ed_found.

Finding Balance It is logical that if these dimensions (head, heart, hand) exist within an organic individual, they would exist within a living organization or school. The defining characteristics of an effective leader depend entirely upon the balance of them in context of her constituents. Lunenburg & Ornstein (2000) wrote that leaders do not exist in isolation. An effective leader is defined by her followers. If a principal leads teachers who value different domains than the leader, conflict may occur. Therefore, a leader must “fit” within that organization in order to be effective. There are many combinations of “fit.” An effective leader “fits” by filling a lacking domain in the

Susan Lynch is Assistant Professor at University of Central Florida. E-mail: jlynch@mail.ucf.edu

FELâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Another Look

From: Issue #2,

The Future of Arts Education in Florida Susan W. Mills

Without the opportunity for arts education, Floridaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s children and communities are condemned to less opportunity for cultural achievement and overall enjoyment of life.

Arts

education has long provided children with opportunities for aesthetic growth, appreciation and understanding of culture, and enrichment in a public school curriculum intended to promote the potential in each student. Preoccupation with educational standards and accountability across the nation has raised some concerns about the future of arts education in public schools. While benchmarks and essential learning outcomes for the arts (music, visual arts, theater and dance) have been included in most states' overall educational standards, very few states have included the arts in the mandated accountability measures such as Florida's FCAT. Here are some of the issues raised in Florida by involving arts education policy with the reform through standards movement prevalent across the United States.

scores are what the public uses to judge the quality of education that students receive (Eisner, 2000). School reform plans that provide resources for remediation and program improvement do so based on areas of need identified in state assessment tests. In short, what gets tested is valued and what is valued is more likely to get taught (Hinckley, 1999; Bonbright and McGreevy-Nichols, 2000). In most policy discussions about arts education, the issue of including arts in state and local curricula is key. Unlike their "core" counterparts, the arts have an educational history of being marginalized or omitted from public education when scheduling priorities, budget cuts or reform agendas dominate. From inside the arts education profession, holding onto or attaining placement in curricula is an inherent burden. Knowing that the standards and testing movement is being bought and paid for by the taxpaying public, arguments from inside the arts education community for including the arts in broad-based assessments are not surprising. Because of the link from assessment to inclusion in curricula, many arts education advocates promote the use of standardized instruments such as the 1997 arts education assessment conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress Lehman,

Arts, Assessment and Curriculum Without inclusion of the arts in the Florida statewide educational assessment plans, some arts education advocates predict a grim future for K-12 arts education. Since the arts are rarely included in the testing, the public may be led to neglect the need for arts education because standardized achievement test

1998; and Bonbright and Mc-Greevy-Nichols, 1999). Lehman points to NAEP arts assessment as confirmation that large-scale arts assessment is possible and can be used to stress that arts education is important for all students. In his view, NAEP results can defend the place of arts in education. Others hold that the assessment of arts education is significant because it aligns the curricular subject (music, visual art, theater, dance) with regular "core" curriculum (math, science, language arts, history, etc) in accordance with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Problems with Arts Assessment While assessment may link arts education to inclusion in core curricula, concerns about the uniqueness of the arts, as a field, have been voiced as well. Many people, including educators, believe that arts assessment is vague and difficult to verify. In fact, Eisner (2000) argues that the whole idea of trying to standardize knowledge in the arts has little of the exploratory spirit that people committed to the arts in true human experience are likely to value. In the NAEP music and visual arts assessments, students were randomly selected regardless of whether their schools offered music or art programs and regardless of whether they had received music or visual art instruction. The data produced by this report is therefore limited, baseline data. (Lecroy, 1999). Educational standards and corresponding assessments have been linked to increased dropout rates among Florida's high school students (Bolon, 2000) and across the nation. Stressed teachers, unsuccessful students and failing budgets (resulting from low grades assigned according to Florida's A+ plan) are certainly troubling for students and teachers of all disciplines. If arts classes begin to require rigorous testing in order for students to graduate, Floridians could soon lose ground in the arts arena. High school students are already taking music, visual art, theater and dance courses without being credited comparable units toward graduation and college entrance requirements. With more stringent assessment measures and without incentives such as those provided by the A+ plan what encouragement do students have for enrolling and excelling in an arts subject? In order to assess how well students can create and

