Social Justice in Education: Diversity, Equity, Citizenship

Transcription

Washington State Kappan
a journal for research, leadership, and practice
Spring 2015, v9#1
©2015 Washington State Kappan
PDK State Board Members
Angela Walmsley, President
Mark Clements, Secretary
Eric Hougan, Treasurer
Setsuko Buckley, Foundation
Wendy Ghiora, Membership
Antony Smith, Journal
Sue Barnam, FEA Laision
J. Patrick Naughton
Editorial Board
(listed alphabetically)
Kelly Bay-Meyer
College Success Foundation
Marisa Bier
Seattle Teacher Residency
Mimi Brown
Issaquah School District
Michael Brown
Northeast Washington ESD
Phyllis Bunker Frank
Education Policy Analyst
Dana Keller
Napavine School District
Hilary Loeb
Puget Sound ESD
Anne Reece
Highline School District
Gene Sharratt
Washington Student Achievement
Council
Antony Smith
University of Washington Bothell
Angela Walmsley
PDKWA President
CONTENTS
Message from the Editor
3
Message from the President
4
Commentary
5
Commentary - Grade Inflation: A Social Justice Issue
7
Antony Smith
Angela Walmsley
Pamela Bolotin Joseph
Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Sensoy
Student Perceptions of Social Justice
in Ukrainian Higher Education
12
Spotlight on the Road Map Project English Language
Learner Action Plan and Implementation Tool Kit
19
Using a CORE Cohort Model to Close the Achievement
Gap for Underserved Ninth Grade Students
23
The Principal Preparation Inventory and Its Contribution
to the Growth of Educational Leadership Candidates’
Capacity in Working with ELL Students
30
Thinking About Thinking About Learning: A Student
Teacher’s Reflection on Student Voice, Metacognition, and
Authenticity
36
Announcements from PDKWA
42
Nataliia Borysenko and Petro Borysenko
Roxana Norouzi and Hilary Loeb
Jebadiah Lillejord and Jeremy Delamarter
Dr. Tiffany Wright, Ed.D. and Dr. Cheryl T. Desmond, Ph.D.
and Ms. Sara Sharkey
Lucie Kroschel
Call for Autumn 2015 Issue
WA State Kappan Copyeditor
Cate Foster
Production
Laurie Hook
Journal Sponsors
University of Washington Bothell
School of Educational Studies
Goodlad Institute for Educational
Renewal
Message from the Editor
Welcome to the Spring 2015 issue of Washington
State Kappan, sponsored in part by the University of
Washington Bothell School of Educational Studies
and the Goodlad Institute for Educational Renewal.
This issue, “Social Justice in Education: Diversity,
Equity, Citizenship” explores issues of social justice
across diverse contexts of education. This issue
begins with a guest commentary by Pamela Bolotin
Joseph, who takes a critical look at the purposes
of schooling, asserting that schools are far much
more than just training a workforce for tomorrow. As
she notes, “…training is such a narrow concept of
education. After all, we train roses to grow straight
on a trellis, bodies to lift weights, and pets to heel
on a leash.” She urges us to think more deeply and
purposefully about schooling in the United States.
Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo provide a
second commentary, “Grade Inflation: A Social
Justice Issue,” a thought-provoking piece on college-course grade inflation from a social justice
perspective. They begin by asking, “What happens
when professors grade White, middle class students
honestly? That is, what happens when we grade our
students according to an actual assessment of their
academic abilities?”
In the third piece, “Student Perceptions of Social
Justice in Ukrainian Higher Education,” Nataliia and
Petro Borysenko examine college students’ ideas,
perceptions, and thoughts about the theoretical
construct of social justice in Ukraine, a country with
a complex history and a number of current social
and political challenges.
The sixth article considers the issue of student voice
from a student teacher’s perspective. “Thinking
About Thinking About Learning: A Student Teacher’s
Reflection on Student Voice, Metacognition, and
Authenticity” by Lucie Kroschel examines student
voice and the EdTPA in the context of a high school
humanities class.
Overall, this issue explores timely issues and
relevant social justice topics from different points of
view both within and beyond Washington State. Our
next issue, Autumn 2015, with manuscripts due July
15, 2015, will have the focus: “Professional learning
communities: Fostering cultures that strengthen
teaching and learning.” I encourage you to submit a
manuscript and to spread the word to others so that
PDK Washington may continue publishing a relevant
and interesting journal. Please see the call for manuscripts on the last page of this issue.
About the Editor:
Antony T. Smith is Associate Dean
and Associate Professor in the
School of Educational Studies at the
University of Washington Bothell. His
research focuses on content-area
literacy assessment, instruction, and
professional development.
The fourth article, “Spotlight on the Road Map
Project English Language Learner Action Plan and
Implementation Tool Kit,” by Roxana Norouzi and
Hilary Loeb, brings the social justice conversation
to a policy level in Washington State. This article
provides an overview of the Road Map Project to
support ELL students academically, a project that
has been making progress since its initial implementation in 2010.
The fifth piece, by Jebadiah Lillejord and Jeremy
Delamarter, examines an intervention program,
CORE, that aims to support students in underserved populations and help close the achievement
gap. Titled “Using a CORE Cohort Model to Close
the Achievement Gap for Underserved Ninth Grade
Students,” this study used survey methodology and
emerging data to analyze the Core program.
—3—
WASHINGTON STATE KAPPAN
Letter from the President
Hello to my fellow Kappans! I hope you are having a wonderful school year. Many thanks to our editor, Dr.
Antony Smith, on another great production of the Washington State Kappan Journal. I’m very excited to see
this issue published because of the critical articles we have around social justice–an incredibly important
topic in education in the world today.
