Policy, Professionalization, Privatization, and Performance Assessment: Affordances and Constraints for Teacher Education Programs

148 Pages·2016·1.54 MB·English

by  Theresa J. Gurl

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUCATION
Theresa J. Gurl
Limarys Caraballo
Leslee Grey
John H. Gunn
David Gerwin
Héfer Bembenutty
Policy,
Professionalization,
Privatization,
and Performance
Assessment
Affordances and
Constraints for Teacher
Education Programs
123
SpringerBriefs in Education
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914
Theresa J. Gurl · Limarys Caraballo
Leslee Grey · John H. Gunn
David Gerwin · Héfer Bembenutty
Policy, Professionalization,
Privatization, and
Performance Assessment
Affordances and Constraints for Teacher
Education Programs
1 3
Theresa J. Gurl John H. Gunn
Queens College Queens College
City University of New York City University of New York
Queens, NY Queens, NY
USA USA
Limarys Caraballo David Gerwin
Queens College Queens College
City University of New York City University of New York
Queens, NY Queens, NY
USA USA
Leslee Grey Héfer Bembenutty
Queens College Queens College
City University of New York City University of New York
Queens, NY Queens, NY
USA USA
ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic)
SpringerBriefs in Education
ISBN 978-3-319-29144-4 ISBN 978-3-319-29146-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29146-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016930059
© The Author(s) 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by SpringerNature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
Foreword
Who Decides and Why it Matters
The question, “Who decides who becomes a teacher?” is more accurately divided
into two questions: “Who decides?” and “Who becomes a teacher?” These ques-
tions frame an essential aspect of contemporary education reform, since teacher
preparation programs, however they appear and are enacted, will determine the
characteristics and nature of the profession. Exploring who decides who becomes
a teacher requires recognition of sociocultural realities, such as how the teach-
ing force is increasingly whiter and wealthier than the students it serves. Race
and poverty represent important, but hardly singular, signifiers of the cultural
dissonances that contribute to continued oppression of learners who deserve cul-
turally sustaining instruction. Teacher preparation programs, if they are to fulfill
their transformative potential, must aspire to contribute to an increasingly diverse
teaching population. Investigation of the framing question also necessitates con-
sideration of the notion who decides?; that is, who, or what entity, has the right
and responsibility to determine what conditions ought to correspond to teaching
certification. Traditionally, in the US, certification decisions have been grounded
in the expertise of teacher educators and field partners, and then augmented by
standardized assessments. Until May 2014, accredited teacher preparation pro-
grams in New York State recommended candidates for certification after their
degree requirements were complete, then candidates would fulfill supplemental
state specification to earn certification. Beginning in May 2014, New York State
implemented a mandated performance assessment meant to be completed during
student teaching—a performance assessment called edTPA that had been devel-
oped at Stanford and was distributed and scored by Pearson. Currently, New York,
Washington, Illinois, and Georgia require edTPA for certification.
That a standardized assessment would influence certification is not new, but the
influence of the assessment on the student teaching experience, the related effects
on program curriculum, and the outsourcing of the scoring process, coupled with
required proprietary restrictions, marked a new level of control over decisions about
who gets certified. Decades of research demonstrate that standardized assessments
v
vi Foreword
reproduce privilege (Au 2008); moreover, an anonymous evaluation can under-
mine the relationships that are essential to the development of critical disposi-
tions. Relationships are built on mutual vulnerability and trust, and student teachers
whose culminating projects are submitted to an anonymous scorer are initiated into
a culture of compliance, not critical reflection (Madeloni and Gorlewski 2012).
Why does this matter? Public schools have long served numerous, often con-
flicting purposes. They are sites of assimilation and resistance, of reproduction
and transformation, of oppression and freedom. Teachers, as public servants, are
simultaneously agents of the state and agents of change. From these conditions
emerge substantial questions: How can teachers enact conflicting positions? When
stakeholders’ interests conflict, whose are paramount (those of learners, commu-
nity members, or political leaders)? As the field of education becomes increasingly
technical, how can programs prepare teachers to navigate ever-changing seas?