perform tasks in the field of dance, a substantial length of time and adequate space are necessary. Students need a large, safe, well-lit room for movement or dance exercises, and require time for reflection in order to evaluate works of art. Knowing about an art form and being able to create or perform within an art form are qualitatively different and cannot be used interchangeably for purposes of efficiency. For assessments to hold any value, students need time and environments conducive to arts appropriate tasks. Assessment obstacles may be overcome, but reporting assessment data is problematic in arts education, because of the necessity of qualitative methods used in performance assessments. In order to determine the effectiveness of arts education, quantitative methods that solely test students' knowledge of factual information are not appropriate. The results can easily be distorted in attempts to condense and interpret quantitatively without regard to context (such as whether or not and how much music instruction is offered). The potential for misunderstanding expressed by Eisner, added to the special facilities and expense needed to complete authentic assessments deters those who wish to evaluate public school arts programs from including student assessments in their evaluations. Add to this list the confusion generated by an overzealous news media presented with raw data they may not understand and the need for inclusion of arts education assessment which may be radically different than previous assessment data, state school reform agendas becomes rather complicated. Florida Arts Education Policy Nationally, arts educators have been quite visible in the reform through standards movement regardless of public policy disputes. The Consortium of National Arts Education Associations was formed in the early 1990s to write, implement and assess the National Standards for Arts Education passed into legislation in 1994's Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (The standards met the Goal 3 requirement for competency in the core subject area of the arts). The consortium includes representation from major national associations in all four identified art forms (music, visual arts, theater and dance). Florida's arts educators also seem to lean toward inclusion of the arts in the testing movement, although not necessarily in assessment of the arts programs themselves. State conferences for elementary music educators

have begun allocating time and resources for relating music standards and topics to FCAT (reading and math) assessed higher order thinking skills. This approach has created controversy among both arts educators and teacher educators who wish to preserve the integrity of the arts disciplines rather than serve other subject areas' curricular interests. College level courses for pre-service elementary educators commonly link musical and artistic activities with non-musical and non-artistic state benchmarks for learning, rather than the arts benchmarks. If this practice dominates teacher preparation programs, the only educators competent to help students meet the arts benchmarks will be the certified arts specialists. Yet, arts specialists are not placed in all schools, and their schedules have been stretched to even shorter classes than recommended by state Department of Education guidelines, diminishing students' chances of meeting minimum standards for arts education. One solution may be integrating arts learning with other subject areas. Unfortunately, this places the burden on elementary classroom teachers, many of whom cannot or will not sing, dance, paint or engage in dramatic arts. In elementary classrooms, the use of arts activities such as singing, drawing or dramatizing are usually employed to serve the cognitive or intellectual purpose of retaining factual information. In preschool and kindergarten programs in one North Florida county, Fahmie (2000 p. 17) found that "many well intentioned teachers â&#x20AC;Ś were not comfortable with their own musical skills and therefore resorted to very commercial types of musical materials for themselves." The use of music served to entertain, but not to develop the whole child. Another Florida district formally dismantled the elementary arts curriculum in 1992. Sarasota County's blunderous attempt to save money by releasing the music, art and physical education specialists resulted in years of problems retaining elementary educators and providing training for arts learning in elementary classrooms. Still, the educational value of utilizing a variety of both arts and non arts learning activities is hardly debatable in a typically diverse Florida classroom. Diverse student populations need an array of learning strategies and activities suited for their varied learning styles. Possibly, the integration of music activities with language arts and mathematics learning is just good teaching, whose time has finally come on