The next journal issue will be on the topic of professional learning communities. We encourage manuscripts
to be sent to Dr. Antony Smith at journal@pdkwa.org
Please bookmark and continue to visit our website for updates around events and activities in addition to
the publication of the journal. We are planning a Spring Conference and Awards breakfast event on April 11,
2015, at UW Bothell, so mark your calendar. Clock hours will be available for those professionals interested.
Also remember that we have two scholarship awards and an emerging leader and teacher recognition
award available. Information can be found on the website: www.pdkwa.org
We are working hard to increase general membership as well as membership on our board. Please consider
serving on the board; feel free to contact me for details about what we do. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Regards,
Angela L.E. Walmsley, PhD
President, PDKWA 1599
president@pdkwa.org
Dr. Angela Walmsley is the Academic Dean at Northeastern
University–Seattle. Her background includes teaching mathematics
at the middle school and high school level in the United States
and the United Kingdom as well as undergraduate and graduate
education and mathematics courses at the university level. Dr.
Walmsley has been a member of PDK for 11 years, was selected
as a member of the Emerging Leaders class of 2008-2009, served
as Area Director for the State of Missouri, and recently led the PDK
International Study Tour to Dublin and London.
—4—
us, most leaders of industry—and presumably of
government—have no interest in merely training
their own children to be workers.
Commentary
Pamela Bolotin Joseph
The focus of this issue of Washington State Kappan—
Social Justice in Education: Diversity, Equity, Citizenship—is a reminder for us to keep insisting that
schooling means more than teaching our children to
be workers. I know, though, that holding this position
becomes increasingly challenging within the current
political climate. But I’m not thinking just about the
conservative folks who want us to teach the basics
in public schools and not to educate for critical citizenship.
Educational historian Diane Ravitch writes recently
that education policy positions of both major parties
are “interchangeable.” Others note that Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan could have been comfortable working in either party’s administration. For
instance, in an address at the national conference
of the PTA (June, 2014), Duncan says that “the skills
of inquiry and problem solving … will be precious
currency for young people who might change jobs
a dozen or more times throughout their careers.” It
seems that he does not even imagine that inquiry
and problem solving could be abilities for critical citizenship or for improving the world.
For those of us who believe that inquiry and problem
solving can mean more than just preparing for jobs,
we need to scrutinize and challenge both positions
and rhetoric about the purpose of schooling. As
an example, let’s go back to the second inaugural
address of January 2013. After talking about the
need to renew the infrastructure, President Obama
then spoke of the need for “schools and colleges to
train our workers.”
I remember waiting for other words about education.
Would the President refer to schools and colleges
as developing at least some children to become
America’s leaders as had Thomas Jefferson? Would
he mention the importance of educating for critical
thinking and cultivation of morals as had Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr.? Or would President Obama invoke
John Dewey’s belief in the importance of schools for
learning to participate in democracy?
But the President remained silent. His words about
education did nothing more than echo America’s
dominant idea about education to serve the needs of
industry. This was puzzling to me, as most educators
and the many parents I know imagine far more
holistic destinies for their children. Certainly, as educational critic and activist Jonathan Kozol reminds
Of course, an inaugural address is not a speech on
education. But still, it is telling that the one mention
of education underlined the belief that the major
purpose of education is to train workers. Unfortunately, training is such a narrow concept of education.
After all, we train roses to grow straight on a trellis,
bodies to lift weights, and pets to heel on a leash.
Had President Obama’s words been to educate
workers, then at least I could imagine children and
adolescents developing into competent members
of the workforce who not only are highly skilled in
careers but also are informed citizens and individuals who have had the opportunity to fully develop as
human beings.
Yet, there are other ways to characterize the purposes
of education more in line with the themes of the
inaugural address that emanate from progressive,
social reconstructivist, and conservative traditions.
I would greatly prefer any of these to the sole goal
of training workers—although preparing for a career
and gaining the skills to make a good living is in no
way threatened by these alternative curricular orientations.
The inaugural address has been characterized as
progressive. As follows, schools and colleges could
draw from a rich history of progressive education
in which children learn “through occupations.” This
is not a narrow skills-focused vocational training
but fostering engagement in academic knowledge
connected to life outside the school. In the progressive tradition teachers attend to students’ curiosity
so to open doors to learn a vast array of disciplinary
as well as integrated subject areas. This tradition
also involves students experiencing democratic
processes within the realm of the classroom and
school so that they are prepared to become critically
engaged citizens.
Or, since social justice was a strong theme in the
inaugural address, schools and colleges could
identify with the social reconstructivist tradition that
educates students to understand imbalances of
power and privilege, domination, and racism — and
to consider their moral obligations toward each other
and in relationship with all people in this society and
the world. In this tradition, students would gain deep
subject matter learning and develop skills of critical
thinking and reflection. This kind of education
also would be concerned with eco-justice. Global
warming would not be studied as a singular scientific
—5—
phenomenon but within a planetary crisis threatening the wellbeing of human life and the natural world.
And as President Obama also stressed personal
responsibility and fidelity to founding principles,
it would be consistent for schools and colleges to
promote a conservative curricular tradition (ironically,
often called a liberal education) in which students
would gain deep knowledge of the exemplary works
of the humanities, sciences, and mathematics. In
this orientation, students are deeply engaged in
discussion, guided by teachers with expertise in
subject matter and in facilitating discussion for understanding and ethical inquiry. Advocates of liberal
education believe that when students attain deep
understanding of external existential quandaries,
they will become wise human beings, liberated from
living merely by habit and unexamined belief.
