Skillful

EthicalCaring

Education Unit Conceptual Framework 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. A Brief History of Fitchburg University 1

II.

University Mission, Vision, and Core Values

2

III.

Mission and Vision of the Education Unit

3

IV.

History of the Fitchburg State University Conceptual Framework

4

V.

Philosophy of the Education Unit

5

VI.

Programs in the Education Unit

6

VII.

Conceptual Framework Theory – Overview

8

Knowledge and Skills of Education Leaders 8

Dispositions of Educator Leaders 9

VIII.

The Conceptual Framework Review of Literature: Educator as Reflective Leader—One who is Knowledgeable, Skillful, Caring, and Ethical

11

Knowledgeable 11

Expanding Roles of Educator as Reflective Leader 11

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge

19

Technology 18

Standards-based 23

Legislative Mandates 24

Assessment 25

Diversity 29

Skillful 33

Caring and Ethical Educators 36

Caring 36

Ethical 38

IX. Summary

41

X. Association Abbreviations

44

XI. References Cited

46

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 1

A Brief History of Fitchburg State University

Fitchburg State University—formerly Fitchburg State College—located in Central Massachusetts, is a public institution, dedicated to integrating high-quality professional programs with strong liberal arts and sciences studies. Both the graduate and undergraduate programs are distinguished by an accessible faculty dedicated to their students. Fitchburg State University has a long tradition of Educator Preparation. Established in 1894 by an act of the Massachusetts Legislature, the State Normal School in Fitchburg opened in temporary quarters in the old high school building on Academy Street. Principal John G. Thompson, aided by a teaching staff of three, implemented a two-year teacher-training program for women that had forty-six participants. In December 1896, the school expanded into a new building, known as Thompson Hall, and set up the State Schools of Observation and Practice.

In the next decade, the school was a trendsetter for programs in Education. The Edgerly School opened, originally as an eighth-grade model and practice school; and then, in 1910, it became one of the first junior high schools in the United States. The following year the school initiated the first practical arts teacher-training course in the country for men. In 1930, the State Normal School was authorized to offer a bachelor's degree in practical arts; and, in 1932, when it became the State Teachers College at Fitchburg, four-year degrees were offered in all areas of education.

Under the auspices of the State Division of University Extension, summer courses were first offered in 1915, marking the beginning of the college's commitment to Continuing Education programs. In 1935, the college was also authorized to establish graduate programs; and, in 1954, the first evening courses were offered.

In 1960, the college changed its name and expanded its mission. The State College at Fitchburg diversified its programs to include degrees in disciplines other than education. In 1965, its name was officially changed to Fitchburg State College, which today offers forty- nine undergraduate degree programs in eighteen academic departments, twenty Master’s Degree programs, five Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study programs, and seven Graduate Certificate programs. Enrollment is up to 3,100 full-time and 4,000 part-time students which include 1,100 matriculated graduate students. The campus has expanded from a single structure on High Street to thirty-two buildings on ninety acres, becoming the educational center for the Montachusett region. The college proudly offers traditional and nontraditional programs to serve the educational needs of its students as undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education students. The campus has expanded from a single structure on High Street to thirty-two buildings on ninety acres, becoming the educational

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 2

center for the Montachusett region. The University proudly offers traditional and nontraditional programs to serve the educational needs of its students as undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education students.

On July 28, 2010, Governor Deval L. Patrick signed legislation establishing a State University system in Massachusetts, and the institution's current name—Fitchburg State University—was enacted.

University Mission, Vision, and Core Values

University Mission Fitchburg State University is committed to excellence in teaching and learning and blends liberal arts and sciences and professional programs within a small university environment. Our comprehensive public university prepares students to lead, serve, and succeed by fostering lifelong learning and civic and global responsibility. A Fitchburg State education extends beyond our classrooms to include residential, professional, and co-curricular opportunities. As a community resource, we provide leadership and support for the economic, environmental, social, and cultural needs of North Central Massachusetts and the Commonwealth.

University Vision Fitchburg State University is nationally recognized for its excellence in teaching and learning in current and emergent fields, for its commitment to transforming lives through education, and for its dedication to public service.

In order to achieve this, we will:

• Prepare students for a global society through curricular innovation and program development

• Achieve academic excellence by investing in our faculty and librarians in their

pursuit of knowledge, professional competency, and scholarship

• Employ innovative uses of technology in the library and across our campus to maximize student learning

• Create a culture of diversity to meet the needs of the region and enhance the

personal and academic lives of the university community

• Build partnerships within our community to provide real-world opportunities for our students and collaborative solutions to community issues

University Core Values

Accessibility: Offering equitable access to high-quality programs and services to people of varying cultural backgrounds living within and beyond our diverse community of North Central Massachusetts

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 3

Affordability: Providing opportunities for students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds to pursue an affordable, quality education

Community: Forging partnerships with businesses and community organizations within the region to enhance quality of life

Enrichment: Sustaining a supportive campus environment for students, faculty, staff, and alumni in which all members can grow and excel in their personal and professional lives

Excellence: Striving for excellence in academic programs and services through innovative teaching and professional practices

Mission and Vision of the Education Unit

Mission of the Education Unit The Education Unit at Fitchburg State University is committed to preparing knowledgeable, skillful, caring, and ethical educators who are socially responsible personnel (teachers, administrators, counselors), who are prepared for a global society, who recognize the value of diversity, who strive for excellence, who employ innovative technology, and who will serve as reflective leaders in their schools and communities. This mission of the Education Unit supports and complements the overall mission of Fitchburg State University.

Vision of the Education Unit The Fitchburg State University Education Unit’s Vision is to improve the leadership capacity needed to create viable, caring school communities for effective teaching/learning by preparing educator leaders (teachers, administrators, counselors) who:

• have in-depth knowledge of the content they teach or utilize

• skillfully employ research-based practices to ensure that students learn

• care deeply about their profession and the students, families, and community with

whom they interact

• practice their craft within the boundaries and guidelines of ethical behavior at all times

Each program in the Education Unit at Fitchburg State University is grounded in knowledge bases derived from research, theory, and practice. The knowledge bases are intended to cover the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for the educator as a reflective leader. The theme developed from the vision is built upon contemporary research and proven practices relevant to teaching/learning and the organizational leadership of curriculum, instruction, and assessment that facilitate student learning. Candidates are expected to develop a repertoire of effective practices and to exercise reflection and self- inquiry. The accompanying literature review provides the research underpinnings for the Conceptual Framework.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 4

History of Fitchburg State University Education Unit’s Conceptual Framework Faculty in the Education Unit have worked to organize and articulate the multiple dimensions of the Education Unit programs within a defined knowledge base and relate them to a conceptual framework and mission. In our continued support of and complement of the Fitchburg State University mission’s commitment to leadership and service to our community and the Commonwealth, the Educational Unit incorporates this leadership aspect into its Conceptual Framework. The overarching theme of our Conceptual Framework is “Educator as Reflective Leader.”

The 118-year history of teacher preparation at Fitchburg State (College) University has established a legacy in preparing educators. Graduates teach and lead schools in the region and across the Commonwealth (Annual Placement Report). Recognizing the impact our graduates have on students across our region, we reconfirm our commitment to educators who will not only be instructional leaders in their classrooms, but also leaders in organizations.

The Conceptual Framework was originally adopted in 1995, was updated in 2000, and again in 2004 in preparation for the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) visit. During the 2003-2004 academic year, a Conceptual Framework Committee from the faculty in the Education Unit and a Constituent Group engaged in an extensive review of the Conceptual Framework, including a review of the professional literature, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Support Consortium (InTASC) Standards, as well as state standards and competencies that reflect the national standards for various disciplines. The Constituent Group of educators and administrators completed an external review process by examining preliminary program evaluation data as part of an ongoing revision of the Conceptual Framework. These data were collected from the constituents of the unit (mentor teachers, school leaders, candidates, arts and science personnel, alumni). As a result of this collaborative process, the Education Unit’s Conceptual Framework was further refined to establish a general organizing theme of the “Educator as Reflective Leader,” incorporating the University mission. In 2004, with the arrival of President Antonucci, former Commissioner of Education, a renewed commitment to educator preparation was felt across the campus. President Antonucci made it clear that, whether it was business leaders or future teachers, our graduates would be nothing but the best in their fields. It was in this spirit that the Education Unit faculty gathered with their constituents to examine research and to dialogue about what we truly expected a Fitchburg State graduate of the Educator Preparation programs should know and be able to do. Based upon the outcomes of these meetings and supported by research in the field, the revised Conceptual Framework for the Education Unit at Fitchburg State University was born. The Fitchburg State University Community, the Education Unit, and the Teacher Education Council approved the revised Framework in Spring, 2004.

In 2010, the Conceptual Framework was once again revisited by its stakeholders (candidates, supervising practitioners, principals, superintendents, University faculty, and senior teacher candidates) to determine its relevancy and to articulate specific areas in

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 5

which the framework needed modification and/or updating to prepare candidates to teach 21st century skills.

It was the consensus of the group that, while the current Conceptual Framework, which has as its guiding words “knowledgeable, skillful, caring and ethical educators who are reflective leaders,” was still appropriate for the work of the Unit, the definition of these terms needed updating to reflect 21st century knowledge, skills, and dispositions of effective educators who are reflective leaders. In the Conceptual Framework meetings with constituents, participants identified a number of priorities they felt needed to be included in the details of the Conceptual Framework. In addition to the work of the constituents, a Conceptual Framework Committee was established to develop a revision timeline, conduct a review of literature, and revise aspects of the Conceptual Framework to ensure that it reflects what constituents identified as essential components, knowledge, skills, and dispositions of effective educators and to identify current research that supports effective practices in preparing educators for the 21st century. These twenty-first century skills included communication, critical thinking, collaboration abilities and adaptability, initiatives in assessing and analyzing information, and curiosity and imagination, to name a few.

Meanwhile, our analysis of data from our data system identified certain gaps in these twenty-first century skills. To increase candidate performance in specific areas, beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2011, faculty of educator preparation programs in the Education Unit analyzed data from our key assessments to revise programs, both undergraduate and graduate; further develop assessment assignments; and revise assessment tools that are now more aligned with 21st century skills. Additionally, the Unit also looked to the 2011 Massachusetts English Language Arts and Literacy Curriculum Framework, incorporating the Common Core State Standards, which lays out a vision of what it means to be a literate person in the 21st century. As part of implementing our Conceptual Framework in practice, the Fitchburg State Education Unit strives to prepare 21st century educators, using researched-based practices that will develop educators prepared to work as leaders in their schools, developing their students’ 21st century skills.

The Fitchburg State University Community, the Education Unit, and the Graduate Council approved the revised Framework in Spring, 2012. The work that follows presents the Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework, first adopted in 1995 and revised and updated in 2000, 2005, and 2010-2012.

Philosophy of the Education Unit Educational leadership emphasizes decision-making. Teachers and other instructional leaders are increasingly charged with responsibility for leading and managing schools for outcomes as defined by the Massachusetts accountability system and beyond. Decision- making (in classrooms or buildings/communities) is a process in which professionals make choices regarding appropriate tools and strategies to use in any particular teaching, administrative, or counseling situation, a process requiring reflective thinking (Brubacher, Reagan, & Case, 2002; Schon, 1983, 1990). Whether serving as instructors, facilitators, managers, mentors, evaluators, or in other educational roles, Fitchburg State University

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 6

educator candidates are prepared to be professional leaders capable of making decisions, based upon knowledge and skilled practice from the perspective of different models or paradigms, and ideas as explained by Darling-Hammond (2010b; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005) in discussions of “professionalism.” Our teacher candidates are expected to make decisions on the basis of careful consideration of the assumptions or the perspectives underlying a proposed course of action and of technical, ethical, and moral implications of various courses of action. The reflective educator as leader utilizes data gathered from student performance—whether it be classroom assessments or state and national tests—to make informed decisions on the selection of curriculum and pedagogy to improve student learning. To do this, the reflective leader must have an extensive knowledge of the content to be taught, pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogy, the developmental needs of a diverse student body, and the contextual constraints within the school setting (Darling-Hammond, 2010b; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Dewey, 1933; Polk, 2006; Schon, 1983, 1990; Stronge,

2002).

Programs in the Education Unit The Fitchburg State University Education Unit offers programs in Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle School and Special Education (undergraduate and graduate); Secondary Education (Biology: undergraduate and post-baccalaureate/graduate (initial licensure and professional licensure, English: undergraduate and post- baccalaureate/graduate (professional licensure and non-licensure) History: undergraduate and post-baccalaureate/graduate (initial licensure, professional licensure, and non- licensure), Mathematics: undergraduate and post-baccalaureate); School Guidance Counseling; Educational Leadership and Management: Supervisor/Director (initial), School Principal (initial), Educational Leadership and Management (non-licensure), Technology Leader (non-licensure); and Curriculum and Teaching (non-licensure). Each program is designed to prepare candidates for meeting professional, instructional, and leadership challenges within a broad spectrum of educational roles.

In the literature on educator preparation, there is a valid foundation addressing candidates’ need to combine an understanding of learner and learning with subject matter competencies to enhance the learner’s knowledge construction. With a focus on the theme of “Educator as Reflective Leader,” embodied in our Conceptual Framework, our Educator Preparation Programs strive to prepare educational leaders who possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable our candidates to provide all children and youth with equitable access to knowledge. This requires using caring and ethical pedagogical practices (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Berry, et al, 2011; Collier, 2005; Goodlad, 1994; Fernstermacher, 1990; Stronge, 2002).

Fundamental to the achievement of national accreditation for each degree program area is the alignment of candidates’ proficiencies with state, national, and professional standards. Massachusetts state licensure standards have philosophical components that are aligned with those of other professional groups and specialty associations. The Fitchburg State University Professional Education Unit complies with the criteria set by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and infuses these criteria in the assessment of

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 7

educator candidates. Fitchburg State University’s Educator Preparation programs have also been strategically designed and balanced to integrate the global standards of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and the varied specialty associations, such as National Council of Social Studies (NCSS), Council of Exceptional Children (CEC), and others, while promoting excellence in educator preparation called for in competencies designated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Fall 2011, we began to adopt and integrate the newly published InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards for Teaching, which was published April 2011 (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), 2011). “The updating of the core teaching standards was driven not only by new understandings of learners and learning but also by the new imperative that every student can and must achieve high standards. Educators are now being held to new levels of accountability for improved student outcomes. These standards embrace this new emphasis and describe what effective teaching that leads to improved student achievement looks like. They are based on our best understanding of current research on teaching practice with the acknowledgement that how students learn and strategies for engaging learners are evolving more quickly than ever. These standards promote a new paradigm for delivering education and call for a new infrastructure of support for professionals in that system” (InTASC, 2011, p. 3). The key themes of the new document (Personalized Learning for Diverse Learners, A Stronger Focus on Application of Knowledge and Skills, Improved Assessment Literacy, A Collaborative Professional Culture, and New Leadership Roles for Teachers and Administrators) align with our Conceptual Framework Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, as well as our philosophical underpinnings and a focus on diversity and technology. Additionally, “[i]n updating the InTASC model standards, efforts were made to ensure they align with other national and state standards documents that were recently revised or released. Specifically, this document has been reviewed to ensure compatibility with the recently-released Common Core State Standards for students in mathematics and English language arts, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) accomplished teaching core principles, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation standards, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) (now called Learning Forward) professional development standards, and the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) 2008 Educational Leadership Policy Standards and CCSSO’s companion document of performance expectations and indicators for education leaders” (Interstate Teacher Assessments Consortium (InTASC), 2011, p. 5). These alignments by CCSSO complement and reinforce our previous alignments with these same professional organizations. These alignments can be seen throughout the Fitchburg State University educator preparation programs of study, syllabi, assessment tools, and SPA Reports.