The complicated nature of this endeavor is clear. One of the greatest challenges
for teachers is to prepare students to live in—to succeed in—a world that does
not yet exist. In fact, in a democracy we must prepare them to participate in the
creation of that world. Consequently, teacher educators must seek to prepare can-
didates to prepare their future students for this approaching reality—a world that
they must imagine and construct, simultaneously. Teaching is an intensely social,
dialogic endeavor. Effective teaching involves an understanding of the dynamic
contexts in which cultures are produced and consumed, as well as an apprecia-
tion of how educational institutions and the people within them participate in these
processes. Educational institutions should strive to model aspirational values:
equity, excellence, opportunity, and diversity. Educators are charged to balance the
extremes of equity and excellence to expand opportunities for all learners.
The role of educators is to create structures in which learning opportunities are
maximized. As lifelong scholars, teachers must acquire and continually expand a
repertoire of research-based, developmentally appropriate practices so they can
create objectives, procedures, and assessments that align to inform further instruc-
tion. Good teaching centers on optimizing learning opportunities in a structured
environment. The balance between opportunities (freedom/choice) and structure
(limits) shifts depending on the characteristics of the content and the needs of the
learners. Pedagogical practices must reflect a solid understanding of the cogni-
tive, emotional, linguistic, social, moral and motivational development of learners;
instructional approaches should be grounded in empirical knowledge from a vari-
ety of disciplines.
Promoting the success of all learners requires activation of both equity and
integrity. In order to provide an environment committed to equal opportunity,
diversity and fairness must be highly valued. High levels of trust, built through
integrity, are fundamental to this achievement. In a learning community, everyone
is responsible to participate as both teacher and learner. All members of the learn-
ing community are entitled to a voice, and each member must know that his or
hers will be recognized and heard.
Good teaching involves developing goals, priorities, strategies and assessment
plans that meet learners where they are and enable them to grow and develop.
Foreword vii
Teaching requires reflection, critical thinking, dedication to ongoing scholarship,
and the willingness to uncover and question assumptions. Educators must prepare
students for an anticipated world as we seek to construct spaces for justice in a
society that is not always just. Teaching is that simple and that complex.
In contrast, a technical perspective of teaching obliterates the political nature
of teaching, as well as the significance of relationships in the teaching-learning
process. It signals and reinforces a focus on individualism and scarcity, rather than
collectivity and abundance. Moreover, educators who participate uncritically in
technical assessment activities become disciplined by the institutional and social
structures that reinforce the status quo, rather than transformation (Dimitriadis and
Hill 2012).
One way to address the negative effects of accountability-oriented assumptions
about teaching and learning is to reframe our thinking about accountability and
assessment, erasing a model of individualism and scarcity and applying a model
of connectivity and abundance. That is, educators must consciously work to iden-
tify areas of commonality and value, rather than assuming that learners are some-
how lacking in knowledge and skills. “Deficit thinking,” in which some people or
groups are perceived as deficient, reinforces inequalities. Furthermore, individu-
alism and competition undermine collectivity and solidarity. In terms of edTPA,
individualism and competition are reinforced in the processes of submission, scor-
ing, and reporting of results. Connectivity, collectivism, and engagement associ-
ate with intellect and activism, in contrast to intelligence and technical expertise
related to “best practices.”
As Maxine Greene argued, there is no single best practice; rather, there are
many best practices. Moreover, Greene reminded us that “Teachers who are con-
sciously and reflectively choosing themselves as participants in school renewal are
being challenged to clarify their beliefs and (more and more often) to defend their
practices” (1997, n.p.). She challenges teachers to engage with the communities
wherein they work, enacting “pedagogies of hope” (Freire 1995) in order to “exist
proactively in the world” (Greene 1997). Engulfed in exhortations for more and
increasingly empirical forms of accountability, critical public educators must enact
dual perspectives; like public school teachers, they are simultaneously agents of
the state and agents of change. Freire’s concept of conscientization requires an
understanding that humans “exist in and with the world” (p. 39); central to this
understanding is the notion that humans exist among others. Our existence with
the world emphasizes our ability to “gain objective distance from it,” which allows
us to create conditions with transformative possibilities. edTPA, by privileging
“objectivity,” erases the necessity of the duality of understanding. We must live in
the world in order to be able to “gain objective distance from it.” Objectivity with-
out context is partial and incomplete.