About the Author
Pamela Bolotin Joseph is
Senior Lecturer at the University
of Washington Bothell. She
is the editor of Cultures of
Curriculum (Routledge). She
recently received an award from
the University of Washington
Chapter of the American
Association
of
University
Professors for Courage in Pursuit
of Excellence in Washington
State Higher Education.
So, what would I have liked to have heard in the
second inaugural address? Something like this:
In America we must develop and support equitable
schools and colleges that educate all of our children.
Moreover, we must hold a vision of education that is
not narrow but expansive. Our schools and colleges
need to help students to gain vital competencies
needed for sciences, the arts, and industry. But
that is not enough. We must want our children to
gain deep understanding of democracy and critical
knowledge of society, to understand their ethical responsibilities toward one another and to believe that
they can become creative forces for sustaining and
bettering their communities, their country, and the
world.
—6—
Commentary
larger context of the reproduction of social inequality, and
argue that educators committed to fostering social justice
in education must address grade inflation if we want to
further the goals of class and racial equity.
Grade Inflation: A Social Justice Issue
Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Sensoy
After getting my grade for your class a couple of days
ago, I keep going over and over what exactly you
expected out of your…students. I’m questioning who/
what sets the standard for your class....To me, if a
student does/hands in all assignments, misses class
no more than two times, participates during lecture,
takes notes, attentively watches videos, and obviously
observes/notes sociology in his/her life, it would
make sense for that student to receive a respectable
grade—an A. It seems like the work and time that I…
put into this class didn’t create the results that I (or
you) wanted. Personally, I can’t comprehend how my
performance in your class equated to an 87 percent.
(Email from a student who ‘deserved’ an A, as quoted in
Lippman, Bulanda, & Wagenaar, 2009, p. 197)
What happens when professors grade White middle
class students honestly? That is, what happens when we
grade our students according to an actual assessment of
their academic abilities? These abilities include reading
comprehension, writing skills, critical thinking, articulation
of ideas, grasp of nuance and complexity, connecting
concepts, and perspective taking.
As tenured professors in education working in two very
different institutions, we struggle to grade honestly and
resist the pressures of grade inflation—in other words,
to assign grades that represent our actual assessment
of our students’ academic abilities, rather than assigning
them grades that are higher than our assessment but that
(in some cases) help us avoid communications such as
above. Indeed, were we not to succumb to the pressures
of grade inflation, the average grade of our students
would likely land between a C and a D (average to below
average); while Bs and As (above average to excellent)
would be the exceptions. Hallway conversations with
colleagues reveal that this is a struggle for many of us.
So then, why don’t we grade according to an honest
assessment and, more significantly, what is the impact
of not doing so? To be clear, if our assessment was that
every student in our course demonstrated excellent work,
we would be happy to give each of them an A; we do
not believe in grading curves and are not arguing for
curves. We are using the term grade inflation to capture
the common norm of giving students As even when they
do not demonstrate excellent work.
In this essay, we want to position grade inflation is a social
justice issue. To do so, we situate grading within the
Before we proceed, it is worth stating that from a social
justice framework, it is preferred that grades not function
as education’s carrot or stick. As many have argued
convincingly—Alfie Kohn most passionately—a focus on
grades creates and perpetuates an extrinsic motivation
for learning, which can, among other effects, undermine
a love of learning (Kohn, 2002). We recognize that by
focusing on grading, we are in some ways sustaining
attention on an institutional practice that ranks students
hierarchically, and that such rankings are part of the
structures we seek to challenge. Still, many of us choose
to work within the system—despite its constraints—in
order to challenge the system. Traditional grading is one
of those constraints with which we are prepared to work.
We believe that social justice educators working within
higher education must use the system to foster greater
class and racial justice, given that schools are a key
institution that reproduces social inequality. Popular
ideology, however, positions schooling as the “great
equalizer”—regardless of how uneven the playing field
may be at the start of life, a good education (so the story
goes) will level it out. Yet research shows that not all
schools are equal, and not all students receive the same
education or equal access to resources (from textbooks,
to teachers, to equipment). This reality is based in large
part on race and class differences (Oakes, 2005; Johnson
& Shapiro, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Everyday discussions about “good” schools and the racial
coding that underlies these evaluations, the anxiety that
White middle class parents have about which schools
their children attend, and the return to pre-integration
levels of racial segregation in U.S. schools attest to the
uneven playing field. Further, studies have documented
the pressure that White middle class parents put on
teachers to ensure that their children excel (McGraff &
Kuriloff, 1998; Lareau, 2011).
In addition to the K-12 context, the post-secondary
context is race and class coded. A post-secondary
degree has become a more important step to attaining
gainful employment, as a high school diploma no longer
opens the doors it once did. At the same time, a degree is
also becoming less accessible due to rising tuition rates,
fees, and student loan interest rates. The falling rate of
funding to public universities, which are often on the
frontlines of providing support services for first generation
and other marginalized students, intensifies deleterious
consequences for non-traditional students.
—7—
As a result, the division between those who can go on to
pursue a post-secondary degree and those who cannot
is widening. Families whose members already hold
undergraduate and graduate degrees are more likely to
be those who can afford to obtain them for their children.
And the cycle continues.
In education programs across Canada and the United
States, the average student remains White and middle
class (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Ryan, Pollock, &
Antonelli, 2009). Based on the student work that we see,
we often wonder whether the majority of these students
would have gained admission to a higher education
program if their academic abilities had been graded
honestly. And now that they are here, would they be
able to complete their degrees (much less graduate with
honors), as many of them do?
In the following section we examine in greater detail how
grade inflation functions as a social justice issue. We
do so by first considering its relationship to wider social
dynamics that reproduce structural inequalities, and
second, by considering dynamics within the institution of
schooling itself.