State legislative mandates, national standards, and Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which includes No Child Left Behind provide additional frameworks to guide educator preparation. In 2002 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including No Child Left Behind, was reauthorized and brought about more accountability. Fitchburg State University educator candidates must demonstrate a thorough understanding of knowledge, skills, and dispositions set forth by said mandates. Toward this end, faculty in the Education Unit revised course syllabi and, in some cases, programs of study to reflect the outcome-based orientation of these mandates. These program and curricular revisions

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 8

were made in collaboration within the faculty in the Education Unit and were shared with the All College Committee in 2008-2009 (See proposals # 38, 89, 111-139).

In 2010, President Obama proposed a blueprint for reforming ESEA, which promotes the goal of preparing all students to be successful in school, college, and the workplace, focusing on supporting low performing schools. The Education Unit faculty continue to use data to monitor candidate performance in meeting these mandates in the field and to evaluate the efficacy of our programming in preparing our candidates to meet the demands of these ever-changing mandates and pieces of legislation. We have already adopted the Common Core State Standards; and, as early as Spring 2011, our teacher candidates began to incorporate the standards from the Massachusetts English Language Arts & Literacy Curriculum Framework and the Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks, both incorporating the Common Core State Standards, in their lesson plans and curriculum units. Faculty incorporated these new standards in their course work. In April, 2011, we held a Common Core State Standards Event for over 200 of our constituents in our partner schools.

The core of our knowledge base is dynamic, and each program component in the Education Unit reflects the emphasis found in our Mission and Conceptual Framework. The details for particular educator preparation programs are found in the Electronic Exhibit Room and in the various Specialty Association reports in AIMS. In the description of the mission, conceptual framework, and knowledge base, the importance of a body of professional knowledge and of a strong empirical research base is clearly emphasized.

Research on teacher education, presented in our accompanying bibliography, provide a foundation for our programs and coursework. Our conceptual framework, based on research findings, is the overarching guide that integrates knowledge, skills, dispositions, and technology in our programs. Our knowledge base is grounded in theory and practice, and documented within the current pedagogical and content research.

Conceptual Framework Theory: Overview

Knowledge and Skills of Education Leaders The Conceptual Framework represents a comprehensive, integrated array of knowledge bases in learning, instruction, subject matter competence, and leadership. A sound grasp of content knowledge is critical for teaching and leading in any discipline. Our candidates must understand and apply the central themes, concepts, and skills associated with their majors to their practices (Cruickshank, Jenkins, & Metcalf, 2011; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Martin, 2007; Wiggins & McTighe, 2006).

Particular emphasis needs to be placed on content knowledge and professional pedagogical knowledge. The latter includes knowledge about learning and behavior, attitudes that foster learning and human relationships, subject matter taught, and a repertoire of teaching strategies with practical knowledge. This set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions provides a sound theoretical base for addressing the relationship between educators’ cognitive understanding of content, pedagogy influencing the instruction of children and

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 9

youth, and the instructional choices they make (Cruickshank, Jenkins, & Metcalf, 2011; Marzano, 2007; Shulman, 2000, 2005).

A solid research base for teaching and learning, developed by the National Research Council, was originally released in hardcover in 1999 and then expanded and published in 2000 (National Research Council, 2000). These seminal works provide insights to the research findings on how the mind and brain work—how people learn—and the implications this research has for educators in the field, and thus for educator preparation programs, which prepare future educators. The second iteration highlights how these findings can translate into action and effective strategies in the classroom to produce in- depth and higher order learning. This work of the National Research Council has signifcantly increased our understanding of how children learn and what the best practices are to facilitate that learning. Since these publications, research on the theories of how people learn, along with the influence of brain and cognitive development on learning, have exploded (Edleman, 2006; Erlauer, 2003; Johnson, 2008; Marzano, 2007; Medina, 2008; Sapolsky, 2005; Strauch, 2003; Sweller, 2009; Wolfe, 2010). The theoretical underpinnings of this work have been integrated into our Unit’s Conceptual Framework, as well as incorporated into our course content and assessment tools.

Our initial licensure preparation programs build upon a firm liberal arts foundation to assist candidates in developing knowledge necessary to become skilled, caring, and ethical educators/leaders. Our programs are aligned with appropriate content components and requirements for professional licensure in Massachusetts. All candidates are assessed during their field experiences. Given the emphasis of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on PK-12 Curriculum Frameworks in English/Language Arts and Literacy, incorporating the Common Core State Standards; Mathematics, incorporating the Common Core State Standards; science; social studies; consumer science; and the arts; Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL) requirements; and given the accountability requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, all educators must be proficient in content areas.

Dispositions of Educator Leaders Faculty and constituents addressed the matter of “disposition” as an important determiner in measuring educator effectiveness. They are so important that professional and national accreditation organizations argue that, not only do we need to identify specific dispositions of effective educators, we need to measure them and, in some instances, use the measurement of them as a gateway for admissions into an educator preparation program and ultimately into the profession (NBPTS, 2002; NCATE, 2011; NMSA, 2001; Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000). It has also been argued that educator preparation programs must assure that educator candidates know and understand the dispositions of effective educators and that educator preparation programs should take actions to develop such dispositions in these candidates and to remediate when necessary (Hillman & Rothermel, 2006; Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000).

Faculty and constituent discussions led to the incorporation of “caring and ethical” as critical characteristics of any educator/leader. Fitchburg State University’s educator

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 10

preparation programs seek to prepare caring and ethical educators who interact with diverse students in meaningful ways. Accordingly, assessment tools were developed to provide evidence of caring and ethical dispositions in academic course work and fieldwork. Further discussion led to the incorporation of “reflective” as another critical characteristic of an educator leader. Reflection is one of the Five Core Propositions (commitment, knowledge of subject and how to teach, managing and mentoring student learning, thinking systemically about their practice, and members of learning communities) of National Board Certification and one of the InTASC standards. Fitchburg State University ensures that our candidates in advanced programs acquire these professional knowledge bases and skills as defined by NBPTS. We have aligned our advanced programs assessment tools with the NBPTS standards, as well as with the new InTASC Standards and professional organization standards (SPA Standards), where applicable.

Bullock and Hawk (2001) provide a reflection cycle that can be broken into three parts: (1) description, (2) analysis, and (3) planning. The Massachusetts Task Force on the evaluation of Teachers and Administrator (2011) identified a similar 5-Step Evaluation Cycle: Self- Reflection & Self-Assessment; Analysis, Goal Setting & Plan Development; Implementation of the Plan; Formative Assessment/Evaluation; and Summative Evaluation). Repeating the cycle provides an avenue for continuous improvement and reflection. Reflective practice is also reported as key in multicultural education as one examines his or her own perspectives. Cross-cultural simulations, where candidates experience the effects of living in settings that reflect different beliefs and cultures from their own, can be an effective strategy. Cruz and Patterson (2005) suggest that educators need to be reflective practitioners so that they can monitor their own perspectives, biases, and teaching practices. The Education Unit acknowledges that reflection can also promote and assess ethical and caring characteristics as described by Nodding (in Brubacher, Reagan, & Case, 2000).

To foster reflection, the Fitchburg State University Education Unit promotes varied field experiences in which candidates plan, implement, and evaluate their effectiveness and student learning—an encounter with the real world that demands critical self-appraisal at each step. This self-reflection, combined with feedback from mentor professionals, nurtures the three critical characteristics—caring, ethical, reflective. These dispositions work in tandem with knowledge of content to be taught, pedagogical choices, and student learning when making educational decisions.

Date-driven reflection is also essential for the effective educator leader (Reeves, 2004). It is crucial in determining teaching effectiveness and its influence on student achievement. Administrator evaluations are already connected to student achievement, and educator evaluation in some states, Massachusetts included, are already connected to student achievement. Other states will soon follow. Therefore, it is more critical than ever for an educator to be able to analyze data to make instructional, building, and organizational decisions that influence student learning (Peterson, 2007).

At various points in the programs of study, our educator candidates analyze and reflect on data to examine their effectiveness in regard to student learning. Multiple tools assess our

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 11

candidates performance in regard to student achievement. Capstone assignments include Teacher/Educator Work Samples and Action Research.

The Conceptual Framework Review of Literature: Educator as Reflective Leader—One who is Knowledgeable, Skillful, Caring, and Ethical Though teacher and teaching are referred to often in the Review of Literature, we view all educators, whether the classroom teacher, guidance counselor, or administrator, as teachers and every interaction with students “teachable moments.” Therefore, what appears below is applicable to all our educator preparation programs.

Knowledgeable

Expanding Roles of Educator as Reflective Leader

Knowledge and understanding of the expanding roles of educators as leaders is crucial to becoming an effective educator. The literature is replete with reasons for the growing need to improve school programs and the resultant requirements for improving leadership capacity at state and national levels. The National Governors’ Association emphasized needs for state education agencies and local education agencies to examine leadership quality in the public schools. Federal and state agencies have promoted models of accountability with a subsequent need to disseminate validated training programs and practices. Recent research literature (Armstrong & Anthes, 2001; Datnow, Park, & Kennedy, 2008; Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter 2007; Diamond, & Cooper, 2007; Ingram, Louis, & Schroeder, 2004; United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2009a, 2009b; Marsh, et al, 2005) identifies analysis of data as effective teaching and effective leadership practices. Reflection and appropriate analysis of data can help to verify school improvement gains in quality, clarity, and persuasiveness. Fitchburg State University constituents additionally identify this skills’ set (analyzing, interpreting, and reflecting on data) as essential in order to understand and use student performance data to inform and improve practices in their schools. The Fitchburg State Education Unit course work and field assignments require analyzing data to determine student learning and educator effectiveness. The Education Unit faculty likewise use data to determine the effectiveness of candidate performance and the effectiveness of our education preparation programs.

The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) believes that educators have paid limited attention to: (a) the changing expectations or definitions of roles (teachers/leaders), driven by the standards movement and (b) the broadened definitions of who should provide educational leadership within a school context (Usdan, 2002). Although the idea of teacher leadership is not new, the conception of the role has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Smylie, Conley, and Marks (2002) summarize the research literature and extant knowledge base defining leadership as a social process aimed at a collective goal (assumptions about the ends and means of teaching—Schon’s (1983) “reflective conversation with the situation”). The leadership division of American Educational Research Association (AERA) prepared several concept papers for the Spring 2003 annual meeting on the topic of “Leadership—What We Already Know.” The presenters concluded that leadership does not take on different meanings when qualified by the term teacher or principal; it entails the exercise of influence over the beliefs, values, and actions of others

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 12

(Leithwood, & Riehl, 2003). Enhanced leadership roles for teachers take on many different facets, such as curriculum developers, research coordinators, mentors to new teachers, and facilitators of professional development activities (Ackerman & MacKenzie, 2006; Barth, 1991, 2002; Reeves & Allison, 2009; Day, Stobart, Sammons, & Kington, 2006).

The principles as set forth in Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008, As Adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008) support this evolving role for teachers and other school personnel. The following principles set the direction and priorities for a standard-based, date-driven, shared accountability with a focus on student learning and development: “1) Respect the centrality of student learning; 2) Acknowledge the changing role of the school leader; 3) Recognize the collaborative nature of school leadership; 4) Improve the quality of the profession; 5) Inform performance-based systems of assessment and evaluation for school leaders; 6) Demonstrate integration and coherence; and 7) Advance access, opportunity, and empowerment for all members of the school community” (p. 8). These principles served to inform the development of the six standards that define effective school leadership. These standards also emphasize the role of shared and collaborative leadership and focus on student learning and align with our conceptual framework four components: knowledgeable, skillful, caring and ethical. “These standards represent the broad, high- priority themes that education leaders must address in order to promote the success of every student. These six standards call for: “1) Setting a widely shared vision for learning; 2) Developing a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth; 3) Ensuring effective management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment; 4) Collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources; 5) Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and 6) Understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, legal, and cultural contexts” (p. 6).

The educator's role is expected to expand as emerging roles are assumed over the next decade. In addition, the greater the participation of educators in leading the tasks, the greater the productivity and organizational commitment to accountability (Barth, 1991, 2002). It is now more common practice for districts and schools to establish lead teachers who serve as mentors and clinical faculty who lead school-based initiatives (Ackerman & MacKenzie, 2006; Martin, 2007). Teachers who develop leadership skills within their own classroom and school settings can have a powerful impact on the school culture and climate (Martin, 2007). According to Martin, teacher leaders model effective teaching practices and support other members of their school team in ways that build trust and accountability. Martin categorizes the role of teacher leaders into four broad categories:

• Influencing the school culture • Building and maintaining a successful team • Equipping other potential teacher leaders • Enhancing or improving student performance (Martin, 2007)

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 13

Donaldson (2007) sees the emerging role of teachers as leaders in the classroom as a critical one. As cries for increase in student performance continue to dominate, it is the teacher who is closest to the student and who has the greatest opportunity to lead students and other teachers to improving performance. While some teachers may move on to accept formal administrative/ leader roles in schools, for our schools to improve, more teachers must be willing to assume a leadership role that will foster effective teaching in classrooms (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006). It is the teacher leaders who hold the keys to success in our schools. Martin (2007) argues that, while the teacher leader may not have a role designated as a “leader” in his/her school, this person leads by example and carries a great deal of credibility. These teacher leaders are problem solvers and good communicators.