the coattails of a test-based curriculum. More likely, the arts educators involved in these interdisciplinary strategies are vying for any place in the curriculum that they can get. The Value of Arts Education From this perspective, the problem becomes more philosophical: if music (and other arts) teachers are teaching skills tested on the mathematics and reading assessments, then does not the justification for the arts in education depend on their success in raising the quantifiable standardized test scores? Is the value of the arts programs in our schools really based on the possibility that students will score higher? Recent media hype about the value of arts as instruments for building cognitive or mental intellect such as the "Mozart effect" (Raucsher, 1993) brain development (Time, 1997) and multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993) have fueled the arts-for-intellectsake school of thought in recent years. The justification of arts in the public school curriculum unabashedly emerges as arts education advocates naively quote standardized test score increases and talk about engaging both sides of the brain. Bennet Reimer, an aesthetic philosopher and active player in the arts and standards movement calls such arguments for the value of music "perhaps the most extreme that the music education profession has ever faced" (1999, p. 23). He is critical of the vulnerable position left to the arts education profession, if the separation of emotion and intellect is maintained in all educational policy and discussion of arts in the curriculum. Once again, the issue of educating the whole child rather than some intellectual portion conflicts with arts education advocates' political need for arts inclusion as core subject matter. Educators and taxpayers are left with the dilemma of looking to these more shallow rationales in order to defend the arts in education or risking the likelihood that the general public may not truly value or understand the arts enough to insist on arts standards, assessment and improvement in needed areas. While the general public cannot be expected to hold expertise in all areas of arts education, there is evidence of public support and support from educators. People realize that arts education is important,

yet they may not realize how severe the threat of arts' removal from educational institutions is, in response to calls for educational accountability. The National Standards for Arts Education were developed by the consortium cited above, and was supported by the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In addition to these powerful institutions, the consensus was widespread among professional leaders in education, politics (both major parties) and within the public at large (Opportunity to Learn Standards for Arts Education, 1995). The view that arts are a frill in education is mostly obsolete, but grass-roots support for resources has been lacking. In one central Florida elementary school, 94% of parents whose children participated in an innovative, artsinfused curriculum, indicated that musical activities should be a regular part of their children's elementary classes (Wilson, 1999). Most respondents, however, believed that musical skills and knowledge were taught and learned because of the mere inclusion of music in the curriculum for learning rote information and to set moods for the children. The participating teachers reported that no skills were explicitly taught, or even identified for this curriculum. Their purposes for using the music activities were surface level applications and not intended to educate children in the manner set forth by the Sunshine State Standards or National Standards for Music. The parents recognized the value of the music activities, yet they were unable to assess the specific music knowledge addressed (or not addressed) in their childrens' classrooms. The teachers, on the other hand, often expressed a need for support from music and art specialists in planning the arts activities so that arts experiences were more than "timefillers." Unfortunately, the school's sights were set on raising FCAT scores at the expense of time with music and visual arts specialists. Using their expertise as facilitators of learning, the elementary classroom educators could have planned meaningful activities for their students and could have addressed benchmarks for learning in the arts as well as any other subject matter. Without the allocation of planning time with an arts specialist or assignment of arts

educators to teach classes in music or other arts, the classroom teachers were left to fill time as best they could. One first grade teacher from Orange County commented: â&#x20AC;&#x153;There is a great emphasis on the senses in art and music programs and students have a chance to express themselves creatively on many levels, and in a variety of ways, so youngsters who are not excelling academically have another avenueâ&#x20AC;Śthese programs encourage youngsters to use their imagination and motivates them to communicate, both verbally and nonverballyâ&#x20AC;? (Chin-Onn, 1997). Use of the senses, value for emotional development, providing creative experiences and fostering a personal form of communication makes perfect sense to elementary educators who value whole-child approaches to education. This educator also pointed to her colleagues' lack of confidence with arts education. "Classroom teachers have indeed taken some classes in arts education, but they do not have the expertise or degree of training of art and music specialists." This limited background in the arts is going to become even more limited as a result of the decision from the Florida legislature to reduce the number of hours of arts credits in the elementary education certification requirements. Arts education is not cheap, and does not come with quantifiable guarantees, despite the data regarding higher SAT scores, increased acceptance to postsecondary education or the Mozart effect. Arts educators (like their counterparts in other areas of the K-12 curriculum) undergo arduous preparation in order to facilitate authentic learning experiences for their students. Age-old questions about the value of arts in society call for firm commitment to arts education with or without state-sponsored arts assessment. New efforts to evaluate arts programs are needed, in order to ensure that all children are offered the opportunity to learn according the Sunshine State Standards' guidelines and benchmarks. Acceptance of qualitative forms of assessment, addressing the uniqueness of the field is imperative. Students must become critical evaluators in order to succeed in arts endeavors. Authentic assessment strategies