Structural Inequality that Reproduces Social
Hierarchies
In addition to unequal school funding, a Eurocentric
curriculum, and racially disparate punishment and
tracking practices, the positive bias of a predominately
White and middle class K-12 teaching force towards
White middle class students has been well documented
(Ryan et al., 2009; Sleeter, 2008). Teachers give the
benefit of the doubt to students they relate to and/or that
fit dominant ideals. Conversely, the negative biases and
stereotypes that White middle class teachers collectively
hold about specific groups of Color prevent them from
relating to those groups. As a result, students of Color
face additional barriers to school success (Francis, 2012;
Lleras & Rangel, 2009; Steele, 1997).
special education over gifted education (Ford, Grantham,
& Whiting, 2008; Kunjufu, 2005; Skiba, Michael, Nardo,
& Peterson, 2002). All of these structural dynamics work
together to favor White middle class students, and to
sort students into very different academic and future life
pathways. The result is that students who enter school
supported by racial, class, and linguistic capital benefit
from the system and are carried along by currents of
privilege at the expense of those who do not.
Forces such as the STPP uphold the twin ideologies of
meritocracy and individualism, making these disparities
appear to be the outcome of fair processes. Yet these
ideologies underlie and obscure structural inequalities.
For example, if we use the line of reasoning that we are
all individuals and that social categories such as race,
class, and gender do not matter and are just “labels” that
stereotype and limit us, then it follows that we all end up
in our own “natural” places: those at the top are merely a
collection of individuals who rose because of their personal
merits, and those at the bottom are there due to personal
deficiencies. Group membership is thereby rendered
irrelevant, and social disparities are seen as the result
of essential character attributes rather than the result of
consistent structural processes. In the exceptional case
of Asian heritage students, who as a group are perceived
to be able to rise to the top of the academic ladder,
successes on their part are used to reinforce the idea
that the system is merit based and colorblind. However,
the stereotypes that teachers hold about Asian heritage
students are not the same as those held about Black,
Latino, and Indigenous students, so the outcome of their
biases will not be the same. Further, the category “Asian”
is a large umbrella; not all Asian heritage students “make
it” (Lee, 2005). As with all students, class, language, and
other forms of cultural capital, as well as teacher biases,
play a powerful role in their educational outcomes.
According to the ideology of individualism, it is either
just a fluke that those at the top (in this case, those who
make it to post-secondary education) happen to be a very
homogenous collection of exceptional individuals, or else
White, middle class students are consistently “the cream
of the crop.” From this perspective, structurally conferred
White privilege could not be a factor, because schools
treat each student as a unique individual with special
gifts, talents, and work ethics, and do not sort according
to race. Individualism and meritocracy are particularly
popular ideologies with White teachers. Yet because
they continually reinforce internalized beliefs about
White students’ inherent superiority, these ideologies are
fundamental to upholding White supremacy (DiAngelo,
2010). Further, these ideologies are reinforced through a
predominately White teaching force that cherishes and
is served by them (Bartolomé, 1994; Gillborn, 2008). As
Consider the School to Prison Pipeline (STPP) and its
relationship to the Prison Industrial Complex targeting
poor Black, Latino, and Indigenous students (Raible &
Irizarry, 2010; Solomon & Palmer, 2004; Sudbury, 2002).
The institutions of schooling and criminal justice work
together to create the STPP through disparities in access
to: quality schooling across school districts; inexperienced
teachers sent to poorer school districts; zero-tolerance
policies; high-stakes testing; harsher punishments for
youth of Color than for Whites for the same infractions;
a predominantly White, middle-class teaching force that
does not understand and often fears Black and Brown
children; and the disproportionate relegation of Black,
Latino, Indigenous, and linguistic-minority youth to
—8—
a result, White middle class teachers expect that their
assessment of their White middle class students is due
to individual merit and not group-level privileges. In turn,
White middle class students see themselves as “the best”
and deserving of, and entitled to, the “As” they expect to
receive from their teachers.
“fit” to receive more work are course evaluations. Thus
the increased institutional reliance on non-tenured labor
to cut costs only ensures more grade inflation (Giroux,
2002; House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
2014; Field, Jones, Karram Stephenson, & Khoyetsyan,
2014).
Pressure Put Upon Educators Within the System
to Reward White Middle Class Students
Everyone is Hurt But Only Some Benefit
There is great pressure on instructors to appease
those who know how to use the system to advocate
for themselves. This pressure comes externally from
students and their parents, and internally from the tenure
and promotion system that connects job security, income,
and career advancement in part to student evaluations.
Sources of student pressure include entitlement, grade
anxiety, the tie between grades and self-worth, fear
of parental disappointment, and perceptions of effort
along with a belief that effort should be the sole basis
of grades (DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2014; Lippman, Bulanda,
& Wagenaar, 2009). For example, when students are
making a case for the grade they believe they should
receive, they often claim that they “worked really hard.”
For these students, showing up to class and handing in
assignments are viewed as evidence of a level of effort
that should we rewarded with an A. This view is perfectly
illustrated in the student email that opens this essay. For
instructors, however, this level of effort qualifies as the
minimum expectation for all students.
Further, because contract renewal, tenure, and promotion
processes depend in large part on student evaluations,
keeping students “happy” in the classroom is a concern,
especially for instructors on temporary contracts
(Redding, 1998). Yet students are seldom equipped to
discern educational value apart from degree of perceived
“entertainment” value; that is, whether or not they
“liked” the course and/or instructor. Fearing poor course
evaluations, many instructors may do what pleases
students and give them more generous grades than they
have earned.