Teachers are sometimes expected to induct new teachers and to positively influence the willingness and capacity of other teachers to implement change or improvements. In professional learning communities, teachers play a more informal role. Researchers at the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (CORS) (Newmann & Whelage, 1995) at the University of Wisconsin concluded that the professional community in which teachers can pursue a shared purpose for student learning affects student achievement. Learning of high intellectual quality is difficult work for students, and authentic pedagogy places complex and demanding challenges on teachers. Researchers at CORS found that the most successful schools were those that used tools to help them function as professional communities. That is, they found a way to channel staff and student efforts toward a clear purpose for student learning; they created opportunities for teachers to collaborate and help one another achieve that purpose; and teachers in these schools took collective responsibility for student learning. These schools with strong professional communities were more effective in promoting student achievement (Newmann, 1994). Reeves (2009) echoes these findings and provides a roadmap for developing and using teacher leaders. Implicit in developing teacher-leaders is the necessity of administrators’ capacities to foster, encourage, and support such leadership.

Teacher-leaders earn the respect of peers when they display instructional expertise grounded in experience within a particular subject matter domain and from knowledge gained from classroom practice. The effects of assuming leadership roles include professional learning and growth of the accomplished teacher (Leithwood, & Riehl, 2003). Participation in site-based programs for school improvement impact both teaching quality and student performance. Shared decision-making and site-based management models are designed to draw teachers into arenas that were previously the exclusive province of administration (Wise, 2000). Short and Greer (2001) build on the work of Short and Rinehart’s (1992) six dimensions of teacher empowerment: “involvement in decision making, opportunity for professional growth, teacher status, teacher self-efficacy, autonomy, and teacher impact” (Short & Greer, 2001, p. 15). Administrators must not only hire or train competent staff, but also build the organizational and leadership capacity of the school to work well as a unit striving for continuous improvement (Fullan, 2008; Kuecke, 2004; Kotter, 2006; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Reeves, 2009)—a model of leaders leading leaders and shared decision-making.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 14

The University of Wisconsin has been an early advocate for teacher leadership (the Unit Leader) for at least three decades. Klausmeier (1990) at the University of Wisconsin- Madison has promoted Dewey's idea that research should be part of the school setting. Klausmeier's view holds an important place for the teacher in a leadership role as head of an Instructional and Research Unit in the school-based setting. In most areas of the country, however, the research-on-teaching function continues to be divided between school and college/university/center. This needs to shift. Educator leaders must possess the knowledge, skills, and depositions to use data and action research or some other mechanism to improve schools and student learning, and to measure teacher effectiveness (Hubbard & Power, 2003; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Sagor, 2000; Schram, 2006). Additionally, educators must be competent consumers of research in order to differentiate between best practices and “fads” (Jones & Kottler, 2006; McMillan, & Wergin, 2006). Candidates in our advanced programs implement an action research study or Teacher Work Sample, focusing on student learning, as their thesis capstone. Candidates are assigned a University mentor to guide their research study. Candidates reflect on conclusions and make recommendations for how they will improve their practice based on the data from the study. In doing so, candidates develop educator leader skills as they identify next steps to be shared at a public form and to be shared with their schools, administration, and teams. In 2011-2012, a subcommittee on action research identified critical consumption of research as a desired outcome of the review of literature or this capstone.

The leadership theme links our mission of “Educator as Reflective Leader” to that of the University’s commitment to leadership. The four core values of our Conceptual Framework (knowledgeable, skillful, ethical, and caring) are essential to being an effective reflective educator leader, and these core values are research-based and embedded in the work we do with our candidates.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge

Knowledge and understanding of content, as well as professional and pedagogical knowledge are essential for the effective Educator Reflective Leader. In keeping with the University’s mission of commitment to excellence in teaching and learning, commitment to professional programs, and commitment to providing leadership for the community, the Education Unit focuses on developing knowledge and understanding of effective approaches to the teaching-learning process, as well as on the Massachusetts State accountability system for requirements in educator preparation. Attention to the content and delivery and accountability systems through which teachers and other school personnel are expected to foster student learning and development is a staple of our quality curriculum. In describing accreditation reform and the knowledge base required for preparation of teachers, Murray (2000) argues that teachers not only need to address the findings in a maturing literature but they must also practice content-specific teaching techniques if they are to become accomplished practitioners. In his review of research on teaching, Chen (2009) makes a case for the importance of teacher/educator knowledge of student learning.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 15

Others describe how teachers acquire understandings of content, and how these new understandings influence their teaching. First proposed by Shulman and Grossman (1987) in the Knowledge Growth in Teaching project, the concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge has taken on a broader perspective or model for understanding teaching and learning. It incorporates the blending of content and pedagogy and how particular aspects of a discipline can be organized and represented for effective instruction (Shulman, 2000). Pedagogical content knowledge has also been viewed as a set of specialized instructional attributes involving transference of content knowledge (Geddis, 1993). Shulman and Grossman (1987) believe that the complexity of teaching requires that a teacher deal with discipline content, pedagogical content specific to the discipline, and general pedagogical principles. Shulman’s model of Pedagogical Reasoning comprises a renewing cycle of several activities that a teacher should be able to complete for effective teaching: comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection, and new comprehension.

Darling-Hammond (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999) reports that building a common knowledge base for the profession constructed on research about teachers’ thinking and on emerging knowledge in the various subject-matter disciplines related to children’s learning should professionalize the field. This knowledge base must describe what effective teachers do and focus on what they know and need to know, the knowledge sources they use, how they organize and evaluate knowledge (Barnes, 1989; Marzano, 2007; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), and how they learn to construct new knowledge that is appropriate for differing local contexts (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), particularly for increasingly diverse learners (Banks, et al, 2005; Cochran-Smith, 2001).

ETS (Educational Testing Service, 2000), in How Teaching Matters, confirms the common belief that teachers' classroom practices greatly influence student achievement. Teachers have the single greatest effect on student learning. The teacher is the most critical factor that influences student learning (Ding & Sherman, 2006). Marzano (2003) points out that “researchers agree that the impact of decisions made by individual teachers is far greater than the impact decisions at the school level” (p. 71). Students who have several effective, well-prepared teachers in a row have the best chance to soar, while students who have even two ineffective teachers are unlikely to recover (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Teacher effectiveness is a strong predictor of student learning, much stronger in its effect than class size or any other variable (Ding & Sherman, 2006; Marzano, 2007; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Tucker & Stronge, 2005). The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), 2012) holds great promise for building schools’ capacity for identifying the exemplary practitioner who can become a model for other practitioners, thus building capacity to improve practice and student learning. “Under the regulations, evaluation begins with self-assessment and concludes with summative evaluation and rating of the educator’s impact on student learning. It also is a continuous improvement process in which evidence from the summative evaluation and rating of impact on learning become important sources of information for the educator’s self-assessment and subsequent goal setting” (DESE, 2012, p. 6). Educators earn one of four ratings: Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 16

Unsatisfactory. Based on the rating, each educator develops an Educator Plan that will strengthen his or her knowledge and skills that will increase the educator’s capacity to promote student learning.

Research findings suggest that in-depth learning is associated with specific pedagogical approaches utilized by expert teachers to create learning environments which make use of technology and assessment to support learning. Findings further suggest that teachers should possess:

1) expertise in subject content as well as in instructional practices (content knowledge/pedagogical knowledge);

2) knowledge of basic principles of the discipline as well as appropriate pedagogical approaches;

3) an understanding of the effect of culture and individual traits of learners; 4) an understanding of children's cognitive development (Cibulka, 2000).

Additionally, research findings suggest that educators are learners and that the previously described principles of learning apply to educators as well. Given the importance of life- long learning, educators' professional development plans should not be based on an outdated model of learning but rather on developing and enhancing in-depth content and instructional knowledge and skills (Cibulka, 2000)—educator development and learning that evolves into student learning results (Reeves, 2010).

A clear understanding of learning theory and developmental psychology as well as their implications for instruction is necessary for educators to be effective in any situation, be it in the classroom or the school community. The ability to make decisions and respond appropriately in the classroom is part of a knowledge base. This theoretical base guides the selection and implementation of decisions and strategies which educators make. A thorough and deep understanding of topics to be taught is a life-long pursuit for the professional educator. An educator’s grasp of subject matter knowledge determines whether he or she can plan and deliver an integrated, thoughtful, and organized program of learning that is aligned with school district curriculum as described by the goals in state curriculum frameworks (NBPTS, 2002; Stronge, 2002; Wiggins & McTighe, 2006).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), enacted January 8, 2002, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. Built on four common sense pillars (accountability for results, an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research, expanded parental options, and expanded local control and flexibility), NCLB sets new teaching quality benchmarks to achieve excellence. President Obama’s blueprint for this recent reauthorization has as a primary goal the improvement of teaching, more professional development support for teachers, and evidence-based instructional models and supports. NCATE’s specialty professional associations’ research-based standards and the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education licensure requirements further guide our expectations in this regard. Fitchburg State University works toward developing educators who are proficient in their knowledge and skills through coursework and field

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 17

experiences. Quality teaching is based upon a professional knowledge base that includes understanding of research, skills, and abilities demonstrated by accomplished and expert educators.

The Carnegie Corporation (2001) report, Teachers for a New Era: A National Initiative to Improve the Quality of Teaching, advocates for three design principles of teacher/educator preparation.

First, [an educator preparation program] should be guided by a respect for evidence, including attention to pupil learning gains accomplished under the tutelage of [educators] who are graduates of the program. Second, faculty in the disciplines of the arts and sciences should be fully engaged in the education of prospective [educators], especially in the areas of subject matter understanding and general and liberal education. Finally, education should be understood as an academically taught clinical practice profession, requiring close cooperation between colleges of education and actual practicing schools; master teachers as clinical faculty in the college of education; and residencies for beginning [educators] during a two-year period of induction. (p. 1)

Their 2006 report, Teachers for a New Era: Transforming Teacher Education (Carnegie Corporation, 2006) reports on the promising work first set forth in the first report and renews its focus on student learning.

The NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (2010) in its report, Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers, notes:

Because teaching is a profession of practice, teacher education must focus on preparing expert practitioners who know their students, their subject-matter content, and pedagogy in much the way that a family doctor must master the knowledge base of medicine as well as be able to understand patients and their symptoms to deliver a course of treatment that can achieve the best possible outcomes. Effective practitioners learn these abilities through professional study and by mastering their profession’s knowledge base, skills and dispositions of practice. But mastery and fluency comes, in large part, through robust opportunities to develop as practitioners via expertly mentored experiences in the field and through pedagogically designed approximations of practices such as case studies and simulations that allow candidates to study and observe practice and test their skills in controlled situations. (p. 27)

The report further outlines 10 Design Principles for Clinically Based Preparation. They include:

1. Student learning is the focus. 2. Clinical preparation is integrated throughout every facet of [educator

preparation] in a dynamic way. 3. A candidate’s progress and the elements of a preparation program are

continuously judged on the basis of data. 4. Programs prepare [educators] who are expert in content and how to teach it and

are also innovators, collaborators and problem solvers.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 18

5. Candidates learn in an interactive professional community. 6. Clinical educators and coaches are rigorously selected and prepared and drawn

from both higher education and the P-12 sector. 7. Specific sites are designated and funded to support embedded clinical

preparation. 8. Technology applications foster high impact preparation. 9. A powerful R&D agenda and systematic gathering and use of data supports

continuous improvement in [educator] preparation. 10. Strategic partnerships are imperative for powerful clinical preparation. (NCATE

Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Practice, 2010, p. 5-6)

The principles of the Carnegie (2001, 2006) work on Teachers for a New Era and those of the NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (2010) are congruent with our Education Unit Conceptual Framework and our University Mission and Core Values. Our Education Unit embraces these principles, and we believe we are well positioned to further develop our current clinical practices and programmatic curriculum and assessment for our “continuous improvement” in this area. Across our educator preparation programs, we incorporate these principles within our knowledge base. Educator candidates are expected to reflect a thorough understanding of pedagogical content knowledge and professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards—knowledge that is necessary to provide appropriate and effective pedagogical strategies so that all students learn. Within the knowledge base at Fitchburg State University, and embedded in our Conceptual Framework, is the pedagogical content knowledge which candidates are expected to develop through professional education courses, methods courses for content areas, and field-based experiences. Both coursework and fieldwork give candidates opportunities to reflect, study, and practice teaching and leadership functions to emerge as skilled practitioners and decision-makers. In keeping with the research in the field that illustrates the need for more field-based learning for future educators, faculty revised programs of study that expand and extend the amount of time our future educators are spending in classrooms. We understand that skillful educators can only develop their skills when they are with their students. We furthermore strengthened our relationship with our partner schools, identified new partner schools in diverse settings, and established supervising practitioner cadres that meet on a regular basis to discuss and examine best practices and mentoring strategies and to familiarize themselves with the Unit assessment system and assessment tools used in the field. Since our last NCATE accreditation, we have established a superintendents’ group which meets regularly to examine programming, to collaborate on programmatic and district role decisions, and to examine educational issues.

Fitchburg State University faculty in the Education Unit adhere to the conviction that the profession of education is supported by an evolving knowledge base related to subject matter and pedagogy. The programs of study for the undergraduate educator preparation programs provide a strong liberal arts and science foundation for effective connections with pedagogical courses which are deeply embedded in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks (PreK-12) and the new Massachusetts English Language Arts and Literacy Framework, incorporating the Common Core State Standards, and the Mathematics

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 19

Curriculum Framework, incorporating the Common Core State Standards. Our assessment system is performance-based and used to appropriately advance candidates through the programs of study and serve as an evaluation base to determine if candidates are ready for more and more rigorous field/clinical experiences.

By design, the educator preparation programs at Fitchburg State University foster the ability of candidates to evaluate instructional alternatives and other practices, articulate the pedagogical reasons for instructional decisions, analyze student-learning data, and use this data to reflect on the teaching practices of the classroom. Candidates experience alternative approaches to delivering instruction during required practicum experiences. Fitchburg State University prepares educational leaders through courses of study that base practice upon knowledge of current research in curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and the building and other organizational structures that support student learning.

Technology

Current research suggests many ways that technology can facilitate the creation of effective learning conditions and the development of deeper student learning processes. These include increasing opportunities for representational thinking, providing additional contexts for learning and transfer, and facilitating independent and collaborative learning opportunities for students as well as educators. While much attention has been given to technology as a rich and efficient source of information, research suggests that the merits of technology also lay in its possibilities as an alternative pedagogical tool that can enhance and sustain expert learning and knowledge transfer.

In order to be an effective leader in the 21st Century, educators must be knowledgeable and skillful in the many positive, appropriate, and effective uses of technology. Educator leaders must demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and proficiency in the current tools that have proven to be effective in teaching and learning. Technology serves as one of those tools. Technology provides a number of purposes: preparing curriculum and instruction; engaging students and enhancing their learning; providing access to learning for students; and analyzing student learning and the effectiveness of teaching, to name a few (Carr, 2011; Jukes, McCain, & Crockett, 2011; Rosen, 2011).