that include students' own assessments can provide a qualitative element that standardized tests may not include. The NAEP brought to light many issues concerning assessment in arts education. State and national politics have added to the discussion, and local support for resources, arts specialists and administrative support must become more vocal and more articulate. While the arts must stand on their own, as a unique respectable discipline, there is a need for a clear commitment from the unified educational community. The future of arts education in Florida is dangerously bleak. Without the opportunity for arts education, Florida's children and communities are condemned to less opportunity for cultural achievement and overall enjoyment of life.

Eisner, E.W. (2000). Arts Education Policy? Arts Education Policy Review 101(3) p. 4-7. Fahmie, D. (2000). Musical playtime for developing young minds. Florida Music Director. 53 (9) 17-19. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences New York: Basic Books. Hinckley, J. (1999). What gets tested gets taught. Teaching Music 6 (2) 6-7. Lehman, P. R. (1998). "Making the standards work for you: standards and assessment." Paper given at the MENC National Biennial In-Service Conference, April, 1998, Phoenix, AZ. Lecroy, H. (1999). Assessment and Strategic Planning. Music Educators Journal. 86 (2) 36-41. Rauscher, F. and Shaw, G. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature 365, 611. Nash, J. M. (1997). Fertile minds: from birth, a baby's brain cells proliferate wildly, making connections that may shape a lifetime of experience. Time 149 (5), 48-49. Reimer, B. (1999). Facing the risks of the "Mozart Effect". Arts Education Policy Review 101 (2) 21-26. Wilson, S.L. (1999). The role of musical intelligence in a multiple intelligences focused central Florida elementary school. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 110 AAG9923726.

Bibliography

Susan Mills, is Music Ed. Coordinator at Hayes School of Music, Appalachia State Univ. E-mail: millssw@appstate.edu

Bonbright, J. M. and McGreevy-Nichols, S. (1999). NAEP and Dance: On Contextual Data, Process and Problems in Dance Assessments, and Recommendations for the Field. Arts Education Policy Review 100(6) 27-33. Chin-Onn, M. (1997). Commentary: elementary schools need art and music programs. Unpublished paper, University of Central Florida. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (eds.) (1995). Opportunity to Learn Standards for Arts Education AATE, MENC, NAEA, NDA.

FASCD Membership This issue of Florida Educational Leadership is being sent to all members of FASCD as part of the membership benefit. We have also distributed this issue to other leaders in Florida education. If you are not a member, you can join the many Florida educators in the one organization that is â&#x20AC;&#x153;For all who teach and learn.â&#x20AC;? Complete the information on this page 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 !

Dr. Mr. Mrs. Ms. (Name) ____________________________________________________________ Position Title _______________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address ____________________________________________________________________ City _____________________________ Florida , ZIP ____________ County __________________ Work Phone (_______)_______________________ FAX (_______)___________________________ e-mail______________________________________________________________________________ This coupon entitles the above to a one-year membership in FASCD at the introductory rate of $35. (Purchase orders are not valid with this offer.)