In addition, assessment processes do not account
for instructors’ positionalities (e.g., their race, class,
gender expression, ability). Yet these positionalities
also impact how instructors are viewed and evaluated
by students (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). The weight of
course evaluations in tenure and promotion decisions
puts added pressure on instructors with marginalized
identities to please their students rather than challenge
them. Adjuncts, sessional instructors, or limitedterm lecturers with marginalized status are especially
vulnerable because they are not evaluated on publication,
service, or other types of contributions (Brayboy, 2003);
oftentimes the sole measure of their “effectiveness” and
We understand that the dynamics of grade inflation are not
the fault of our primarily White and middle class students.
Many of them come to us with poorly developed academic
skills because the K-12 school system has, in many ways,
failed them too. Much of this is due to the very structural
inequalities with which we are so concerned. For example,
political and economic pressures on schools to focus on
standardized testing have resulted in moves away from
intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and engagement
with ambiguity, and toward creating conforming
and compliant students who can memorize the right
answers to pass the tests. We do not see our students
as “naturally” lacking in academic skills; we see their
academic challenges as the result of a school system that
crushes the creative intellectual life out of most students
(not to mention many teachers and administrators). Thus
we believe that in general, all students are underserved by
the system. But still, we have to ask: Why do middle class
White students get to be academically mediocre and still
succeed? Why are they able to go on to post-secondary
education regardless of their limitations? Where are the
Indigenous students? Black students? Latino students?
And under what conditions are Asian students allowed to
succeed?
This disparity is profoundly significant from a social
justice perspective because grade inflation has effects
that reach far beyond post-secondary education. A
degree grants our White middle class students with yet
another important piece of social capital. Using the most
conservative data collected globally and drawn from the
OECD’s Report on Education, 31% of adults in the United
States and 27% of the adults in Canada have a (4-5 year)
post-secondary degree. This is below the average for
OECD countries (2013).1 A degree and the elite status it
gives will open many more doors and give their voices
and perspectives much more weight. They will make and
enforce the policies, practices, and hiring decisions that
affect those not at the table, those who have not had the
same opportunities or structurally conferred privileges,
those whose voices are seldom heard. Their privileged
positions and sense of having rightfully earned their places
will make it difficult for them to notice who has been left
out, to assess what hard work really is, and to determine
1. The OECD collects data under the category of Tertiary-type A education
programs in the OECD countries. These programs are defined as theory-based,
requiring usually four or more years, and include 4-year terminal and also second-degree Masters programs. See oecd.org/edu
—9—
who belongs where. In so doing, they will continue the
process of limiting access for others. Those who become
teachers will be less and less equipped to nurture critical
thinking and intellectual curiosity in their students or
enable them to recognize and challenge social injustice,
and the cycle continues.
So what is required of us?
Our students’ complaints about their grades do not happen
in a vacuum. They are standing before us demanding
unearned privilege because they have come to see
themselves as deserving of that privilege. At every turn
they have been reinforced in their sense of entitlement,
essentially fast-tracked into higher education based in
large part on their race and class. If we do not start grading
honestly we can only maintain the unjust distance between
those who have access to society’s resources and those
who do not, as well as the ideologies that justify that
distance. Grade inflation makes us complicit in the forces
that reproduce inequality.
We need to ask ourselves what it means to be an educator
whose responsibility is to assess student ability if we do not
grade based on an authentic assessment of their abilities
within the educational context. If we are professors with
tenure, there is no excuse for what is essentially a lack
of courage to withstand the inevitable push-back. As a
degree becomes less and less accessible, grade inflation
renders it more and more meaningless as a signifier for
“educated.” Perhaps if we saw this as an issue of justice,
we would find our courage.
References
Bartolomé, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward
a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational
Review, 64(2), 173-194.
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2003). The implementation of diversity
in predominantly White colleges and universities.
Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72-86.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005).
Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and
educational accountability: The irony of “No Child
Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3),
245-260.
DiAngelo, R. (2010). Why can’t we all just be individuals?:
The discourse of individualism in anti-racist
education. InterActions: UCLA Journal of
Education and Information Studies, 6(1), Article 4.
DiAngelo, R. & Sensoy, Ö. (2014). Leaning in: A student’s
guide to engaging constructively with social
justice content [Online] Radical Pedagogy, 11(1),
(Article 2).
Field, C. C., Jones, G. A., Karram Stephenson, G., &
Khoyetsyan, A. (2014). The “other” university
teachers: Non-full-time instructors at Ontario
universities. Toronto: Higher Education Quality
Council of Ontario.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008).
Culturally and linguistically diverse students
in gifted education: Recruitment and retention
issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306.
Francis, D. V. (2012). Sugar and spice and everything
nice? Teacher perceptions of Black girls in the
classroom. Review of Black Political Economy,
39(3), 311-320.
Gillborn, D. (2008). Racism and education: Coincidence
or conspiracy? London: Routledge.
Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture and
the promise of higher education: The university as
a democratic public sphere, Harvard Educational
Review, 72(4), 1-31.
House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Democratic Staff. (2014). The just-in-time
professor: A staff report summarizing
eforum responses on the working conditions
of contingent faculty in higher education.
Washington, DC: House of Representatives.
Retrieved from http://democrats.
edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.
edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/1.24.
14-AdjunctEforumReport.pdf
Johnson, H. B., & Shapiro, T. M. (2003). Good
neighborhoods, good schools: Race and the
“good choices” of White families. In A. W. Doane
& E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.),White out: The continuing
significance of racism (pp. 173–187). New York:
Routledge.
Kohn, A. (2002). The dangerous myth of grade inflation.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(11), B7.
Kunjufu, A. (2005). Keeping black boys out of special
education. Sauk Village, IL: African American
Images.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and
family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lee, S. (2005). Up against whiteness: Race, school, and
immigrant youth. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Lippmann, S., Bulanda, R. E., & Wagenaar, T. C. (2009).