Technology can be used to engage and facilitate thinking and knowledge construction; it is useful in representing ideas, understandings, and schema that the learner is able to generate. Students use technology to explore knowledge, and faculty appreciate the fact that it supports a constructivist approach to learning. Noting the benefits of a constructivist approach, Jonassen (2011) argues that technology can be used to help learners articulate and represent what they know, which, in turn, leads to new learning as they construct personal representations of meaning in computers or graphic design, for example. Learning by doing facilitates the development of higher cognitive processes and for solving meaningful real-world problems, situations, or contexts.

The knowledge base in regard to technology is large and ever-changing. Children and youth are frequently more technologically savvy than their educators (Rosen, 2011). Jukes,

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 20

McCain, and Crockett (2011) point out, “The world is changing, and our mandate is to prepare students for their lives in the future” (p. 15). They argue that “the current education system has been set up to prepare students perfectly for a world that no longer exits” (p. 19). The students we serve are immersed in the world of technology. Many spend any free time with technology, finding information, communicating with each other, and social networking—even young children (Rosen, 2011). Educators need to possess the knowledge base of the myriad of technologies students use—the positive and negative (and sometimes dangerous) (Carr, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2011; Rosen, 2011).

It is a “brave new world” out there and Educator Leaders need to know the challenges and the positive influences technology can have on teaching and learning. Technology can produce memory overload; it often requires multi-tasking; it can clutter our attention (Carr, 2011; Rosen, 2011). Educators must also be aware of and know how to act in regard to cyber bullying and other dangers of social networking and use of the Internet (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011).

More importantly, Karen Cator (Scherer, 2011), the director of the Office of Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education notes, “Part of being literate in the 21st

century is being able to make careful decisions about technologies and their uses” (p. 19) and part of that is making developing digital citizenship part of the curriculum. She believes it is essential that we “get beyond calling teachers digital immigrants” (p. 21). There is a world at our fingertips, literally; and we can use it to broaden learning and provide access to higher order thinking for all students.

Some of the technology tools that contribute to memory overload and dispersion of attention, and that can, at times, be dangerous, can also prove to be highly effective to teaching and learning. This is perhaps the most essential knowledge base of technology— using technology to enhance and motivate learning. The cell phones that students use to text and social network while the teacher is not looking is also a computer and can be used as a virtual learning tool (Kolb, 2011). Using websites wisely can deepen student learning (Coiro & Fogleman, 2011), online forums can deepen discussion (Koopman, 2011; Taranto, Dalbon, & Gaetano, 2011), and setting up their own websites can provide opportunities for students to broaden global awareness and to work collaboratively with peers around the world (Trilling, 2010).

Educator leaders must also be knowledgeable in how technology can increase achievement for students with exceptionalities, English language learners, and students who are not always able to attend school. There have been significant advancements in the field of assistive technologies. The use of such technologies can dramatically improve learning for students with disabilities, and educators need to not only be aware of their power, but must also have the skills to use them appropriately for optimal student achievement (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), 2002). The use of assistive technology can have a positive impact on student learning (Duhaney & Duhaney, 2000).

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 21

Multiple forms of assistive technologies are available and include such devises as “electronic mobility switches and alternative keyboards for individuals with physical disabilities, computer-screen enlargers and text-to-speech readers for individuals with visual disabilities, electronic sign-language dictionaries and signing avatars for individuals with hearing disabilities, and calculators and spellcheckers for individuals with learning disabilities. The enormous power of such computer-based technologies to assist individuals with disabilities in overcoming barriers to educational access, participation, and progress is evident in the research base (Crealock & Sitko, 1990; Hebert & Murdock, 1994; MacArthur & Haynes, 1995; MacArthur, Haynes, Malouf, Harris, & Owings, 1990; Raskind & Higgins, 1999; van Daal & Reitsma, 1993; von Tetzchner, Rogne, & Lilleeng, 1997; Xin & Rieth, 2001)” (in Rose, Hasselbring, Stahl, & Zabalap, 2005, p. 508). While these assistive technology devices’ availability enhances student learning, the success of a device’s use is dependent on the educator’s understanding and skill in its implementation. Implementation decisions need to be based on sound learning theory, as well as curricular goals, student expectations, personal preferences, inclusion, and environmental contexts (DESE, 2002; Duhaney & Duhaney, 2000). Additionally, student and family empowerment and choice also need to be an integral complement of decision-making focused on assistive technology. In this regard, student and family goals must also be taken into consideration by the teacher, school, and/or district in deciding what, why, when, and how assistive technology should be employed (Reed, 2007; Parette & McMahan, 2002). The use of technology to advance the learning of students with disabilities is not only the law, but also an ethical and research-based practice.

The use of technology is at the heart of 21st century skills development, and Fitchburg State University faculty use instructional technologies where appropriate throughout programs of the Education Unit in order to develop the knowledge and skills needed to effectively use technology. The use of technology allows educator candidates methods to assist students in gaining access to information. It also helps them to provide more meaningful and motivational lessons for students who are often very comfortable with technology (Serhan, 2009).

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has prepared performance standards and indicators (The National Educational Technology Standards—NETS— Standards for Learning, Leading, and Teaching in the Digital Age) for students, teachers, administrators, coaches, and computer science teachers. On the NETS webpage, ISTE points out:

“Technology has forever changed not only what we need to learn, but the way we learn. The NETS set a standard of excellence and best practices in learning, teaching, and leading with technology in education. The benefits of using the NETS include: • Improving higher-order thinking skills, such as problem solving, critical thinking,

and creativity • Preparing students for their future in a competitive global job market • Designing student-centered, project-based, and online learning environments • Guiding systemic change in our schools to create digital places of learning

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 22

• Inspiring digital age professional models for working, collaborating, and decision making” (2012, np)

For example, teachers are expected to:

1. Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity 2. Design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments 3. Model digital-age work and learning 4. Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility and engage in

professional growth and leadership (ISTE, 2008, n. p.).

Educational Administrators are expected to: 1. Inspire and lead development and implementation of a shared vision for

comprehensive integration of technology to promote excellence and support transformation throughout the organization

2. Create, promote, and sustain a dynamic, digital-age learning culture that provides a rigorous, relevant, and engaging education for all students

3. Promote an environment of professional learning and innovation that empowers educators to enhance student learning through the infusion of contemporary technologies and digital resources

4. Provide digital age leadership and management to continuously improve the organization through the effective use of information and technology resources.

5. Model and facilitate understanding of social, ethical and legal issues and responsibilities related to an evolving digital culture (ISTE, 2009, np)

NETS for students, coaches and computer science teachers promote similar competencies for that segment of school populations.

Our candidates are expected to infuse technology applications within their chosen field of practice. Educator candidates develop proficiency in and integration of technology into teaching and learning effectively. Further, candidates are prepared to use multiple instructional strategies and adapt lesson plans to accommodate diverse learning needs. (Syllabi, capstone projects, portfolios reflecting technology instruction and demonstration are available in the Electronic Exhibit Room.)

There is also another knowledge base for technology: Using technology to analyze student learning and educator effectiveness. This can include monitoring individual student progress within a classroom, such as monitoring the progress of IEP goals and objectives (Vannest, et al, 2011) to digital portfolios (Niguidula, 2005; Purcell, 2011). Because of legislative mandate requirements of high-stakes data analysis, it is more crucial than ever that educators know how to analyze student learning data and how to interpret data to improve student learning (Robertson, 2005). A number of states are connecting educator evaluation to student learning. Massachusetts will begin implementing the Massachusetts Model for System for Educator Evaluation in Fall 2012. This evaluation system will eventually link educator evaluation to student learning. In line with this educator evaluation system, our educator programs require capstone projects that examine candidate impact on student learning.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 23

Because technology can impact meaningful learning in so many ways, technological tools are carefully integrated into Fitchburg State University’s preparation programs. Technology is also used by Unit faculty to evaluate candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

Standards-based

Education is a standards-based profession. It is critical that educator leaders know and understand the role of standards. Standards for educator leaders take their place amidst a longer, broader history of educational standards and standards-based education K-12. Since the A Nation at Risk Report (1983), there have been sustained and concerted efforts nationally to improve educator preparation as well as in-service staff development. At the same time that researchers and practitioners in teaching and educator education have been working to build and codify a knowledge base, new frameworks for teaching, learning, and curriculum in almost every K-12 subject area have been proposed by the discipline-based professional associations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). These standards are based on new understandings about learning, cognition, and the construction of subject matter understandings. These recommended frameworks and standards from the various professional associations are intended to promote teaching for meaning and understanding, and explicitly to avoid narrow emphases on skills development and rote learning.

New curriculum frameworks were adopted in Massachusetts during the 1990’s, and revisions have since been made to the English/Language Arts, Mathematics, History and Social Science, and Science and Technology Curriculum Frameworks. The new English/Language Arts and Literacy (2011) and Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks (2011) have integrated the Common Core State Standards. The rigorous standards are currently accompanied by high-stakes paper-and-pencil assessments, Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), intended to be tightly aligned with the knowledge and skills outlined in the curriculum frameworks, which in turn are tightly aligned with the knowledge bases in each of the disciplinary areas as established by the professional associations. Taken together, these developments form the backbone of the standards movement and what Robert Roth (1996) has called "the age of standards" which promotes curriculum alignment with educator preparation. Educators with increased responsibility and commitment to curriculum and instruction are part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vision for school leadership. We find this vision to be consistent with our own.

New standards based on the Common Core State Standards will require new ways of assessing students. Massachusetts is one of the state leaders in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC). We serve on the K-12 Leadership Team and the Higher Education Leadership Team. We share one fundamental goal: “building [our] collective capacity to dramatically increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for success in college and the workplace” (PARCC, 2012, n.p.). These

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 24

new assessments will include performance-based tasks. Our presence on these national committees and the performance-based assessment tools we use throughout our programs of study position us well to naturally integrate these new ways of assessing student learning into our programs of study.

At Fitchburg State University, coursework is organized around NCATE Specialized Professional Associations (SPA) standards for teachers and other school personnel and the Massachusetts Professional Standards for Teachers. Standards define what educators should know and be able to do, and NCATE standards provide a knowledge base for educators entering the profession. The standards movement develops both a common knowledge base and common agreement toward what teachers/educators should know and be able to do. Our core standards address the knowledge and performance required for those seeking licensure in Massachusetts. This focus permits us to concentrate on content and effect. Our coursework and field experiences are designed to determine a candidate's ability to carry out these duties and offer multiple sources of data for evaluation.

The educator preparation programs of the Education Unit are delivered through a consistent philosophical and programmatic core of learning based on standards (both national and state) and through multiple partnerships between and within the University and school agencies (LEA/SEA) as part of its mission’s commitment to provide leadership to the community.

Legislative Mandates and Professional Standards

Our knowledge base is, in part, also driven by legislative mandates. The recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with No Child Left Behind emphasizes a renewed emphasis on student learning and focuses on increasing school accountability, with heightened emphasis on the use of research-based practices to educate students and improve achievement. The need for productive schools to meet the essential goal of ESEA is exemplified in the state goals for education (legislative mandates, Massachusetts curriculum frameworks (incorporating the Common Core State Standards), and accountability model). Massachusetts was far ahead of meeting federal requirements of ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with its Chapter 766 (passed in 1972), which addressed standards, assessment accountability, and mainstreaming for students with special needs. In efforts to address these mandates, Fitchburg State University over time has expanded and improved the knowledge base for teaching/learning in its educator preparation programs.

Massachusetts educator licensure requirements emphasize subject knowledge; an understanding of the state's curriculum frameworks; and, in particular, an understanding of reading instruction. Massachusetts requires new educators to pass rigorous subject- matter competency tests (MTEL). Educator candidates must learn to assess instructional and curriculum practices in the classroom relative to: (a) state adopted academic content standards from the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks, (b) principles of human learning, and (c) the observed effects of different practices. Additionally, state licensure requirements require a Preservice Performance Assessment whereby educator candidates

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 25

provide evidence that they have met the Massachusetts 7.08 Professional Standards for Teachers or 7.10 Professional Standards for Administrators or 7.11 Professional Standards for Support Personnel.

Knowledge-based frameworks from national organizations for educator preparation inform our work, as do the legislative mandates for research-based and data-driven program implementation at the school level. Content knowledge is set forth in the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008, As Adopted by the National Policy

Board for Educational Administration (CCSSO, 2008). Massachusetts has agreed to the new InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (InTASC, 2011). The standards focus on integrating principles from the developmental sciences in educator preparation and in PK-12 classrooms. Content knowledge is also affirmed and reinforced in the Program Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership prepared by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration for the Educational Leadership Council and NCATE (NPBEA, 2011). These new standards were adopted Spring 2011. Massachusetts has recently adopted new

Our programs are fully aligned with the priorities of education reform set forth by the Massachusetts State Legislature and the U. S. Department of Education. Educator candidates demonstrate an understanding of state curriculum frameworks, incorporating the Common Core State Standards, and professional standards as they qualify for educator licensure. We also affirm the curricular, pedagogical, and professional recommendations set by subject-matter based professional organizations (e.g., IRA, NCTM, NCSS, CEC, etc.); and these recommendations are embedded across courses in the Education Unit's educator preparation programs, using the specific content required in different subject preparations, e.g., science, math, English, history, special education, early childhood, elementary, and middle school education. Additionally, teacher candidates in early childhood, elementary, middle school, and special education must complete a second major in the Liberal Arts and Sciences. The individual educator preparation programs at Fitchburg State University are linked through the common foundation of the InTASC standards. InTASC serves as a basis for the development and assessment of commonalities in all of our educator preparation programs.

Assessment

The Educator as Reflective Leader must also possess knowledge of how to use student learning data to improve his or her own practice (Leithwood, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Petrides, 2006; White, 2005). There are a number of models that provide dynamic processes which call for identifying patterns in the data, choosing a focus, digging deeper, agreeing on the problem, examining best practices, developing an action plan, implementing the plan, and assessing results (Parker Boudett, Murnane, City, & Moody, 2005). Regardless of the model, it is crucial that educators have the knowledge and skills to analyze data in order to examine and improve practice. To this end, our Education Unit programs of study provide multiple opportunities at each juncture for educator candidates to analyze their effectiveness—be it through course assignments assessed through a data generating rubric or examining their own effectiveness by designing, implementing, and

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 26

analyzing the results of a Teacher/Educator Work Sample or by conducting action research in their classrooms and schools. At each stage of the program, our educator candidates must take time to look at the data that demonstrate whether they are prepared to move forward in the program of study. Faculty model the habits of mind of using data to improve practice through the Unit Assessment System.

Our educator candidates develop as lifelong learners, reflective practitioners, and change- agents who are leaders influencing decision-making in their respective positions in the school community (Fullan, 2008; Kotter, 2006; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Reeves, 2004, 2006). Reflection is essential for our candidates to be effective teachers/leaders— whether they are in teacher preparation programs, educational leadership programs, or school guidance counselor programs. We understand that candidates cannot leave our programs knowing all there is to know and being able to work with perfection in schools. However, they do need to develop the habits of mind that help them continue on the journey to becoming a fully developed professional. Self-reflection and evaluation are critical for any individual’s development; and it is, perhaps, most important in the education professions.