Mail To: FASCD 11511 Pine St Seminole FL 33772

FEL—Another Look

From: Issue #2, March 2001

Research Participation Jennifer Deets

esearch is a participatory activity. Retained within the school domain. If we extend the searchers participate in data collection, courage of risk-taking from localized domains to analysis, and write-up of results. The education as a whole, we can see that the actions of people from and with whom they gather individuals can feed the imaginations of all of us. data are also participants. Without the willingness What if successes and disappointments were of people to fill in bubbles on surveys; to answer not made known – and reasons for them explored? questions on e-mail, by telephone, or in person; or We would all be poorer for the lack of knowledge. to permit observers into their schools and classWe are a field that is all about knowledge. In order rooms, much educational research could not be to further education and in order to understand its conducted. idiosyncrasies and its nuances with greater sensiSometimes the chance to contribute to our tivity, we must bring as many stories to the table as growing understanding of schooling and education possible; we must take risks, we must participate. appears to be just one more piece of junk in your In addition to participating in the conduct of mailbox. Sometimes it masquerades as an inopporresearch as researchers or as informants, we must tune phone call. Sometimes the request to observe also participate in the reading, understanding, and you and your workplace comes when you are least dissemination of research. Journals such as Florsatisfied with its dynamics. In any of these inida Educational Leadership reach a good size audistances, to decline the opportunity to participate is ence of administrators, teachers, and professors in easy. Many of us toss the paper into the trash or Florida. What will we do with the good information reply “no” with little that we gather from these thought about what our pages? Will we perhaps Educational problems are messy— non-participation leaves modify our practices? Will out. we make copies for our stuso are the processes aimed at Participation is scary. It dents, staff, parents, school getting to good decisions to makes our practices and us board members, legislators? ameliorate the studied problems. visible. We become vulWill we share the informanerable when we imagine tion with colleagues what people will think about our words or actions – throughout the country? Will we forward further or the words and actions of students, teachers, adinformation to the authors to assist them as they ministrators in our schools. Yet risk-taking is an continue their studies? Will we discuss the potenacknowledged trait of good teachers. The risks tial for new and exciting programs in our districts? teachers and administrators take are usually conWill we become more mindful of the roots and

foundation of our day-to-day actions? If so, then we participate in research. Research Strategies One way to participate is to observe. Observation includes all of one’s senses. In the ceiling above my desk in my office, approximately three feet behind me as I type, I hear the incessant hum of a fluorescent light. Periodically I get up, turn off the light, wait…and turn it back on for a 10-minute reprieve from the humming. Not infrequently, I opt for the coffee shop as a place to write, think, grade papers, and plan. The coffee shop is much noisier, but it is noise that surrounds me, rolls off of me, even motivates me. Noise dramatically affects me and my work. Close your eyes for just two minutes in your workplace and listen. What do you hear? Can you name all of the sounds in your environment? How many are there? How would you describe the sounds? As you move from describing the sounds, think of how ubiquitous they are. Do they have any impact on the day-to-day actions of you at work? Of teachers? Of students? Think also about the smells of your place, of the way your skin tells you about the environment – are you hot? Cold? Comfortable? Is there a breeze? Do the dimensions of your place you feel cramped/free/ lost? Observe educational spaces all around in all ways. As you begin (or continue) to observe your place, consider observing others’ places. How do they describe their offices or classrooms? How do your observations mesh or conflict with their descriptions? What do any discrepancies mean? These are some of the challenging, exciting, exasperating questions that result from participation in fieldwork. Educational problems are messy – so are the processes aimed at getting to good decisions to ameliorate the studied problems. One way to lessen the chaotic feel of fieldwork is to record one’s observations carefully. Observations can be recorded in a variety of ways. In Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995), describe what fieldnotes are and how to write them. Their suggestions can also be applied to systematic day-to-day observation of your own practice(s). Their book is addressed to two audiences: academic field researchers as well as audiences who commonly recognize few links with ethnography – those committed to experiential educa-

tion and service learning. Writing field notes would encourage experiential education students to observe more finely and systematically, to consider both the mundane and the dramatic, and to attend to others’ activities and concerns as closely as their own. (p. xv) By discussing ethnographic fieldnotes, the authors imply their reliance on anthropology as a discipline through which to examine education. Such a focus not only permits, but also almost demands, that the minutiae of daily life be given equal status to the more spectacular events that draw our attention. Taking fieldnotes – recording our observations – is one way to keep track of all events, the humdrum and the juicy. Another way to discover and explore the culture in and of schools is to talk to people, to interview them. The Active Interview, by James A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium, published in 1995 by Sage publications is a little book packed with suggestions, rationales, and examples of interviewing as an interactive, creative process. This book follows up my assertion from last issue that interviewing is an essential dimension of educational history and educational understanding. “Respondents are not so much repositories of knowledge – treasuries of information awaiting excavation – as they are constructors of knowledge in collaboration with interviewers” (p. 4). The next time you are asked to give a brief interview, to permit an observer into your classroom, to permit a graduate student to conduct fieldwork at your school, or the next time you receive one more survey, think twice – and then one more time – before throwing away your chance to help all of us to grow in our understanding of this fascinating world of education. References Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago. Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