Student entitlement: Issues and strategies for
confronting entitlement in the classroom and
— 10 —
About the Authors
beyond. College Teaching, 57(4), 197-204.
Lleras, C., & Rangel, C. (2009). Ability grouping practices
in elementary school and African American/
Hispanic achievement. American Journal of
Education, 115(2), 279–304.
Robin DiAngelo is Former
Associate
Professor
of
Education at Westfield State
University.
McGrath, D. & Kuriloff, P. (1998). They’re going to tear
the doors off this place: Upper-middle-class
parent school involvement and the educational
opportunities of other people’s children.
Educational Policy, 13(5), 603-629.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure
inequality (2nd ed). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD
Indicators, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/eag-2013-en http://www4.hrsdc.
gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=29#M_7
Raible, J., & Irizarry, J. G. (2010). Redirecting the
teacher’s gaze: Teacher education, youth
surveillance and the school-to-prison pipeline.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 11961203.
Redding, R. E. (1998). Students’ evaluations of teaching
fuel grade inflation. American Psychologist,
53(11), 1227-1228.
Özlem Sensoy is an associate
professor in education at
Simon
Fraser
University.
Together, they are the authors
of Is Everyone Really Equal?
An Introduction to Key
Concepts in Social Justice
Education (Teachers College
Press, 2012).
Rudman, L. & Kilianski, S. (2000). Implicit and explicit
attitudes toward female authority. Personality &
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315-1328.
Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher
diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines, bottlenecks,
and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of
Education, 32(3), 591-617.
Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2002).
The color of discipline: Sources of racial and
gender disproportionality in school punishment.
The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-342.
Sleeter, C. E. (2008). An invitation to support diverse
students through teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(3), 212-219.
Solomon, P., & Palmer, H. (2004). Schooling in Babylon,
Babylon in school: When racial profiling and
zero tolerance converge. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy, 33, page
numbers?.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes
shape intellectual identity and performance.
American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
Sudbury, J. (2002). Celling Black bodies: Black women
in the global prison industrial complex. Feminist
Review, 70, 57-74.
— 11 —
Student Perceptions of Social Justice
in Ukrainian Higher Education
Nataliia Borysenko and Petro Borysenko
Authors' Note
Nataliia Borysenko, Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University
Petro Borysenko, Department of Foreign Languages for Chemistry and Physics Majors, Taras Shevchenko National
University at Kyiv, Ukraine
This research was carried out during the term of the Fulbright Scholar Grant awarded to Nataliia Borysenko, 2014–2015.
The authors express their gratitude to Iryna Zachepa, Olha and Valeriy Savchuk for their help in surveying students,
and to Joy Egbert and Marina Tolmacheva for their comments on the early drafts of the paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nataliia Borysenko, Department of Teaching and
Learning, College of Education, Washington State University, 266 Cleveland Hall, Pullman, WA 99164-2132. E-mail:
nataliia.borysenko@wsu.edu
Abstract
This article presents a glimpse of undergraduate students’ perspectives of the current state of affairs in the Ukrainian
higher education system from a social justice standpoint. Ukraine is undergoing simultaneous crises due to Crimea’s
annexation, a very fluid situation in the east of the country, and a thorny and still incomplete 23-year path toward
developing a modern democratic society. In order to understand how undergraduate students perceive social justice
in the current circumstances, the authors composed an anonymous survey and administered it to currently enrolled
Ukrainian students at three different public institutions of higher education in two cities. Using a social justice framework,
this paper describes student responses that reveal their views on the current state of social justice in Ukrainian higher
education.
Key words: social justice, higher education, institution, undergraduate student, Ukraine
After more than 20 years of teaching at various ethnicity, religious views, sexual orientation, or even
Ukrainian universities, we have become used to seeing social behavior.
one student barely able to scrape up enough money
for his lunch at the university cafeteria while other These sad experiences make us as faculty feel
students drive fancy luxury cars. In another instance, particularly sensitive about the problems of social justice
the poor student may be the brightest and most hard- in Ukrainian higher education. It is not an easy subject
working in his class, but he gets worse grades on to discuss or research, because even the meaning of
his exams than the student with “powerful parents.” “social justice,” although having been coined and closely
Moreover, we have cases when a talented orphan who studied since the 19th century (Zajda, Majhanovich,
was “too lucky” to be admitted to the university under Rust, & Martin-Sabina, 2006), remains diffuse and raises
the auspices of the government-supported access contentious discussions among leading scholars on the
program suddenly and unpredictably loses his tuition- topic (Marshall & Oliva, 2010).
free enrollment and his monthly stipend. Although
very active in classroom participation and successful John Rawls, a highly influential thinker, has been central
in coursework, his professor fails him on the final in clarifying the definition of social justice (Rawls, 2005).
exam, claiming that he has not demonstrated sufficient Based on Rawls’ principles of social justice, modern
knowledge to pass. Further, we have witnessed that, in scholars acknowledge that “social justice refers to
grading student papers or evaluating their knowledge the condition in society in which all members have the
of course material, some professors allow themselves same basic rights, security, opportunities, obligations,
to denigrate students based on differences in race, social benefits, and the way in which human rights are
— 12 —
manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level
of society” (Ingram, 2007, p. 27). This suggests that
“everyone, from the poorest person on the margins of
society to the wealthiest deserves an even playing field”
(Harees, 2012, p. 124).