Murray (2000) believes that our knowledge base needs to be expanded in specific ways in regard to the critical requirement of measurement and assessment when we examine indicators that can be used to evaluate our own educator preparation work. At Western Michigan-Kalamazoo, Stufflebeam (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007) and Scriven (1994) have contributed to this goal by constructing a database of practical tools, checklists, and ways to improve educational accountability through practical means. In studying the duties of teachers, Scriven (1999) builds performance-assessment measures that can be used as tools to help us understand the critical role of evaluation in education reform efforts. Scriven (1994), as well as Sanders (1998) believe that we can measure the quality of teaching and the “value added” by the teacher as part of the teacher’s instructional process. Davidson (2003) expands on this notion and advocates for identifying what stakeholders value and how to determine what is important and how evidence might be gathered, categorized, analyzed, and scored to determine how well the descriptor was achieved.

Efforts to examine the teacher’s contribution to successful learning and the performance of the teacher’s role in regard to student learning are being addressed by a number of scholars, institutions, and government agencies. Research is focusing on significant aspects of the “value added” concept. Glazerman, et al (2010) have identified the “value added” concept as playing an important role but not the only role in evaluating effective teaching. Hassel and Hassel (2009) found “Teacher effectiveness has the largest impact of school effects on student learning, and research indicates that top-quintile teachers produce learning gains three times (3x) that of bottom-quintile teachers. However, the supply of these “3x” teachers is limited. Meanwhile, 3x teachers affect only a small portion of children each year, no more than bottom quintile teachers” p. 1). They argue for more student contact with the top-quintile teachers.

Corcoran (2010) cautions that “value added” evaluations can be unpredictable and possess questionable validity and reliability when based on a small portion of goals (achievement

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 27

on standardized tests) set by our nation’s schools. Teachers might score high on evaluations if they have mastered teaching to the test. He argues that “teachers, policymakers, and school leaders should not be seduced by the elegant simplicity of ‘value added’” (p. 28). Others have examined whether or not an effective teacher can be identified during recruitment (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008; Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, & Staiger, 2009). Others have looked at the role of teacher pay incentives in the evaluation process (Springer, et al, 2010). Goldhaber and Hansen (2010) worry about the stability of measuring teacher performance when classes change from year to year and can be an unpredictable variable.

One thing they do all agree with is that research in this area is in its infancy. The National Research Council (NRC) (2010) policy paper reiterates this conclusion and advocates for a clear connection of teacher candidate effectiveness to student learning. This approach to examining performance “on the job” has become important in states that are implementing standards-based programs, such as Massachusetts. The Obama administration has been clear that a pre-condition for competition for Race to the Top funding is a rigorous educator evaluation system. He has laid out a blueprint for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in which evaluation of educator performance is central. Massachusetts is considered an accelerated state in regard to Race to the Top (RTTT) and has fully embraced the policies set forth in this education initiative. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has developed The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation, which meets the requirements of RTTT. The districts we serve have and continue to participate in grants connected to RTTT. Fitchburg State University is a Lead Partner and Fiscal Agent for the Central Massachusetts Readiness Center, one of six Readiness Centers established to provide professional development and support to districts in regard to RTTT initiatives, including assessment data analysis. On April 1, 2011, we held a Common Core State Standards Event, which was well attended by our educator candidates, along with over 200 practitioners from our partner districts and beyond.

To ensure that our educator candidates are ready to engage in such evaluation systems, performance indicators (for example: pre-practicum/practicum evaluation forms, observation forms, and lesson plans) are used by faculty in their courses and in the field. These performance assessments are derived from Massachusetts State requirements, NCATE standards, InTASC, and other national professional standards, and the delivery of our programs and coursework. The InTASC Standards are incorporated in our synthesis of the knowledge base. A powerful consensus has emerged regarding the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the effective educator throughout a career, from pre-service education to advanced professional licensure (Carnegie Corporation, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2010b; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; InTASC, 2011; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2011). Professional standards have framed the image of the professional educator as a knowledgeable, reflective practitioner who is willing and able to engage in collaborative, contextually grounded learning activities.

Performance indicators are embedded in our performance-based assessment system used throughout the programs of study to assess how well our educator candidates possess the

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 28

knowledge, skills, and dispositions of effective and reflective educator leaders. All educator candidates must demonstrate a satisfactory level of competence in their subject matter and general knowledge, as well as pedagogical knowledge and skills. We do so through a series of stage reviews (at specific points in the programs of study, for entrance to the practicum/capstone, and exit from the programs), which assess candidate competencies at increasing levels and identifies when remediation is needed, and, in some cases, dismissal from the program. Each stage/gate provides an opportunity for advisors, faculty, and supervising practitioners to reflect with educator candidates in regard to their levels of knowledge, skills, and dispositions and how they might improve their practice to proceed through the program of study. In these ways, our stage reviews reflect the educator evaluation system of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Our system models the importance of using assessment data to improve practice, of which reflection is a major component. We work to cultivate that as a habit of mind. We have aligned our Teacher Work Sample and Action Research Capstone with The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation.

Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation: Five Step Evaluation Cycle

Educator Work Sample

Action Research

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 29

Diversity

In the standards of NBPTS, InTASC, and NCATE are explicit requirements for educator candidates to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population by producing demonstrable learning gains for all children. In meetings of May 2010, where the Fitchburg State University Conceptual Framework was revisited, constituents of the University underscored the importance of meeting the diverse needs of learners in our communities. The North Central Massachusetts area is reflective of the growing diversity across the globe. Constituents challenge us to prepare educators who understand and can effectively teach children and youth who are poor, homeless, struggling with disabilities, gifted, English language learners, etc. In keeping with the University Mission, we embrace diversity and global awareness at the heart of our Conceptual Framework and provide preparation through a curriculum that is rich in addressing diversity and in settings that allow candidates to practice the necessary skills.

Accomplished educators adjust their teaching according to varying student needs, interests, skills, knowledge, and prior experiences. The new InTASC (2011) Model Core Teaching Standards identify “Personalized Learning for Diverse Learners” as a central theme:

The explosion of learner diversity means teachers need knowledge and skills to customize learning for learners with a range of individual differences. These differences include students who have learning disabilities and students who perform above grade level and deserve opportunities to accelerate. Differences also include cultural and linguistic diversity and the specific needs of students for whom English is a new language. Teachers need to recognize that all learners bring to their learning varying experiences, abilities, talents, and prior learning, as well as language, culture, and family and community values that are assets that can be used to promote their learning. To do this effectively, teachers must have a deeper understanding of their own frames of reference (e.g., culture, gender, language, abilities, ways of knowing), the potential biases in these frames, and their impact on expectations for and relationships with learners and their families. (p. 3)

They argue that teachers need to differentiate curriculum, instruction, and assessment and provide multiple strategies so that every child has access to learning (InTASC, 2011).

NCATE's Standard 4, Diversity, is consistent with InTASC as well as with Massachusetts state priorities. The knowledge base for inclusionary practices has greatly expanded. In particular, the expansion of the special education knowledge base since the 1970s and the cognitive revolution have broadened our capacity to understand the dimensions of curricula that can be effective with low-achieving or “marginalized” students and with “high-end” or gifted students who also need a differential curriculum (Erlauer, 2003; Jensen, 2005; Medina, 2008; Wolfe, 2010; Zigmond, 1995).

An educator’s view of students in socially subordinate groups may take a deficit viewpoint. Such an educator might use such language as disadvantaged, culturally deprived, at-risk, product of dysfunctional families, and culture of poverty when referring to his or her

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 30

students. Curriculum may become watered-down and expectations lowered. Interestingly, until the No Child Left Behind Act, expectations for urban youth were placed at the minimal competency level (Hernández Sheets, 2005; Hopfenberg & Levin, 1993; Nieto, 1996; Vatterott, 2007; Villegas & Lucas, 2007). Schools today serve increasing numbers of children with limited English proficiency, children with physical and emotional disabilities, homeless and migrant children, and children whose learning is not supported at home. Also evident in schools is the historical gap in achievement reflecting, at least in part, chronic discrimination against minorities (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). The deficit perspective has no place in our Nation’s schools. Today’s educators require sophisticated professional knowledge in regard to diversity and the complex knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to establish positive learning environments and to make decisions that increase learning for a diverse student population, while also fostering the development of their social and emotional domains.

To help all students learn, several kinds of knowledge about learning are demanded of educators. Education Unit programs at Fitchburg State require that educator preparation faculty must design, implement, and evaluate curriculum, field experiences, and clinical practices so that candidates acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn (cf. ESEA/ NCLB). This design includes experiences in working with diverse higher education faculty, school faculty, and students in the urban environment of the City of Fitchburg and its environs. Fitchburg State has planned and implemented collaborative programs in Fitchburg, Leominster, and Lowell, to name a few, where educator candidates address issues of diverse learning needs.

One approach proposed by Spindler and Spindler (1993) to increase knowledge in this area is cultural therapy. Cultural therapy is a means of enhancing cultural awareness through an examination of one’s own culture. Cultural therapy helps one to see potential biases in social interactions and in the acquisition or transmission of skills and knowledge (National Education Association, 2007; Spindler & Spindler, 1993). The use of case studies as well as literature about cultures is another approach for future educators to examine their beliefs and biases. Self-reflection emerges once again as an important component for professional growth. With regard to understanding race and culture, the ability to step out of a situation and understand and reflect on all variables is essential (Hernández Sheets, 2005; Nieto, 1996; Vatterott, 2007; Villegas & Lucas, 2007).

Educators must learn to connect to their students’ cultural and ethnic backgrounds rather than acting in opposition to them (Milner 2010). They must consider the issue of privilege and, “how privilege operates, both in terms of Whiteness or economics, or how they have been socialized and positioned into their status based on a wide range of unearned consequences, privileges and benefits” (Milner, 2010, p. 123). To address, this Milner proposes that we teach racial knowledge to future educators, teach them to find common connections between themselves and their students and teach about the “myth of meritocracy”—that it is not always true that no matter how hard you work you will succeed. Milner proposes that racial and ethnic backgrounds do present challenges that are sometimes insurmountable for students and that educators must be realistic in understanding this. Cruz and Patterson (2005) underscore the importance of hands-on

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 31

experience as an effective tool for issues and strategies related to diversity. Additionally, according to the 2010 International Reading Association (IRA) Standards, candidates need a sound professional knowledge base of first- and second-language acquisition; the influence of cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity on learning; cognitive and affective development; and technology appropriate to instruction.

Besides culture, ethnicity, socioeconomics, and language, additional ways of looking at diversity includes learning theories. Gardner’s (1983, 2006) view on intelligence has impacted classroom teaching procedures for a diverse population. Gardner defines intelligence as “the ability to solve problems or to fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community. . . to approach a situation in which a goal is to be obtained and to locate the appropriate route to that goal” (Gardner, 1993, p. 15). Making judgments about this may be more intuitive, however reminiscent of an artistic judgment than for a scientific assessment similar to what Eisner (2001) has described in The Educational Imagination. Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences validates educators’ intuitive experience in classrooms: students think and learn in many different ways. It also provides educators with a framework for organizing and reflecting on curriculum, assessment, and pedagogical practices. In turn, this reflection has led many educators to develop new approaches that might better meet the needs of the range of diverse learners in classrooms.

Subsequently, Gardner has looked more closely at what the theory might mean for schooling practice in the Unschooled Mind (1991) and The Disciplined Mind (1999). In his later work, Gardner (2006) broadens the scope with an alternative way of thinking for those educators who seek additional approaches to measurement than paper and pencil tasks. This intersects with Eisner’s (1994) work in the Educational Imagination and the arts. In Minds for the Future, Gardner (2009) calls for yet new ways of thinking mandatory for success in an ever-increasing globalization, intensified information and technological overdrive, and clashes among civilizations. Gardner argues that successful navigation of these cultural phenomenon require new ways of thinking and learning. He describes five cognitive abilities that will be in demand in the years ahead:

• The disciplinary mind—master of major schools of thought • The synthesizing mind—ability to integrate ideas • The creating mind—capacity to uncover and clarify problems, questions and

phenomena • The respectful mind—awareness of and appreciation for differences among human

beings • The ethical mind—fulfillment of one's responsibilities

Other developments in thinking around intelligence and its implications for testing and teaching include Robert Sternberg’s (1997) seminal advancement of the “triarchic model” which shares Gardner’s dislike of a narrow intelligence theory. The Triarchic Model looks at analytical, creative, and practical intelligence and how all three are important in program development, teaching, and life.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 32

To meet such diverse developmental and background needs of children, “one size does not fit all.” Educator leaders must have a firm knowledge base in differentiated instruction in order to avoid some of its pitfalls, i.e. inadvertently leveling students. To be successful in implementing differentiated instruction, educators must be knowledgeable in how to create a climate of learning and must know what adjusting, compacting, multi-tiered instruction, and flexible grouping are as well as when to use these. Educators must know when and how to differentiate for readiness, interests, learning profiles, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, multicultural perspectives, learning disabilities, and emotional and behavior disorders (Gregory & Chapman, 2007; Haager & Klinger, 2005; Hoover, 2009; Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010).

Diversity of student learning needs is an important element for the educator to consider while using a pedagogical model. A skillful educator determines what students know and believe about a topic and how learners are likely to "hook into" new ideas. Teaching in ways that connect with students also requires an understanding of differences that may arise from various sources, such as culture, family experiences, and approaches to learning. Educator candidates need to build a foundation of pedagogical knowledge commensurate with these expectations (Bernard, 2003; Epstein, 2005; Grimmett & MacKinnon,1992; Nieto, 2003; Villagas & Lucas, 2007).

In What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (NCTAF, 1996), the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future recommended that educator preparation programs be organized around standards such as those utilized in Massachusetts and by the major professional associations that address diversity. NCTAF recommended a greater focus on curriculum design and assessment; more preparation in how to work with special- needs students; multicultural competencies—an understanding in how to work with diverse learners in a variety of settings; and preparation on how to work in the context of diverse school and community settings. According to NCTAF (1996) "Teaching in ways that help diverse learners master challenging content is much more complex than teaching for rote recall or lower-level basic skills” (p. 27). NCATE's summary data on teacher effectiveness inform us that students whose teachers have had preparation in working with special populations outperform their peers by more than a full grade. State standards for student learning increasingly reflect an approach to instruction in which all learners should experience concepts in a complex learning environment including higher-order intellectual processing. The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, incorporating the Common Core State Standards, which emphasize this kind of learning, will be fully adopted into every public school by the year 2012-2013. As mentioned earlier, the Education Unit preparation programs have already integrated these in the programs of study. Our educator candidates are already incorporating them in lesson plans, units of study, and student learning analysis.

