In 1970 the baby boom bulge was in full bloom and there was a national teacher shortage. Recruiters from all over the United States visited the University of Iowa campus with employment contracts in their pockets. By May 1, I held contracts from three school districts in three different states – the choice of where to begin my career as an educator was mine. I would graduate in June with teaching licenses for secondary English/language arts and social studies and was prepared to coach wrestling and baseball. I had the teaching tools that were heavily sought by school districts.
What tools would these have been? The first tool was being licensed, in two subject areas and the capacity to teach a cross-discipline assignment, in a subject(s) that matched employer needs. The fact that the Iowa School of Education was highly respected embellished this tool. Further, I was fortunate in being trained by two outstanding professors, John Haefner, nationally known in the social studies, and Barbara Olmo, one of the first practitioners of inquiry-based pedagogy. Thanks to their preparation, I was confident in my ability to design and deliver instruction.
I owed a second tool to Dr. Olmo. She was insistent in that quality instructional design begins with an assessment of student learning first, very predictive of the backward design espoused by Grant Wiggins’ Understanding by Design. This is a super tool! According to Dr. Olmo, “Thou shall not test before a child is ready to pass the test. If not ready, keep teaching.” And, “Assessment must be in the same mode as the instruction.” It sounded like a Paul Masson wine add, but it was a key to effective and efficient assessments.
There are teacher characteristics that are not teaching tools, yet have historically been placed in a teacher’s professional file as if they are significant. Often times, these characteristics are treated as if they are tools. Many non-teachers like and have empathy for children. Non-educators can manage student behavior and create an orderly classroom conducive for learning, participate in staff meetings and professional development activities, and obtain advanced degrees through graduate studies. I like these characteristics and they add value to a teacher’s professional life, but they are not necessary for causing all children to learn a continuously complex and diverse curriculum of content, skills and thinking processes.
In 2013 two tools are not enough. It is overly simple to say that the requirements for being a teacher have changed. Teacher effectiveness is the topic of national and state-based studies and discussions. Interestingly, effectiveness is no longer a subject for educators and educational organizations; it is a political football being kicked by many players.
The Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness initially attached Charlotte Danielson’s A Framework for Teaching as a template for teaching practices.
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
- Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
- Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
- Setting Instructional Outcomes
- Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
- Designing Coherent Instruction
- Designing Student Assessments
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
- Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
- Establishing a Culture for Learning
- Managing Classroom Procedures
- Managing Student Behavior
- Organizing Physical Space
Domain 3: Instruction
- Communicating with Students
- Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
- Engaging Students in Learning
- Using Assessment in Instruction
- Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
- Reflecting on Teaching
- Maintaining Accurate Record
- Communicating with Families
- Participating in a Professional Community
- Growing and Developing Professionally
- Showing Professionalism
The WI Department of Instruction now is looking at other models, as well as Danielson. I like and have used the Danielson template. However, one of the faults of conceptualizing a new description of teacher tools is a constant look back at descriptors of the past. Teaching in the next decade cannot be conceived of as being in a classroom or with a class of children. Teaching tools need to be applicable anywhere, with any learners, and with non-traditional parameters. Consequently, the teaching tools I describe will not be “placed.”
I start with the two essential tools of the 70s.
Highly knowledgeable of a subject area content and the thinking processes inherent in that subject area (70s)
Skillful in the cycle of assessment for learning, instructional design, instructional delivery, and assessment of learning (70s)
These two tools can get you started, but teachers need the next three to complete their work of causing all children to learn.
Conceptualizes and connects appropriate instructional designs to the learning needs of a diverse array of children, including motivation for learning, reinforcement, retention and transfer of learning, extension of learning, and readiness for future learning.
Evaluates ineffective as well as effective learning and designs multiple reteaching strategies to extinguish incorrect and inappropriate learning to replace it with correct and appropriate learning.
Communicates learning needs and learning results to parents, significant adults and other professional educators and involves others in enacting the teacher’s instructional design.
My experience as a principal and superintendent working with thousands of teachers tells me that most teachers present one, two or three of these tools when they are hired to their first assignment. Now and again, a four-tool candidate sits with you and you pray that you don’t do anything to cause this person to reject your a job offer that wants to leap from your lips. The work facing educational leadership is assisting teachers with some tools to grow more tools; to help good teachers to become better teachers and better teachers to become elite teachers.
In the next blogs, I will discuss strategies for growing teacher tools.