FEL—Another Look

From Issue #2 , March 2001

School Administrators as Educational Technology Leaders

Cathy Cavenaugh

educational technology a fad? Consider the following trend: In 1703, it was stated at a teachers’ conference, “Students today can’t prepare bark to calculate their problems. They depend upon slates…what will they do when the slate is dropped and it breaks? They will be unable to write.”

In 1929, it was written in Rural American Teacher, “Students today depend upon bought ink. They don’t know how to make their own. When they run out of ink, they will be unable to write words or cipher until the next trip to the settlement. This is a sad commentary on modern times.” In 1959, it was published in Federal Teacher, “Ball point pens will be the ruin of education in our country. Students use these devices and then throw them away! The American values of thrift and frugality are being discarded. Businesses and banks will never allow such expensive luxuries.” In 1983, the Vermont Board of Education declared, “It took education more than 300 years to fully take advantage of the technological revolution in movable type. And it was almost 100 years between the invention of the pencil and its wide use in schools. This is not so with computers. Change has come quickly. Our challenge is to manage that change, and to put the new technology into the service of quality education.” It is indeed a challenge to choose and use educational technology effectively in today’s educational envi-

ronment” (Seidenburg 1989). Educators agree that an important goal of education is to ensure that students live better lives and help the community to become a better place as a result of being educated. We have also witnessed changes in the community over the history of American education. The first major change was from an agricultural to an industrial society. During that time, machines were used to magnify muscle power of humans. We are in the midst of the change from an industrial society to an information society, where machines are used to magnify the cognitive power of humans (Hughes 2000). An aspect of the information age is the globalization of societies and economies. The globalization has meant increased competition for our students. They experience competition from foreign students when applying to college, and they experience competition from skilled foreign workers when applying for jobs. Our students need special skills and knowledge to become global citizens.

In order to prepare all students for success in the information age, we must recognize that our strength and security as a nation depend on remaining competitive in the global high-tech economy, now and in the foreseeable future, and education is a key factor that can prepare us for this new world and ensure our success (NSBA 1997). An education that prepares students for a future in the information age will increase their professional and creative options. Education that effectively includes educational technology can strengthen the health of communities. Information technology represents over 33% of national economic growth now, and by 2006, half of all US jobs will be in the IT sector or will require IT skills. High-tech workers make 78% more money than average workers and provide excellent working conditions. US businesses will create 1.6 million IT jobs this year, but half will go unfilled (ITAA 2000). If American high school graduates cannot fill the fastest-growing category of jobs, those jobs will go overseas. However, if schools supply skilled workers, businesses are attracted to the community. Technology is best used when it adds value to a strong curriculum, not when it becomes a curriculum. Is all of this to say that schools should become technology-training centers? Certainly not. We must continue to offer a liberal arts education while preparing students to succeed in the information age. One challenge that we face is that “…the majority of students, even good ones, believe that much of the present academic curriculum is not worth the effort it takes to learn it. The answer is not to make them work harder; it is to increase the quality of what we ask them to learn” (Glasser 1993). There is a difference between real and perceived quality. American schools are doing a better job of educating all children, but the public and students do not see it this way. The changes we are experiencing in society have brought competition in education. Students have choices. If public schools don’t provide quality education, who will? Charter schools, private schools using vouchers, home schools, virtual schools, and commercial online education providers. Each of these providers is growing, and their quality is not consistent. It is important for all educators to work on continual quality improvement. Effective schools are places where why is more important than how. Technology must serve as a way