Specific knowledge and skills included in coursework and practicum experiences in our comprehensive programs and curricula are designed to facilitate acquiring the necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions to meet the learning, social, and emotional needs of a diverse study body. These include developing knowledge of and respect for diversity, developing the knowledge of the wide array of pedagogical practices to meet diverse needs,

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 33

and the opportunity to implement and differentiate practices during field experiences in diverse settings. Additionally, we provide diversity workshops for staff and students and have diversity panel forums for the same, as well as for the entire campus community and beyond. Multiple assessment tools measure candidate performance on diversity and we triangulate that data, along with candidate exit surveys, to determine how effective our candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions are in regards to diversity.

Skillful

The new InTASC (2011) standards define a common core of teaching knowledge and skills intended not only for beginning teachers but also for professionals in the field. These new standards include knowledge, skills, and dispositions that broaden the role of teachers as leaders and collaborators—educator skills essential for the 21st century—all in keeping with our Conceptual Framework theme of Educator as Reflective Leader who is knowledgeable, skillful, caring, and ethical.

Knowledge and skill intersect with each other. One cannot acquire the necessary skills without the knowledge—be it determining which curriculum piece or instructional strategy to implement—the knowledge must be there in order to make the choices. Once a choice is made, the educator must have the skill to implement the decision.

Among the array of knowledge, skills, and dispositions is procedural knowledge and ways that we can measure skillful performance. Highly qualified educators are expected to be proficient in conceptual and analytic skills and apply them to decision-making. In coursework, faculty include essential skills and practices for attaining a high level of expertise in professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and disposition, calling upon the work of such scholars as Saphier and the work of Research for Better Teaching. In particular are the Foundation of Essential Beliefs of “skillful teacher” (Saphier, Haley-Speca, & Gower, 2008), which align with the belief system set forth in our concetual framework. These include:

1. You can "get smart." Learning is primarily determined by effective effort and use of

appropriate strategies. "Intelligence" is not a fixed inborn limit on learning capacity.

All children have the raw material to do rigorous academic material at high

standards.

2. Learning is constructed as learners assimilate new experience with prior

knowledge.

3. Learning varies with the degree to which learners' need for inclusion, influence,

competence, and confidence are met.

4. The nature of professional knowledge encompasses areas of performance,

repertoire, and matching, not "effective behaviors."

5. The knowledge bases of a professional teacher are many, diverse, and complex; and

skillful teaching requires systematic and continual study of these knowledge bases.

6. The total environment of a school has a powerful effect on students' learning.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 34

7. Racism exerts a downward force on the achievement of students of color that must

be met with active anti-racist teaching and cultural proficiency. (Saphier, Haley-

Speca, & Gower, 2008, Chapter 2)

The work of Saphier and Research for Better Teaching are widely used in Massachusetts schools. Jon Saphier (Saphier, Haley-Speca, & Gower, 2008) focuses on the practical knowledge and specific skills needed by effective teachers. Brophy (1999), also, prepared a set of general principles of the value aspect of motivation, which intersect with Vygotsky’s (1962) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, an organization comprised of school and business-based professionals set a challenge to schools to ensure they are preparing students for success in the 21st Century. In their Framework for 21st Century Learning (Partnerships for 21st Century Skills, 2011), they argue for preparing students for Global Awareness; Financial, Economic, Business and Entrepreneurial Literacy; Civic Literacy; Health Literacy; and, Environmental Literacy, Creativity and Innovation, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Communication and Collaboration, Information Literacy, Media Literacy, ICT (Information, Communications and Technology) Literacy, Flexibility and Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, and Leadership and Responsibility. To achieve these goals, educator preparation programs must know how to foster skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration among their students, and have the ability to serve as a role model in demonstrating these skills (American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education & Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010).

In his research on effective teaching, Chen (2009) notes that, regardless of how well a teacher knows his/her subject matter, without the appropriate pedagogical skills, students will not be successful. Chen discusses the importance of modeling the learning process for students to promote independent learning. Chen proposes using this approach in educator preparation programs—rather than presenting approaches to educator candidates, faculty should model the approach in the presentation. Schelfhout, et. al. (2006) also support effective modeling of teaching practices in the university classroom. If future educators are to create powerful learning environments, they should experience them as they are learning about them. They not only should experience effective practices but must understand why certain approaches are used and understand how approaches are selected. Our professional education faculty have an in-depth knowledge and expertise in their field(s). They integrate this knowledge and expertise in their instructional practices. It is more common to see candidates working in groups, problem solving, using critical thinking and reflection, than it is to see a faculty member lecturing in the front of the room.

Our education faculty are not the only university faculty to model the effective instructional techniques in the university classroom. Our colleagues in the Liberal Arts and Sciences in our STEM disciplines do likewise. We have a partnership with the Boston Museum of Science’s Bridging Engineering, Science, and Technology (BEST) for Elementary Educators and Engineering is Elementary (EIE) programs. Faculty in the disciplines of biology, earth science, physical science, and mathematics, along with our education faculty and

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 35

practitioners, attend summer institutes at the Museum of Science and attend follow-up workshops to develop pedagogical skills in their discipline in order to teach engineering across the curriculum. Participates then develop curriculum modules within their syllabi that use the best practices of STEM pedagogy to teach within their discipline and at their level, e.g., K-8 and university. Sections of the university courses in which faculty model the pedagogical skills as they teach content are designated as sections for education majors. This partnership provides the opportunity for educator candidates to participate in best practices of pedagogical skills in and out of education courses.

Developing skillful educator leaders cannot be accomplished in the University classroom alone. Master teachers can have a significant impact on promoting instructional leadership through their technical skills, such as program-content expertise about teaching and learning and their commitment to the profession (Gabriel, 2005; NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning, 2010; Reeves, 2009; Stronge, 2002). At Fitchburg State University, our partnerships with area schools provide us with opportunities to promote and model leadership skills in activities with our PK-12 colleagues. Our candidates are encouraged to participate in faculty discussions and meetings to address school-based issues. Fitchburg State has a mentor-candidate program for school-based supervisors of student teachers in which these concepts are applied in practice with candidates. To further develop reflective leaders in our educator candidates, we support candidates in conducting action research or an educator work sample.

Key to the effectiveness of educator preparation and licensure is a unified system of standards and assessments. The performance standards reflect the growing national consensus on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to provide high quality instruction. In addition, these standards (immersed in our course work, syllabi, and field experiences) provide a linkage to Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and goals for students PK-12 education. Measuring the candidates’ skills helps us to focus on demonstrated ability (skilled performance) to impart knowledge rather than considering only if an educator preparation program produces academic scholars who have knowledge. A goal for educator preparation is to make knowledge and skills related to teaching a career-long process.

Additionally, standards that guide measurement of skills are set forth by multiple government agencies, professional organizations, and other professional entities. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education holds preparation programs responsible for providing learning opportunities that lead to the successful attainment of the knowledge, dispositions, and skilled performance needed to teach; and assessment of candidate demonstration of these skills must be with structured assessments that are based on standards. The licensing procedures for educator candidates are based on successful completion of assessments that demonstrate their pedagogical knowledge and skills based on identified standards. Dispositions are not assessed independently; rather, they are demonstrated through skillful performance over time (guided by faculty, mentors, and the like).

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 36

InTASC standards and the separate NCATE standards of the program accreditation process translate the more abstract ideas from the research and knowledge base to the concrete standards against which each candidate’s progress is assessed. Evidence of these knowledge, skills, and dispositions (and the pertinent standards) can be found in the Electronic Exhibit Room and in our SPA reports in AIMS.

Caring and Ethical Educators

Caring Darling-Hammond (2002) argues that “[w]ith a concerted effort on the part of all of those who have a stake in our schools, it is possible for every child in each community to have access to a competent, caring, and qualified teacher every year in every subject area and every classroom. This, more than anything else, will make the major difference in what our children learn and what our nation becomes” (p. 35).

The knowledge base and skills of a qualified and effective educator leader, whether a teacher, curriculum coordinator, guidance counselor, principal, or superintendent, are grounded in caring and ethical—the final two components of our Conceptual Framework. In his analysis of effective teachers, Stronge (2002) begins with the “Teacher as Person” – the personal qualities and dispositions, attitudes and beliefs central to effective teaching. Within the category of the teacher as person, Stronge views caring as a central disposition from which many effective practices flow. Attributes of caring include: “listening, gentleness, understanding, knowledge of students as individuals, warmth and encouragement, and an overall love for children” (p. 14).

Synthesizing research on teacher belief systems, efficacy, and caring, Collier (2005) concludes:

The relational nature of caring provides a reciprocal reinforcement of well-being which nurtures and sustains positive interactions between [educator] and students. The act of caring and being cared for forms a loop which provides needed support to enhance student growth, development and performance while refueling teachers with experiences of gratification and appreciation, increasing satisfaction with teaching and commitment to teaching as a profession. Student and [educator] success experienced within communities of caring increases confidence or efficacy in teaching skills and student ability to learn. In essence, caring is the fuel for teacher efficacy working in tandem to create the stable, capable and committed [educator] force required for the effective education of our nation’s children. (p. 358)

Resilience studies further support the role of caring in effective teaching. Benard (2003) has identified caring and compassionate as characteristics of transformational teachers, administrators, and other school personnel. These educators get to know their students. They demonstrate unconditional love, do not take student behavior personally, have trust that students are trying their best, are interested, and actively listen. “Caring [educators] truly believe that each student has the right to a caring and competent teacher” (Stronge, 2002, p. 15). They exhibit the capacity to show unconditional caring for their students

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 37

(Knowles & Brown, 2007). They understand that students tend to be happier and achieve more when they feel safe and connected and that “[educators] who create a supportive and warm [environment] tend to be more effective with all students” (Stronge, 2002, p. 15).

Therefore, caring educators believe that creating a community of learners is essential for learning. They cultivate a warm, welcoming, positive, inclusive, and safe learning environment, which fosters interest in learning and in which students feel safe to take risks (Bernard, 2003; Kohn, 2006; NBPTS, 2002; Powell, 2010; Solo, 2007; Stronge, 2002). “[A] classroom [or school] is a ‘community’… [when] it is a place in which students feel cared about and are encouraged to care about each other. They experience a sense of being valued and respected; the children matter to one another and to the teacher. They have come to think in the plural: they feel connected to each other; they are part of an ‘us’” (Kohn, 1996, p. 101). Effective schools, such as “turnaround schools” have been identified as like “a family,” “a home,” “a community,” “a sanctuary” (Benard, 2003, p. 125). Caring teachers and leaders at all levels of the district/community believe in and work to make sure the classroom and the school is a place in which students feel safe and cared for so that they can flourish as human beings and learn as scholars.

Caring educators are particularly cognizant of their students’ cultural backgrounds, socio- economic and family circumstances, and the harsh realities of the lives of some of the children in their classrooms. They are interested in these aspects of their students, not in generalities, but in specifics. This information does not influence them to view students as different or to see them as deficient, but rather influences them to see their students’ unique potential and needs. Effective educators use this knowledge to inform their practice. They learn about these aspects of their students through inventories, interviews, and other inquiry activities; and they respond to diversity in positive ways, viewing each student as an important member of and contributor to the learning community (Benard, 2003; Brodhagen & Gorund, 2005; Marzano, 2003; NBPTS, 2002; NMSA, 2001; Stronge, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2007).

Caring also entails a willingness to serve as a role model. Effective educators recognize that, if they want to develop the essential emotional and social skills in their students, they need to model appropriate behavior and particularly model the behaviors and values they want to instill in their students (Armstrong, 2006; Elias, et al, 1997; Powell, 2010). Benard (2003) explains that:

…it is what [educators] model that makes the final difference. Social learning theorists say that most of learning comes from the models around the learner. If [educators] are caring and respectful, if they never give up on their students, if they help them discover and use their strengths, if they give them ongoing responsibilities as active decision makers – the students will learn empathy, respect, the wise use of power, self-control, responsibility, persistence, and hope. Moreover, when [educators] model this invitational behavior, they create a classroom climate in which caring, respect, and responsibility are the behavioral norm. (p. 125)

Caring educators’ respect for and valuing of diversity influences their commitment to fairness, equity, and ethics. They show no differences in how they welcome, speak to, and

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 38

treat their students. They speak with students in the classroom, the school, and the community. They respect and uphold confidentiality (Denton, 2007; Marzano, 2003; NBPTS, 2002; Stronge, 2002). Only in a learning community are we able to explore the mutuality and reciprocity essential to a democratic society. An educator leader is often asked to put self-interest aside while choosing goals or values that support the development of the community over all. Caring, principled, and respectful are essential qualities that characterize the reflective inquiry of a leader in the school setting who is able to consider ethical implications of practice.

Educators must have the courage to reflect on their work and consider whether their actions are appropriate—being open to admit when they are wrong and learn from mistakes. Thus, educator candidates must be provided with opportunities that foster and model the practices and the characteristics of a caring adult so that they internalize the practice of caring in educational settings. Educator candidates need opportunities to reflect on the ways they have experienced caring themselves and provide caring for their students. Erikson’s (1986) sense of “belonging” is fostered and the students feel personally accepted, respected, included and supported in the school environment (Collier, 2005). Teachers who are perceived to be caring are likely to improve the academic efforts of their students (Stronge, 2002; Wilson, 2006). From data of a study of over 1,000 students, Wilson (2006) argues that caring was a predictor of student motivation and projected grades. He believes the data provide evidence in favor of caring for the students we teach (Wilson, 2006).

At Fitchburg State University, we believe building a capacity for community in the school setting is central to the educational profession. Our constituents underscore the importance of having compassionate, concerned, kind and charismatic educators who work with children. In their conversation at our May 2010 meetings where the Conceptual Framework was revisited, constituents talked about the importance now, more than ever, for students to be able to view the school as a safe and supportive environment where adults can provide support for their social and emotional development. The cultivation of caring dispositions and accompanying behavior of caring educators is a central goal of our programs. Multiple rubric criteria across assessment tools address the disposition of caring.

Ethical

To come to the final disposition of our Conceptual Framework, ethical, we rely on the purpose of schooling. Grounded in Enlightenment Rationalism, Thomas Jefferson identified three goals for education, one of which included advancing human liberty and freedom by safeguarding the individual’s natural rights (Gutek, 2001a). Locke possessed a “liberal and humane” view of education, seeing its purposes as developing a “well-mannered” and “well-informed” citizen. He advocated “individuality, self-discipline, the importance of reasoning, and development of character” (Ozmon & Carver, 1999, p. 88) as outcomes of a quality education.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 39

Horace Mann saw education as a means of social reform. He advocated for education as moral and ethical development, as well as increasing social intelligence (Gutek, 2001b). “Mann believed the common school curriculum should provide its students with the basic skills and knowledge they need to function effectively as ethically responsible members of the community, as economically productive managers and workers, and as interested citizens” (Gutek, 2001b, p. 107). Dewey (1916) viewed education as the renewal of the social group—its “[l]anguage, beliefs, ideas, or social standards” (p. 2). He viewed education as a social function. Bruner (1960) recognized that, in our concerns for the “quality and intellectual aims of education,” we should not abandon “the ideal that education should serve as a means of training well-balanced citizens for democracy” (p. 1).

