|
IMPACTING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people. . . . We have, in effect been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament . A Nation at Risk Background In 1983, following the publication of A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education and surrounded by growing concerns about the lack of quality educational preparation of America's young people, the United States began to rethink its educational systems and to face the challenges of the future. Fundamental to these challenges was identification of underlying factors contributing to success or lack of success of schools and students. President George Bush called an Education Summit in 1989 to examine issues and problems associated with academic achievement in public schools. The publication that came about from this summit, The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners, provided a foundation of six expansive goals for what are now the national content standards. In 1990, the National Education Goals were outlined in Bush’s State of the Union speech. Congress then responded by creating the National Education Goals Panel followed by the establishment of the National Council on Education Standards and Testing.Together, this panel and council were directed to look at American education and to determine what should be taught, what students should know, and how they should be assessed. From the efforts of these two groups, national teacher organizations from a variety of content areas began to seek standards for their own fields. The Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in 1989 was the first standards document to be developed. This document became a model for those education groups that soon followed. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, signed into law by president Bill Clinton on March 31, 1994, further delineated goals for America’s students. Additionally, Goals 2000 specifies that teachers will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills as well as opportunities to acquire knowledge necessary to instruct and prepare students for the new century. Recently, guidelines have been written by the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) that can be used by teachers and administrators to judge their own professional development programs in regard to the programs’ potential to positively impact student and teacher performance. The NSDC suggests that quality professional development programs should:
If professional development should indeed attempt to meet the characteristics put forth by the NSDC, the days of teachers taking notes during “sit and get” lectures or spending the afternoon in a simplistic “make and take” workshop are behind us. So then, what should quality professional development look like? An Example of a Quality Professional Development Program Every two weeks from mid-January and throughout the summer of the year 2000, teams of teachers from seven schools located in three North Texas school districts meet to explore comprehensive arts education. Focusing upon art-based curriculum, the teacher teams (each headed by an art specialist) research and discuss contemporary trends and issues in integrated, art-based curriculum. This research and discussion then relates to development of meaningful units of art-centered study. Taking time to reflect upon their own understandings and working in collaboration with mentors and their peers, these teachers aim to write integrated, rigorous units of study that will be implemented in their schools in the fall 2000 school year. In between these ongoing meetings, teachers regularly meet online at a Discussion Forum where teachers and instructors pose questions for contemplation. Posting questions and comments about curriculum issues assists teachers with thinking through their own understandings and addresses areas of misunderstanding. At the center of this sustained professional development program are works of art. Teachers participating in this program have selected masterworks of art for exploration in relation to interdisciplinary curriculum. These artworks are researched through traditional methods as well as electronically and via collaboration with museum professionals. When the units of study are almost complete, teachers in this program will present their units in the galleries in front of the masterworks. Peer review and use of small group discussions will assist presenters with opportunities to improve instructional strategies and to clarify the objectives and content of their lessons. At the conclusion of this professional development program, teachers will revise their units of study and prepare the units for dissemination to each other’s schools and districts. Teachers will act as peer coaches to other teachers within and beyond their schools. More extensive circulation of the units of study will be provided at a reception to be held at the Texas Art Education Association conference in November in Arlington. Plans are underway to post the units of study in the fall through the NTIEVA website at http://www.art.unt.edu/ntieva under "Curriculum Resources." The guidelines used for this effort are currently online at http://www.art.unt.edu/ntieva/artcurr/guidelines/intro.htm. ConclusionMeeting the needs of teachers means rethinking professional development. One-shot programs that provide little more than an accumulation of required in-service hours or programs unrelated to what a teacher teaches no longer fill the bill. To impact student learning, teacher learning must be addressed. Professional development must be pertinent, current, sustained, and aligned with teaching and learning standards. References National Standards for Staff Development Sparks, D. (1999, June). What teachers should expect from staff development. Education Week.
|