for students to think, present, research and do, in different, more enriched, and more powerful ways. We want our students to understand ways that technology helps them learn and adapt. Used this way, technology is not the primary focus but a valuable benefit. Ninety percent of the technology that we will use in ten years either hasn’t been invented yet, or it isn’t accessible now. The cognitive skills, learning how to learn and adapt, are most valuable in school, work, and life. Schools thrive on information: teachers and students require the right information, from the right sources, right now. Student performance can improve when the enhancement of teaching and learning with technology is adopted as the norm (NSBA). Technology is best used when it adds value to a strong curriculum, not when it becomes a curriculum. Technology-rich classrooms are most successful when advanced technologies are linked with advanced teaching strategies, including cooperative learning, thematic teaching, guided inquiry, and critical thinking skills (NSBA). When we talk about technology in schools, we are talking about powerful new tools for learning, and also in many cases about changing the way teaching and learning happen. What is changing in education? In their article, The Educational Paradigm Shift, Ian Jukes and Ted McCain state that education will soon not be limited to a single location, a specific time, the single instructor, just people as teachers, memorization, paper-based resources, linear learning, the intellectual elite, occurring in childhood, and controlling learners (2000). This paradigm shift means that schools may adopt block scheduling and integrated content, looping, multi-age classes, IEP for all, performance assessment, small group and individualized learning, and technology tools. For anyone, change is work. The work of change is made easier for people who understand and believe in the need for change. Technology can help manage the changes in education. Integration of technology into education begins with the recognition that at school, everyone’s job is to learn! All staff must embrace change and see themselves as learners and models of learning. Next, understand that

technology integration is as much about change as it is about technology, and know the importance of the change. Some of the benefits for the school and the community of technology integration are a stronger professional bond among teachers, who are less isolated when they use communication technology such as email. The non-teaching work of the school is more efficient. Communication with parents and the community increases. Students develop a new system of knowledge that enhances valuable skills.

According to US Department of Education reports, decades of use and hundreds of studies indicate that when used properly, technology can enhance the achievement of all students, increase families’ involvement in schooling, improve teachers’ skills and knowledge, and improve school administration. A US DOE study of nine technology-rich schools concluded that the use of technology resulted in educational gains for all students (1995). A 10-year study by Apple noted that students in tech-rich environments performed well on standardized tests, and developed competencies not usually measured: exploring and representing data, social awareness, confidence, communication (Ringstaff, Marsh & Yocam, 1995). A 2000 report shows that students are more successful in school, are more motivated to learn, and have increased self-confidence and self-esteem when technology is present in the educational environment. This is especially true for students with special needs. Technology is also a catalyst for successful collaborative learning and teamwork in small groups, and helps students that seldom participate in class discussions become more involved (Software & Information Industry Association). It is important to allow time, expect time, and be willing to spend time working toward positive change. The Children’s Partnership reports that multimedia and telecommunications improved attitudes toward learning, and increased active and independent learning. Higherlevel thinking skills develop when students use tech-

nology that supports research, communication, and analysis. Educationally, integrating technology can be a no-lose situation: standardized test skills remain strong, while the harder-to-measure cognitive skills improve. What can schools do to integrate technology? The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers and students provide a guide (ISTE, 1999). A survey can help you identify and prioritize needs. For example, the “Technology in My Life Survey” from Jamie MacKenzie (1993) indicates a stage of technology mastery, from survival through innovation. The needs at each stage are different. Studies have outlined 4 stages through which teachers may pass in learning and applying new technologies in their teaching:  Survival: struggle, teacher-directed  Mastery: coping, confidence  Impact: tech-enhanced, learner-centric  Innovation: restructures learning Keys to Effective Technology Professional Development: (NSBA)  Incentives and support  Access to technology  Community partnerships  Teacher-directed, grounded in practice  Ongoing support and training for all To be most effective, technology professional development should be part of shared school wide instructional mission. It should be planned and supported to endorse early adopters and provide incentive and recognition to share success. Technology should be placed in regular classrooms with a goal of 6-8 computers per room. Teachers need time to develop proficiency. An education that prepares students for a future in the information age will increase their professional and creative options. The role of the school educational technology leader is to support staff, and to encourage the use of technology to free teachers to teach. School technology leaders model ideals of lifelong learning at their stage of technology competency. Try the Technology Literacy for Administrators” survey from the association of school administrators at http:// www.aasa.org/SA/apr9902.htm. Leaders need to do the vision thing: empowering