Boyer (1990) believed that it is essential for our students to be able to connect what they learn with how they live: “I’m convinced that students, as an essential part of civic education, need to understand that learning is for living, and that education means developing the capacity to make judgments, form convictions, and act boldly on values held” (p. 7). Boyer argued that not all choices, in thought or in action, are equally valid; this means helping students to develop responsible ways of thinking, believing, and acting. Classroom teachers, principals and counselors are critical in the guidance of such inquiry. Boyer proposed six general principles for learning communities that encompass: communication, social issues and democratic perspective, action not passivity, dealing thoughtfully with differences, participation, and connections with what they learn and how they live.

In addition, organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA) have prepared helpful tools, for example, their “Principles for Learner-Centered” classrooms. These models and Boyer’s principles promote the democratic conception of education best explained by John Dewey when he spoke of “habits of mind.” In this way, Boyer’s work at the Carnegie Foundation and other major curriculum and school improvement leadership efforts reinforce Dewey’s original ideas about public schooling and the purposes of the public schools as well as the concepts developed at Teacher’s College Columbia such as the E Pluribus Unum values developed by R. Freeman Butts. Dewey voiced the concern that schools must be the seedbed for our democratic ideals. Dewey spoke of a “public” much as Boyer spoke of civic education. Eisner’s (1998, 2001) view of “rational humanism” also describes perspectives of the professional and the dispositions that promote security within a learning community. Eisner further explored concepts of social justice. These models (developed since Dewey) promote ideals of social justice and democracy. Teaching and leading in a school community (like other learned professions) requires mastery of a specialized body of knowledge that is applied with wisdom, caring, and ethical concern.

Goodlad (1994) argued for the educator as moral steward, and he advocated for the consideration of the moral dimensions of teaching and the view of the ethic of caring as played out in teaching. Individuals display commitment to such ethical practices as social justice within a school community that honors a caring environment. The standards addressing these dispositions are identified in ISLLC and NCATE documents (see bibliography). Standards published by ISLLC include the leader’s obligation to “promote success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.” In the

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 40

May 2010 meetings with our constituents, the ethics of teaching was underscored as an important foundation to our work. Noted in their recommendations for strengthening our Conceptual Framework was the importance of developing habits of mind that include fairness and respect, in particular for those from other cultures or linguistic backgrounds.

The dispositions constructed for our Education Unit at Fitchburg State University are cornerstones for assessing and applying ethical principles. We stress the importance of ethical considerations and ideals of a democratic, caring community. These standards are at the core of our programs and infused in coursework for the candidates. Each program strand contains the SPA ethical dispositions and Code of Ethics for its specific professional group. In this way, we encourage each candidate to develop a personal code of ethics (philosophy) in alignment with the state licensure process and state standards and the recommendations of each SPA. NCATE dispositions fully acknowledge the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence our behaviors as educational leaders. Leadership personnel must value and demonstrate ethical decision-making and balance individual interests and shared commitments for the benefits of a school community (Fernstermacher, 1990, Stefkovich & Begley, 2007).

Handal and Lauvas (1987) identify the third level of teaching practice as the level of ethical consideration—the level at which educators reflect on the moral sense of the decisions they make and the actions they take. Teachers, principals, and counselors enter into an “ethical, emotional and academic partnership” with their students—one that is anchored in respect, honor, integrity, resource sharing, and a deep belief in the possibility of developmental growth and transcendence (Gay, 2004). Educational leaders are able to connect with students regardless of racial, ethnic, social or behavioral characteristics that might be different from the reference group where their own early experiences may have originated. Gay (2004) views culturally responsive caring as a moral imperative and pedagogical necessity. Among the characteristics that Gay describes is that of caring teachers who are distinguished by their high performance expectations for students as well as by use of research-based pedagogical practices. Each educator must demonstrate a passion for the educational profession as well as a deep concern and commitment to his/her students.

Murphy (2003) believes that schools require a “moral compass” to guide them through the complexities of educational practices, and he anchors the themes and roles in the key concepts of a democratic community and social justice. He defines a need for persons with integrity, caring, and a focus on nurturing a community of learning. Working with children and youth involves matters of what is fair, right, and just. Fitchburg State University faculty believe that the education professional’s conduct is first a moral and ethical activity, deeply tied to issues of social justice. Education particularly is rooted in the moral development of youth (Gutek, 2001a; Ozmon & Craver, 1999). Moral qualities are learned; they are acquired through life experience. Education is human action, undertaken with other humans (Dewey, 1916). Because an education professional’s conduct is a moral matter, the educator is a model; and morality of the educator impacts on the morality of the student. We cannot hold educators to unknown and nonexistent ethical standards, but they must understand the basic ethical concepts that should inform their professional conduct and

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 41

conscientiously apply them in their decision making. Our goal should be informed and responsible ethical decision-making by educators. Students learn honesty, fair play, consideration of others, compassion, and acceptance of differences by observing, imitating, and discussing what education professionals do in school themselves (Bernard, 2003; Fenstermacher, 1990; Stronge, 2002). In order for the students in our classrooms to be able to behave responsibly with students who are different from themselves or “other people’s children” (Delpit, 1995), educator candidates must understand that their own decisions, behaviors, and beliefs have direct consequences for their students in this regard.

Caring is at the heart of ethical decision-making. Educators must weigh the benefits of any moral dilemma and base their decision on their concerns and caring for their students (Lashway, 2003). Educational leaders must behave ethically and create ethical communities in which students’ moral and ethical development can thrive. Ethical leaders follow a clear set of standards and must be able to examine situations from many perspectives, including an ethical stance. Caring and concern, connection to others, and ethical actions guide empathetic decision-making. Ayers (1998) describes educators as “midwives of hope” because they are guided by an unshakable commitment to helping human beings reach the full measure of their humanity. Ethical educators expose students to an understanding of reality; the ethical educator helps students to examine humanity, to reach toward a future for all–a place of peace and social justice. Teachers as leaders must be able to examine ethical situations from many perspectives. The consequences of every choice must be considered. Considering how one might feel in a given situation can help understanding of perspectives. Conscious reflection needs to be the habit of mind of an ethical leader (Schon, 1983, 1990).

Being ethical is a central quality of an effective educator. There is no place for unethical behavior in our profession. Educator preparation programs have the responsibility to assure that the candidates they place in our Nation’s schools have ethical dispositions. Therefore, we measure ethical behavior and dispositions across multiple assessment tools and triangulate the data to examine our educator candidates’ performance in regards to ethical. Additionally, we have a process of a departmental review when a candidate’s performance in this area comes into question.

Summary Educator preparation programs in the Fitchburg State University Education Unit are built upon a knowledge base that integrates and unifies curriculum, coursework, field experiences, and various other programmatic components and activities constructed to meet licensure requirements in Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Professional Standards, as well as standards established by NCATE, SPAs, and InTASC. Educators’ knowledge and skills in effective instructional practices and motivational techniques are critical to student learning. A highly qualified educator is skillful in selecting approaches and strategies best suited to the content. A highly qualified educator leader has the knowledge and skills to facilitate and lead school progress in these areas.

At Fitchburg State University, we strive to prepare candidates who can meet the current and emerging roles of educators in schools today. They are knowledgeable in the subjects

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 42

that they teach; they serve as models of skillful teaching in the classroom; and they demonstrate caring and ethical behavior in all of their interactions with students, parents, other professionals, and the community. As confident, competent, well-prepared educators, they are trained to become leaders in their profession in two ways: as role models of effective teaching and as leaders in their schools who work to promote effective educational practices for all students.

In order to successfully assess candidates in areas of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, we use a Comprehensive Assessment System, which uses indicators to explicitly define the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the highly qualified educator. Coursework in educator preparation programs at Fitchburg State uses multiple means of assessment, including licensure examinations, portfolios, classroom observation, rubrics, checklists, rating scales, and conferencing so that knowledge, skills and dispositions can be effectively assessed and developed.

The description of the Conceptual Framework and its accompanying knowledge base emphasizes the importance of a body of professional knowledge to be mastered, the active procedures or processes by which candidates master that knowledge, and the strong theoretical and empirical research base underpinning that knowledge base. In building a knowledge base for Fitchburg State University educator preparation programs, we have considered the literature and research from the perspective of leadership. Prompted in part by new bodies of research and in part by changing accreditation standards, we have considered program revisions in the Education Unit (teaching, school guidance counseling, administration) intended to ensure that the burgeoning knowledge base is at the center of the curriculum (Reynolds & Wang, 2002). Developing the knowledge base(s) for the Education Unit required examination of standards specified in NCATE and relevant associations, attention to legislative mandates, consideration of knowledge and skills for 21st century success, and conformity with Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and licensure requirements.

The widespread adoption and implementation of standards-based reform is dramatically altering the definition of “successful practices” and “highly qualified teachers/educators.” While emphasizing content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge, Shulman (1986, 2004, 2005) notes that teachers are members of a scholarly community as well. Our approach rests on the belief that leadership is everyone's work; it transcends role, individual, and formal authority; and applies to all professionals who would influence the direction of our schools and communities toward a shared ideal (Gabriel, 2005; Massachusetts Task Force on the Evaluation of Teachers and Administrators, 2011; NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and partnerships for Improved Student Learning, 2010; Reeves, 2009, 2010; Short & Greer, 2001).

The emphasis of educators’ roles as central figures or leaders in the school improvement process has impacted our preparation programs. These programs are designed with increased attention to personal and professional improvement. A “leadership” mission shapes our content and general pedagogical knowledge base for preparing teachers, school guidance counselors, and school administrators across the domains of the Education Unit.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 43

The leadership mission articulates the importance of pedagogical content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge that guide educators in reflecting on practice and assessing alternative courses of action in teaching, administrating, and counseling.

Through reviews of the knowledge base for effective teaching, derived from empirical research, disciplined inquiry, informed theory, and the wisdom of practice, our University faculty continue to refine the programs of the Education Unit. This work is viewed as essential to our mission of leadership. Based on the standards and the legislative mandates and with the collaboration of our partner constituents, we have identified the knowledge base and codified expectations for the “highly qualified educator.” Fitchburg State has prepared a designated, consistent programmatic core of learning based on standards. Fitchburg State prepares educational practitioners (teachers, school guidance counselors, administrators) for future roles as educational leaders through a course of study that bases practice upon knowledge of current research in curriculum and instruction and the developmental needs of a diverse student body.

Improvement-oriented research has a strong and enduring tradition in public education. Evidence has been gathered on self-improvement and capacity building as part of the educational leadership theme. ESEA, InTASC, NCATE and Massachusetts accountability measures assume that schools will have the ability to maintain standards of high quality and measures of student performance—performances that are already satisfactory—while improving those that are not—a continuous improvement model. The Education Unit prepares educators who understand (in context of a school setting) the means of conducting/initiating solid continual improvement strategies while facilitating organizational structures and support arrangements that are effective. It is this capacity for building (cf Dewey, Klausmeier) that guarantees an enduring “Educator as Leader” theme for Fitchburg State University’s educators—educator leaders who are knowledge, skillful, caring, and ethical.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 44

ASSOCIATION ABBREVIATIONS

ACEI Association for Childhood Education International

AERA American Education Research Association

APA American Psychological Association

CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers

CEC Council for Exceptional Children

CTTE Council on Technology Teacher Education

CORS Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools

DESE Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

EIE Engineering is Elementary

ELCC Educational Leadership Constituent Council

ETS Educational Testing Service

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ESEA

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act

GAO United States Government Accountability Office

IEL Institute for Educational Leadership

InTASC Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium

IRA International Reading Association

IRT Institute for Research on Teaching

ISLLC Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium

ISTE International Society for Technology in Education

ITEEA International Technology and Engineering Educators Association

LEA Local Education Authority

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 45

NAGC National Association of Gifted Children

NAEYC National Association for the Education of Young Children

NBPTS National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

NCATE National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

NCLB No Child Left Behind

NCRTE National Center for Research on Teacher Education

NCRTL National Center for Research on Teacher Learning

NCSS National Council for the Social Studies

NCTAF National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

NCTE National Council of Teachers of English

NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

NEA National Education Association

NMSA/ National Middle School Association (now Association for Middle Level AMLE Education)

NPBEA National Policy Board for Educational Administration

NRC National Research Council

NSDC National Staff Development Council

NSTA National Science Teachers Association

PARCC Partnership for Assesment of Readiness of College and Careers

RTTT Race to the Top

SEA State Educational Agency

SPA Specialized Professional Associations

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 46

References Cited

Ackerman, R., & Mackenzie, S. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 66-70.

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education & Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Washington, DC: Author. . [Online] Available: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/aacte_p21_whitepaper2010.pdf

Armstrong, J., & Anthes, K. (2001). Identifying the factors, conditions, and policies that support schools’ use of data for decision making and school improvement: Summary of Findings. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Armstrong, T. (2006). The best schools: How human development research should inform educational practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ayers, W. (1998). Teaching as an ethical enterprise. The Educational Forum, 63(1), 52-57.

Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenges for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.

Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeicher, K., LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., & Duffy, H. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In Linda Darling Hammond (Ed.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232 -274). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Barnes, H. (1989). Structuring knowledge for beginning teaching. In Maynard Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon Press.

Barth, R. S. (1991). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John & Sons.

Barth, R. S., & Meir, D. (2004). Learning by heart. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, Johns & Sons.

Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.

Bernard, B. (2003). Turnaround teachers and schools. In B. Williams (Ed.), Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and practices (pp. 115-137). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Berry, B., & The Teacher Solutions 2030 Team. (2011). What we must do for our students and our public schools now and in the future. New York: Teachers College Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Civic Education for Responsible Citizens. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 4-7.

Brodhagan, S., & Gorund, S. (2005). Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity. In T. O. Erb (Ed.), This We Believe in action (pp. 113- 126). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 47

Brubacher, J. W., Reagan, T. G., & Case, C. W. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to build inquiry in the schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. P. (2001). Developing a teacher portfolio: A Guide for preservice and practicing teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2001). Teachers for a new era: A national initiative to improve the quality of teaching. New York: Author.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2006). Teachers for a new era: Transforming teacher education. New York: Author.

Carr, N. (2011). The juggler’s brain. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(4), 8-14.