The principles or elements of social justice must be
understood within a specific context (Miller, 2001); in higher
education, for example, the definition of social justice as
provided above includes four central components (Nieto,
2006):
• Human rights: All members of the higher education
community should have the rights of challenging,
confronting, and disrupting “misconceptions,
untruths, and stereotypes that lead to structural
inequality and discrimination based on race,
social class, gender, and other social and human
differences” (Nieto, 2006, p. 2). This indicates,
for example, that students are able to have equal
opportunities to obtain higher education in Ukraine
and to receive all their student rights without having
to participate in any illegal behavior based on
their social status, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation, gender, etc.
• Access to learning opportunities: Institutions of
higher education should be responsible for “providing
all students with the resources necessary to learn to
their full potential … : material resources such as
books, curricula, financial support, and so on; …
emotional resources such as a belief in students’
ability and worth; care for them as individuals and
learners; high expectations and rigorous demands
on them; and the necessary social and cultural
capital to negotiate the world” (Nieto, 2006, p. 2).
This, for instance, means that prospective students
have a fair and transparent system for university
admission, a variety of opportunities to obtain
higher education: tuition-free education for the
best students, tuition assistance of various kinds,
a legally developed system permitting students
to combine their studies with a part-time job to
facilitate their tuition expenses.
• Quality: Institutions of higher education should
be committed to “drawing on the talents and
strengths that students bring to their education.
This requires a rejection of the deficit perspective
that has characterized much of the education of
marginalized students, in favor of perspective that
views all students—not just those from privileged
backgrounds—as having resources that can be
a foundation for their learning. These resources
include their languages, cultures, and experiences”
(Nieto, 2006, p. 2). This also implies providing equal
quality higher education for students.
• Engagement: Institutions of higher education
must be held accountable for “creating a learning
environment that promotes critical thinking and
supports agency for social change. Creating
such environments can provide students with
an apprenticeship in democracy, a vital part of
preparing them for the future” (Nieto, 2006, p. 2).
This also indicates involving students in decisionmaking concerning crucial aspects of the academic
process and support for future employment based
on students’ specialties.
These four components—human rights, access to
learning opportunities, quality, and engagement—form a
framework for our study in exploring student perspectives
of social justice in Ukrainian higher education.
Methodology
Participants and Data Source
According to multiple reports (Ministerstvo, 2014b), social
justice has hardly been realized at public institutions of
higher education in Ukraine. We decided to explore how
this problem is perceived by Ukrainian students, the main
consumers of higher education. The four components
of social justice in education—human rights, access to
learning opportunities, quality, and engagement—made
up the basis for the survey we used for data collection.
The survey consists of 26 questions. Each of the first 25
questions has at least four response options; the fourth
option invites the students to give their own opinion if the
previous options do not fit with their thoughts and views.
Question 26 offers an opportunity for students to suggest
any concerns and issues they have faced in dealing with
the system of higher education in Ukraine not mentioned
in the survey.
The questions were addressed to students in order to
analyze students’ perceptions concerning the situation
with social justice in Ukrainian higher education. To
maximize diversity of the outcomes, four professors
surveyed their full-time students at three different public
institutions of higher education. These professors
surveyed their own students so that students would be
sure of anonymity and have full confidence and trust
while answering the questions. During their classes the
professors gave the students a paper copy of the survey
and let them complete the survey for up to an hour. The
professors asked the students to provide only the answers
and not put their names on the paper copy to ensure their
sincere results and to prevent the chance to give the
answers that would please their professor.
General background information on the participants
was obtained from the dean’s office at each university. It
included gender and social status (i.e., if they belong to
any of the following groups: ethnic minorities, orphans,
and people living below the poverty line). We were not able
to collect data regarding the students’ sexual orientation
or their religious preferences, as it is illegal in Ukraine to
do so.
— 13 —
The total number of the participants was 271, surveyed
in class groups from 10–15 students. The social and
academic profiles of the students at these three
universities are somewhat diverse. Four groups of
participants were from the leading research university
in the country—the brightest youth study there. The
major of students participating from this university is
Physics. All 66 of them were freshmen (59 males and
7 females), including two male students belonging to
ethnic minorities, no orphans). The next four groups of
participants represent one of the largest universities in
Ukraine (also located in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine) and
they were 45 juniors and seniors majoring in international
relations (29 males and 16 females; 6 male and 4 female
students belonging to ethnic minorities; no orphans).
The other 12 groups of participants came from a smaller
university located in the Kyiv region. Its 160 students
participating in the survey varied from freshmen to juniors;
all of them were future English as a foreign language
(EFL) teachers [144 females and 16 males; 3 female and
1 male students belonging to ethnic minorities; 7 orphans
(5 females and 2 males)]. Clearly, one limitation of the
convenience method of obtaining participants is that the
participants do not represent much social diversity, which
may impact the results. The survey questions belonging
together thematically (i.e., based on the four social justice
components) were dispersed in the survey on purpose in
order to obtain students’ unbiased and fresh opinions.
Results and Discussion
Participant responses are presented below according to
the social justice components for conciseness and more
coherent presentation of the feedback.
Human Rights
The survey’s first theme is whether our students think
that their human rights are protected in access to and
during their education at Ukrainian institutions of higher
education. As faculty, we observe and think that their
human rights are being violated, but do our students think
that their human rights are being violated?