The field of education today is undergoing reform initiatives focusing on
accountability and standardization. Accountability measures emphasize indi-
vidual responsibility and achievement. They link student test scores to teacher
effectiveness and, for teacher candidates in states that have adopted, have placed
increased attention on individual performance on certification assessments such
viii Foreword
as edTPA—which negates collectivity both in the development of the portfolio
as well as in its scoring. Standardization involves meeting a common benchmark
of achievement based on authorized set of criteria. The twin pillars of individual
accountability and standardized conformity work to reinforce behaviors consistent
with the “understanding of consciousness as passive copy of reality” (Freire 2000,
39) that undermines collectivity and conscientization. Participating in the certifica-
tion process as a subject who merely seeks to conform involves being in the world
without necessarily being with the world. Development of critical consciousness
that enables teacher candidates and teacher educators to consider our experiences
in light of their transformative potential is essential if educators are to be agents of
change. Absent critical consciousness, the false dichotomy of compliance/resist-
ance is perpetuated. Conscientization allows for the emergence of a more compli-
cated teacher identity, one that involves the dual approach of critical compliance
and reflective resistance. Such a dual stance enables educators to comply without
passivity, and to resist without rejecting possibilities for transformation.
The authors of this book lay fundamental groundwork for educators and poli-
cymakers to engage in dialogue around critical issues that are changing our social
landscape. By addressing intersections among professionalization, policy, pri-
vatization, and performance assessment, this book integrates political, personal,
social, and educational implications, thereby exploring and exposing uncharted
territory. The map this important text draws is multifaceted and complex; repre-
sentations shift kaleidoscopically as perspectives rotate, but the ultimate depiction
offers indispensable sense of how contemporary conditions are shaping tomor-
row’s teachers.
Julie Gorlewski
State University of New York, New Paltz
References
Au, W. (2008). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of
inequality. New York, New York: Routledge.
Dimitriadis, G., & Hill, M.L. (2012). Accountability and the contemporary
intellectual [Electronic Version]. Occasional Papers, 27, 9–11. Retrieved from ban
kstreet.edu/occasionalpapers/27edTPA State Policies Overview. Retrieved from
https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid 1014&ref edtpa.
= =
Freire, P. (2000). Cultural action for freedom. Boston MA: Harvard
Educational Review.
Madeloni, B., & Gorlewski, J.A. (2013, Summer). “The Wrong Answer to the
Wrong Question: Why we need critical teacher education, not standardization.”
Rethinking Schools, 16–21.
Contents
1 Crisis, Revolution, Reform, and edTPA
in the Context of Teacher Education ............................ 1
References .................................................. 6
2 Historical Context of Teacher Assessment and Evaluation .......... 9
Educational Reform and Teacher Performance Assessments:
A Historical Perspective ....................................... 12
The Impact of National and International Studies on Policy
in the U.S.: Toward Performance Assessment
in Teacher Education .......................................... 16
Issues in Connection to the Performance Assessment of Teachers ....... 19
Connections to Research ....................................... 22
References .................................................. 23
3 The Intersection of Professionalization, Policy, Performance
Assessment, and Privatization as a Conceptual Frame
in Teacher Education ........................................ 29
Professionalization of Teacher Education .......................... 30
Professionalization and Performance Assessments ................... 34
Performance Assessment and Teacher Education .................... 35
Policy and Privatization in Teacher Education ...................... 37
References .................................................. 41
4 Professionalization, Policy, Performance Assessment
and Privatization in Mathematics .............................. 45
What Does a “Typical” Mathematics Lesson Look
Like in the U.S.? ............................................. 47
What Should Mathematics Teaching Look Like? .................... 48
What Are the Tensions Between the Two Views? .................... 48
A Brief History of the Reform Effort in Mathematics Education
and Its Impact on Current Policy ................................. 50
ix