One essential facet of teacher preparation programs, and incidentally teacher evaluations, is determining whether students learned the content. As teachers, I’m sure we’ve all heard just because you taught it, doesn’t mean they learned it, so how do we know, definitively, that students learned the material. Teacher preparation programs and administrators would have you believe that question can be answered using formative and summative assessments. Formative assessments are used to monitor the student’s learning process (Ex: exit tickets, quizzes). In contrast, summative assessments are used to evaluate students at the end of a chapter or semester (Ex: unit tests, semester finals). Again, summative assessments tie back to teacher evaluations. Determining how effective you are on a scale of 1 to 4 based on how well your students perform in your class. In reality, “there is no satisfactory way to distinguish the effects of a student’s studying from the effects of a teacher’s teaching” (Fendler, 2014, p. 182). The responsibility must be placed on the student to do the work outside of the classroom necessary to be successful. We need to make sure that students understand their part in the learning process without passing judgment or placing blame (you would do better in my class if you tried harder). Rather than the hierarchy as mentioned earlier, there must be a partnership between teachers and students, an understanding that the learning process is non-linear and may take many different forms, all of which lead to a common goal. Academic success. 

There also exists a partnership between teachers and administrators. This relationship is built on trust. Trust that as a person who has chosen being an educator as my career path, I have no intention of committing malpractice by sitting on the sidelines while my students struggle, tossed from school-to-school trying to find their place; A place where they feel safe, a place where teachers and administrators don’t give up on them, a place where it’s okay to fail because they’ll learn from their mistakes, a place where expectations aren’t lowered because people think they can’t—a place where they can be successful.

 

 

Fendler, L. (2014). Teaching Theories. In J. A. Gert Biesta, Making a Difference in Theory (pp. 180-197). New York: Routledge.

To reward us for our efforts, we were subjected to three eight-hour days of meetings explaining absolutely everything we’re doing wrong and reprogramming us. Through all these sessions, I couldn’t help but think about the message sent to teachers. No matter how hard you work, student underachievement is your fault, not the fault of the “political, moral, and economic failings” (Gallagher, 2014, p. 85) of our nation. As administrators, sitting on our clouds of judgment, let us cleanse you from your pedagogical sins and show you a better path, a path that will simulate student growth through the use of faulty data. Of course, this was never said out loud, yet the implication remains, student achievement is directly related to teacher effort. This philosophy is evidenced by the use of teacher evaluations tied to student outcomes (high-stakes testing, course grades, attendance, and federal school grades). 

We end the professional development series with a list of new data-endorsed programs to incorporate into our daily practice in the hopes that by providing these supports, our students will magically make up for being three to four grade levels behind in Math and English. These programs, though seemingly effective, serve as Neosporin and a Band-Aid to cover a rather significantly infected wound. A wound infected by the bacteria of years of being told “you can’t,” years of inadequate educational support, years of inequity, years of injustice. This is an infection that needs more than superficial treatment. There is a real need to use educational theories to define the past, use educational trends to justify the present, and use effective policies and practices to mold the future.

 

Gallagher, D. (2014). Theories Have Consequences, Don't They? In G. Biesta, J. Allan, & R. Edwards, Making a Difference in Theory (pp. 85-99). New York: Routledge.

 

 

Phelan, A.M. (2014). Speaking Educationally About Teacher Education In G. Biesta, J. Allan, & R. Edwards, Making a Difference in Theory (pp. 167-179). New York: Routledge.

Mrs. Best’s philosophy of education rests on a foundation that prioritizes students’ emotional and academic preparedness to enter first grade. She is an advocate for responding to the needs of all students through the use of differentiated classrooms; “Grouping students, according to their academic abilities, allows teachers to work more effectively to fill achievement gaps.” Her most recent leadership role is that of Lead Kindergarten Teacher. In this role, she is responsible for ensuring that all teachers under her purview have the necessary materials and lessons to provide an equitable and holistic educational experience to their kindergarten students. Mrs. Best believes her greatest strength as a leader to be her ability to develop relationships with her peers that foster a collaborative working environment. The trust that she builds with her fellow teachers and the cross-grade level collaboration provides students with a seamless transition from kindergarten to first grade.

When Mrs. Best began her career as a teacher, there were little to no opportunities for teachers to take on leadership roles. The role of the teacher began and ended in the classroom. Decisions about curriculum and education practices came from what she so affectionately refers to as “440”, the School District of Philadelphia Main Office Building. Though teachers were not dissuaded from attending district meetings and providing feedback to school officials, they were not encouraged to question the status quo; to demand a change in education policy that would better prepare students to be life-long learners. Mrs. Best was offered an opportunity (Lead Kindergarten Teacher) to put her years of experience and wisdom to good use, influencing the lives of not only her students but those of her fellow teachers. An opportunity to work side-by-side with educators who feel that kindergarten is more than just a precursor to first grade; it is the beginning and foundation of a child’s educational journey. One challenge that she reflected on was her level of experience with the use of technology. With the outbreak of COVID-19, many teachers have found themselves needing a crash course in Zoom, Google Classroom, and other platforms used to deliver content and live lessons. A traditional teacher at heart, she initially found Google Classroom quite difficult and cumbersome to work with. Accustomed to sitting in a circle with her students during story-time and singing songs for short and long vowels, she was skeptical about posting assignments in Google Classroom for students to work on independently. She feared that without her visual support and guidance, her students would struggle. What she didn’t realize is that her students didn’t need to see her to feel her support. They didn’t need to hear her say, “You Can Do It!” because she instilled in them a confidence that would never die out. She had created a culture in her classroom. A place where students weren’t afraid to fail because they knew they’d do better next time—a place where Mrs. Best made them feel safe.

After reading the ten roles of coaches outlined by Killion (2009), I’ve decided that the roles that complement my goals as a leader best are School Leader (Killion, 2009, p. 12) and Catalyst for Change (Killion, 2009 p. 13). Killion defines a school leader as a one who “contributes to schoolwide reform initiatives” (Killion, 2009, p.12). One thing that has become increasingly more important to me is the practice of self-care. As teachers, we focus the majority of our attention on providing the best educational experience for our students, which often leads to teacher burnout. I believe the foundation of a well-run school rest on the strength and leadership provided by a staff that maintains practices of self-care and self-regulation. This year, I’ve started a program within my network of schools that prioritize the social-emotional wellness of our staff, which also goes along with the catalyst for change leadership role (Killion, 2009, p. 13). Throughout this semester, we will be focusing on five areas of self-care: physical self-care (August), psychological self-care (September), emotional self-care (October), spiritual self-care (November), and professional self-care (December). This month, going along with the physical self-care theme, I’ve started a Fitbit steps challenge with my staff. The staff member with the most steps at the end of the month will receive a $30 Amazon gift card. My plan for next month, psychological self-care, is to lead a Journaling Workshop. I’ve found journaling to be very therapeutic and am excited to share that with my staff.

 

Killion, J. (2009). Coaches’ roles, responsibilities, and reach. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches & Perspectives (pp. 7-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (Chapter 1)