Chen, W. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of achieving the beginning teacher standards inventory. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(3), 285-304.

Cibulka, J. (2000). Teacher education and practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, College of Education.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Multicultural education: Solution or problem for American schools? Journal of Teacher Education, 5(2), 91-93.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher researcher movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.

Coiro, J., & Fogleman, J. (2011). Using Websites Wisely. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 34- 38.

Collier, M. D. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher efficacy. The Urban Review, 37(4), 351-359.

Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? Should they be? The Use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. [Online] Available: http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/valueAddedReport.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008, As Adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Washington, DC: Author. [Online] Available: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standar ds_2008.pdf

Crealock., C., & Sitko, M. (1990). Comparison between computer and handwriting technologies in writing training with learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 5(2), 173-183.

Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (2011). The act of teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Cruz, B., & Patterson, J. M. (2005). Cross-cultural simulations in teacher education: Developing empathy and understanding. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(2), 40-47.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 48

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to "Teacher Certification Reconsidered.” In G. Glass (Ed.) Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36), 1-55. [Online] Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/315/411

Darling-Hammond. L. (2010a). Performance counts: Assessment systems that support high quality learning. Washington, DC: CCSSO.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). Teacher education and the American Future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The Role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). [Online] Available: http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/beyond-basic-skills- role-performance-assessment-achieving-21st-century-standards-learning_3.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John, & Sons.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy, B. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use data to improve instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing elementary systems use data to improve student achievement. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.

Davidson, E. J. (2003, November). Some specifics about evaluation-specific methodology: Importance determination. Presented at the meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Reno, NV.

Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P., & Kington, A. (2006). Variations in the work and lives of teachers: Relative and relational effectiveness. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 169-192.

Denton, P. (2007). Power of Our Words: Teacher Language That Helps Children Learn. Turner Falls, MA: Northwest Foundation for Children.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (revised ed. 1982). Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Diamond, J. B., & Cooper, K. (2007). The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 241–63.

Ding, C., & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining

the relationships. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 39-49.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 49

Donaldson, G. (2007). What do teachers bring to leadership? Educational Leadership, 65(1), 26-29.

Duhaney, D., & Duhaney, L. (2000). Assistive technology: Meeting the needs of learners with disabilities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 393-401.

Edleman, G. M. (2006). Second nature: Brain science and human knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Educational Testing Service. (2000). Linking the new standards to practice. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Eisner, E. (1998). The kinds of schools we need: Personal essays (1st ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Eisner, E. (2001). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan College Publishing Division.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Epstein, J. L. (2005). School-initiated family and community partnerships. In T. O. Erb (Ed.), This We Believe in action (pp. 77-96). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Erikson, E. H. (1986). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.

Erlauer, L. (2003). The Brain-Compatible Classroom: Using what we know about learning to improve teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fernstermacher, G. D. (1990). Moral considerations on teaching as a profession. In J. Goodlad, R. Soder & K. Sirotnik (Eds.), The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Fontana Press.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York: Basic Books.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 50

Gay, G. (2004). Curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J. Banks, Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.) (pp. 25-43). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 673-683.

Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution (Brown Center on Education Policy). [Online] Available: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/11/17-evaluating-teachers

Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Is it just a bad class? Assessing the stability of measured teacher performance. CEDR Working Paper #2010-3. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. [Online] Available: http://www.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202010- 3_Bad%20Class%20Stability%20(8-23-10).pdf

Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Grimmett, P., & MacKinnon, A. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. In G.

Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education, 18, (pp. 385-465). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Grossman, P., Wilson, S., & Shulman, L. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Gutek, G. L. (2001a). Historical and philosophical foundations of education: A biographical introduction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gutek, G. L. (2001b). Historical and philosophical foundations of education: Selected readings (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Haager, D., & Klingner, J. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms: The special educator’s guide. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Handal, G., & Lauvhndas, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching: Supervision in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Hassel, E., & Hassel, B. (2009). 3X for all: Extending the reach of education’s best. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact. [Onlineerb] Available: http://www.publicimpact.com/images/stories/3x_for_all_2010-final.pdf

Hebert, B. M., & Murdock, J. Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(3), 136-141.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 51

Hernandez Sheets, R. (2005). Diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the teaching-learning process. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Hillman, S. J., & Rothermel, D. (2006). The assessment of pre-service teachers’ dispositions. The Teacher Educator, 41(4), 234-251. DOI: 10.1080/08878730609555386

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2011). High-tech cruelty. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 48-52.

Hoover, J. (2009). Differentiating learning differences from disabilities: Meeting diverse needs through multi-tiered response to intervention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hopfenberg, W., & Levin, H. (1993). The Accelerated School resource book. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher- researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision-making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258-1287.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). The ISTE NETS and performance indicators for teachers (NETS•T). [Online] Available: http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS-T_Standards.sflb.ashx

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2009). The ISTE NETS and performance indicators for administrators (NETS•A). [Online] Available: http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS-A_Standards.sflb.ashx

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). Standards for global learning in the digital age. [Online] Available: http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2011, April). InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. [Online] Available: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standard s_2011.pdf

Jacob, B., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101-36. Council of Chief State School Officers

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, E. (2008, June). Brain-based learning: How does what we know about the brain inform us about student learning? [Keynote address]. Creative Learning Exchange Conference.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Ask systems: Interrogative access to multiple ways of thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1).

Jones, W. P., & Kottler, J. A. (2006). Understanding research: Becoming a competent and critical consumer. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 52

Jukes, I., McCain, T., & Crockett, L. (2011). Education and the role of the educator in the future. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(4), 15-21.

Klausmeier, H. (1990). Four decades of calls for reform of teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17(4), 23-64.

Klausmeier, H. (1990). The Wisconsin Center for Education Research: Twenty-five years of knowledge generation and educational improvement. Madison, WI: Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.

Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2007). What every middle school teacher should know (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kolb, L. (2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 39-43.

Koopman Logas, B. (2011). From Socrates to Wikis: Using online forums to deepen discussions. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(4), 24-27.

Kotter, J. P. (2006). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kuecke, R. (2004). Coaching and mentoring: How to develop top talent and achieve stronger performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lashway, L. (2003). Role of the school leader: Trends and Issues. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479933).

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.

Leithwood, K., Louise, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004, September). How leadership influences student learning. Report commissioned by the Wallace Foundation. [Online] Available: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school- leadership/key-research/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student- Learning.pdf

Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003, April). What do we already know about successful school leadership? Paper prepared for AERA Division A Task Force on Developing Research in Educational Leadership.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 50-59.

MacArthur, C. A., Haynes, J. A., Malouf, D. B., Harris, K., & Owings, M. (1990). Computer assisted instruction with learning disabled students: Achievement, engagement, and other factors that influence achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research ,6(3), 311-328.

Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 53

three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Martin, B. (2007). Teacher leaders: Qualities and roles. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 30(4), 17-18.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1999-2011). Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. Malden, MA: Author.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). Assistive technology guide for Massachusetts schools. Malden, MA: Author.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012). The Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation: Part II: School-Level Planning and Implementation Guide. Malden, MA: Author.

Massachusetts Task Force on the Evaluation of Teachers and Administrators. (2011, March). Building a breakthrough framework for educator evaluation in the Commonwealth. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Mayeroff, M. (1972). On caring. New York: Perennial Books.

McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2006). Understanding and evaluating educational research. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118-131.

Murphy, J. (2003). Developing standards for school leadership development. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), The changing landscape of educational leadership development (pp. 69-83). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets-Zeitlinger.

Murray, F. (2000). Accreditation reform and the preparation of teachers for a new century. Invitational Conference of the Laboratory for Student Success. Philadelphia: Temple University Laboratory for Student Success.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: Author. [Online] Available: http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 54

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. [Online] Available: http://datacenter.spps.org/sites/2259653e-ffb3-45ba-8fd6- 04a024ecf7a4/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at-Risk_1983.pdf

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2011). NCATE Glossary. [Online] Available: http://ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/NCATEGlossary/tabid/477/De fault.aspx

National Education Association. (2007). Cultural abilities resilience effort: Strategies for closing the achievement gap (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Education Association. [Online] Available: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/mf_CAREbook0804.pdf

National Middle School Association (now Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE)).

(2001). AMLE Standards on Middle Level Teacher Preparation. [Online] Available: http://amle.org/ProfessionalPreparation/AMLEStandards/tabid/374/Default.asp x

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2011). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Online] Available: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853&page=1

National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound practice. Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.

NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: NCATE.

Newmann, F. (1994). School-wide professional community. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387925).

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman.

Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? Educational Leadership, 60(9), 15-18.

Niguidula, D. (2005). Documenting learning with digital portfolios. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 44-47.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 55

Parette, P., & McMahan, G. (2002). What should we expect of assistive technology? Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), p. 56-61.

Parker Boudett, K., Murnane, R. J., City, E., & Moody, L. (2005). Teaching educators how to use student assessment data to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 700- 706.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. (2012). [Online] Available: http://www.parcconline.org/

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Washington, DC: Author. [Online] Available: http://p21.org/storage/documents/1. p21_framework_2-pager.pdf

Peterson, J. L. (2007). Learning facts: The brave new world of data-informed instruction. Education Next, 7(1), 36-42.

Petrides, L. A. (2006). Using data to improve instruction. T H E Journal, 33(9), 33-7.

Polk, J. A. (2006). Traits of effective teachers. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(4), 29.

Powell, S. D. (2010). Introduction to middle school (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Purcell, M. (2011). Digital portfolios: A valuable teaching tool. School Library Monthly, 27(6), 21-22.

Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 251-281.

Reed, P. R. (2007). A resource guide for teachers and administrators about assistive technology. Madison. WI: Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. [Online] Available: http://www.wati.org/content/supports/free/pdf/ATResourceGuideDec08.pdf

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. B., & Allison, E. (2009). Renewal coaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reynolds, M., & Wang, M. (2002). Secondary sources cited in literacy in America: An encyclopedia of history, theory and practice. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Robertson, P. (2005). Results matter. Technology & Learning, 26(2), 31.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 56

Rockoff, J., Jacob, B., Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2009). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at University of Michigan. [Online] Available: http://closup.umich.edu/files/closup- wp-11-recognize-effective-teacher.pdf

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Joy Zabalap, J. (2005). In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boon (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and education (pp. 507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Rosen, L. (2011). Teaching the iGeneration. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 10-15.

Roth, R. (1996). Standards for certification, licensure, and accreditation. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 242-278). New York: Macmillan.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sanders, W. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well qualified teachers can close the gap. Education Trust, (3)2, 1-15.

Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of TN, Value Added Research Center.

Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M. A., & Gower, R. (2008). Skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills (6th ed.). Carlisle, MA: Research for Better Teaching.

Sapolsky, R. (2005). Stress and cognition. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences III (3rd ed.) (pp. 1031-1043). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Struyven, K., & Gielen, S. (2006). Towards an equilibrium model for creating powerful learning environments. Validation of a questionnaire on creating powerful learning environments during teacher training internships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(4), 471-503. DOI: 10.1080/02619760600944787.

Scherer, M. (2011). Transforming Education with Technology: A Conversation with Karen Cator. Educational Leadership, 68(5),16-21.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John & Sons.

Schram, T. H. (2006). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.

Scriven, M. (1994). Duties of the teacher. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(2), 151–184.

Scriven, M. (1999). The nature of evaluation part I: Relation to psychology. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 6(11). ERIC Reproduction Service No.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 57

ED435710).

Serhan, D. (2009). Preparing pre-service teachers for computer technology integration. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(4), 439-447.

Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (2001). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(6), 951–960.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21(1), 129-135.

Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

Shulman, L. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1987). Final report to the Spencer Foundation. (Knowledge Growth in a Profession Publication Series). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, School of Education.

Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H. M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162-188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Solo, B. (2007). Activating the desire to learn. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1993). Pathways to cultural awareness: Cultural therapy with teachers and students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Springer, M. G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V., Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D., Pepper, M., & Stecher, B. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the project on incentives in teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University.

Stefkovich, J. A., & Begley, P. T. (2007). Conceptualizing ethical school leadership and defining the best interests of students. Journal of Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 35(2), 205-225.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N. Coleangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 43-53). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Strauch, B. (2003). The primal teen: What the new discoveries about the teenage brain tell us about our kids. New York: Doubleday.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 58

Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John, & Sons.

Sweller, J. (2009). Cognitive basis of human creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 11-19.

Taranto, G., Dalbon, M., & Gaetano, J. (2011). Academic social networking brings Web 2.0 technologies to the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 42(5), 12-19.

Taylor, R. L., & Wasicsko, M. M. (2000, November). The dispositions to teach. Paper presented at the Annual Southern Regional Association of Teacher Education Conference, Lexington, KY.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 5-9. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Trilling, B. (2010). 21st Century middle schools: What does success really mean? Middle Ground, 13(4), 8-11.

Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009a). Student achievement: Schools use multiple strategies to help students meet academic standards, especially schools with higher proportions of low-income and minority students (GAO Report No. 10-18). Washington, DC: Author.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009b). Teacher quality: Sustained

coordination among key federal education programs could enhance state efforts to improve teacher quality. Report to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Author.

Usdan, M. (2002, Winter). The Institute for Educational Leadership: Reactions to papers commissioned by National Commission for the Advancement of Education Leadership. AERA Division: A Newsletter School Leadership News, 4-5.

van Daal, V. H. P., & Reitsma, P. (1993, September). The use of speech feedback by normal and disabled readers in computer-based reading practice. Reading and Writing, 5(3), 243-259.

Fitchburg State University Education Unit Conceptual Framework Page 59

Vannest, K. J., Burke, M. D., Payne, T. E., Davis, C. R., & Soares, D. A. (2011). Electronic progress monitoring of IEP goals and objectives. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 40-51.

Vatterott, C. (2007). Becoming a middle level teacher: The student focused teaching of early adolescents. Boston: McGrall Hall.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 64(6), pp. 28-33.

von Tetzchner, S., Rogne, S. O., & Lilleeng, M. K. (1997). Literacy intervention for a deaf child with severe reading disorder. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(1), 25-46.

White, S. (2005). Beyond the numbers: Making data work for teachers and school leaders. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Examining the teaching life. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 26-29.

Wilson, J. H. (2006). Predicting student attitudes and grades from perceptions of instructor’s attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 91-95.

Wise, A. (2000). Teacher quality, teacher effectiveness: Basing education policy on the facts. The CEIC Review, (9)12, 3, 26-27.

Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wormeli, R. (2001). Meet me in the middle: Becoming an accomplished middle-level teacher. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Xin, J. R, & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2001(1), 87-103.

Yinger, R. (1999). The role of standards in teaching and teacher education. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 85-113). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Zigmond, N. (1995). When students fail to achieve satisfactorily: A reply to McLenkey and Waldron. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 303-306.