teachers and students in new ways. To develop the school educational technology vision, ask, “What is our preferred future with technology?” Base the vision on the school’s mission and describe what you want to see students and teachers doing as they learn. Be specific, positive, inspiring. Assume new frameworks. Be open to dramatically new teaching, facilities, and approaches. Imagine if it was 2005, and your school had achieved its vision of education with technology! Describe the school, teachers and students. What is done differently and better? How are students more prepared for the world? The difference between now and then is your plan. Avoid visionkillers such as reliance on tradition, fear of ridicule, stereotypes, fatigue, short-term thinking, and naysayers. If you still think educational technology is a fad, participate in the Florida Educational Technology Conference each winter. http://www.fetc.org

International Society for Technology in Education. 2000. National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE. Johnson, D. & Bartleson, E. 1999. Technological Literacy for Administrators. AASA Online. Online at http://www.aasa.org/SA/apr9902.htm. Jukes, I. & McCain, T. 2000. New schools for a new age. Peachland, BC, Canada: The InfoSavvy Group & Cystar. MacKenzie, J. 1993. Assessing Staff Technology Competence, From Now On, 3:9. Online at http://www.staffdevelop.org. National School Boards Association. 1997. Educational Technology Toolkit. Online at: http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/index.html Ringstaff, C., Marsh, J., & Yocam, K. 1995. ACOT Teacher Development Center Annual Progress Report: Year Two, Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc., for the National Science Foundation. Seidenburg, T. 1989. Washington Mathematics 34 (1). Software & Information Industry Association. 2000. 2000 Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools. Washington, DC: SIIA. The Children’s Partnership. 1994. America’s Children and the Information Superhighway: A Briefing Book and National Action Agenda. Santa Monica, CA. Online at http://www.childrenspartnership.org/bbar/ techin.html US Department of Education. 1995. Technology and education reform: technical research report. Washington, DC: USDOE. Online at http:// www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/Technology/

Cathy Cavanaugh, is a professor at UF, School of Teaching and Learning, Gainesville. E-mail: cathycavaneaugh@coe.ufl.edu.

Bibliography Glasser, W. 1993. The quality school. New York: Harper Perennial. Hughes, B. 2000. Two problems facing education. Online at: http:// www.toysrbob.com. Information Technology Association of America. 2000. IT workforce studies and statistics. Online at: http://www.itaa.org/workforce/resources/ articles.htm

Writing For Florida Educational Leadership While this is an electronic issue of FEL featuring articles from previous print editions, we still publish a print issue in the fall of each year. If you want to submit an article for the print edition, here is some helpful information. Florida Educational Leadership is a peer-reviewed journal for its major articles. Articles are solicited for 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

kysilka@bellsouth.net

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

Associate Editor: Perspectives

Associate Editor: Voices From The Field

Vicki Zygouris-Coe is profes-

Jeffrey Kaplan is Associate Professor

sor at UCF. She may be reached at vzygouri@mail.ucf.edu

UCF. He may be reached at JKaplan@mail.ucf.edu

Associate Editor: Student Voices

Associate Editor: Research in Practice

Sherron Killingsworth Roberts

Ann I. Nevin, is Professor Emerita, Ari-

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

zona State University. She may be reached at: ann.nevin@ asu.edu

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 President-Elect

Sallie Payne Vice-president

Johnny Nash David Magee Kim Pearson Past President

Treasurer

Directors: Ralph Barrett, Dona DePriest, Jason Flom, Marcy Kysilka, Lois Lee, Michael Mizwicki, Kelley Ranch, Paul Terry, Shelia Windom

Executive Director