The survey data indicate that only 44% of students
think that they have equal opportunities to obtain higher
education in Ukraine. In other words, 53% of respondents
think that inequality in receiving higher education in Ukraine
does exist. One and a half percent of the surveyed chose
the answer “I do not know,” and the same percentage
(1.5%) of students responded: “If you have money—you
have higher education in Ukraine.”
of human rights, the survey respondents agreed that
orphans and people with disabilities in Ukraine do receive
state support for admission to and study at institutions
of higher education. Ninety-three percent said “yes,” 4%
denied any state support for orphans and people with
disabilities, and 3% answered “I do not know.” The data
imply that the surveyed students are quite optimistic
about government support of orphans and people with
disabilities in Ukraine. However, according to multiple
studies (Buffeted, 2010; Abeng, 2013; U.S., 2014), both
young people with disabilities and orphans “have been
abandoned by both their government and the developed
European community in general” (Abeng, 2013). Such a
gap between the students’ perceptions and research
data may be explained by the fact that the participants
were not widely represented by orphans (7 students—
2.5% of all the surveyed) or people with disabilities (0
representatives), so their perceptions could be based only
on stereotyping formed by the official mass media, on lack
of knowledge about real benefits available for orphans
and people with disabilities, and/or unawareness of social
programs and benefits for the mentioned vulnerable
groups available in the developed countries. Therefore,
whatever is advertised in Ukraine may be perceived by
the surveyed students as sufficient help for orphans and
people with disabilities.
People from over 100 nations live in Ukraine. According
to the last census (2001), ethnic minorities in Ukraine
account for 14 million people (27 %) of all residents. The
most numerous of these are Russians, Jews, Belarusians,
Moldavians, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians,
Greeks, Tatars, Armenians, and Gypsies (Natsional’ni,
2014). When it comes to ethnic minorities, however, the
participants’ survey answers are not optimistic: only
18.5% of the surveyed perceive that ethnic minorities
have social programs to enter and study at Ukrainian
institutions of higher education, 39.5% think that there are
not any benefits for ethnic minority students to enter and
study in Ukrainian universities, and 42% of the students
did not have an answer.
The issue of discrimination due to sexual orientation is
quite new in Ukraine and is considered too private for
public discussion. We did include it in our survey hoping for
anonymous responses. The evidence showed a high level
of ignorance when talking about discrimination against
students based on their sexual orientation—46% marked
the answer “I do not know” and only 7% admitted that
such discrimination does exist at Ukrainian institutions of
higher education.
Religious views in general were prosecuted in Soviet
times (Bassin, 2012). According to the literature, there is
also much left to be desired in the terms of free religious
— 14 —
Further, expressing their perceptions that discrimination
against orphans and people with disabilities is a violation
views in Ukraine (Herszenhorn, 2013). However, by
contrast, the data indicate that a vast majority of students
(79%) are confident that discrimination based on religious
views does not exist at Ukrainian institutions of higher
education, while 16% of the surveyed did not know the
answer. It is possible that remnants of that policy still
survive in Ukraine, if we are to take students’ answers
into account (5% perceive discrimination based on
their religious views at Ukrainian universities). Students’
answers may indicate that to get more realistic results
more institutions of higher education should be involved,
or religious views are more discriminated in other spheres
of the Ukrainian society.
Nowadays, with the processes of globalization bringing
international migration to Ukraine, race discrimination has
become a burning issue. Student feedback concerning
the existence of discrimination based on race shows the
following results: 71% deny its existence, 23% answered
“I do not know,” and only 6% of the surveyed think that
discrimination based on race does exist at Ukrainian
institutions of higher education. Gender discrimination is
perceived by 13.5% of the respondents. We cannot define
the number of female and male students who perceive
gender discrimination, but according to the data, all of
them study at the same university, they are freshmen and/
or sophomores, and out of 37 students perceiving gender
discrimination only 16 may be males, which means that
at least 21 students perceiving gender discrimination are
females. This may suggest that there are some faculty
and/or staff working with these students who express
their different attitude toward female and male students or
the variety of students was not big enough to get realistic
results.
An encouragingly high number (68%) of the students think
that their rights are respected at their universities. An even
greater number (84%) answered “yes” on the question
about the respect for professors’ rights at institutions of
higher education in Ukraine.
Access to Learning Opportunities
In terms of access to learning opportunities, the results
of the survey indicate that 59% of the surveyed students
consider that the number of institutions of higher education
is not too high, while 36% think that Ukraine does not need
such a high number of universities. Their views can be
explained by the literature: having been part of the Soviet
Union, Ukraine still has strong educational traditions,
and persons not having any higher education are looked
down upon by the public (Stereotypy, 2010). The number
of institutions also has employment implications because
it might be hard to get a job even as a waiter if one does
not have at least a bachelor’s degree. Overall, having
more universities means more opportunities for potential
students to be enrolled in degree programs, so there is
a public expectation of increased access to tuition-free
education.
Slightly less than one-half of those surveyed agreed
that compulsory independent assessment for college
admissions is fair and unbiased, 6% of students marked
the answer “I do not know,” and 49% expressed the
opposite opinion. When asked if the admission system of
Ukrainian universities based on compulsory independent
assessment is fair and transparent, an even smaller
number of the surveyed (36%) think that it is, while the
majority (54%) feels that it is not. The issue about this
outcome is that the feelings reflect a situation in place
after many years of exhausting attempts to implement a
higher education admission system based on principles
of social justice (Khartia, 2009; Testuvannia, 2011).
Seventy percent of the surveyed students think that
access to learning opportunities in institutions of higher
education can be realized if tuition-free education is
available to 75% of students. Only 4% of the surveyed
think that the Ukrainian government should provide
only 25% tuition-free seats. There is history here; preindependence, all Soviet/Ukrainian higher education was
free. Since that time, because of the economic crisis after
the Soviet Union’s collapse, changing laws and regulations
in the sphere of higher education, and other political and
social reasons, the percentage of students who have a
free education has been constantly reduced and reached
a low of 25% in 2014 (Ministerstvo, 2014a). This caused
75% of students to have to obtain tuition-based higher
education. This situation appears to have caused many
abuses by universities and those affiliated with them and
numerous attempts from students’ families to seek illegal
“help” for their children to obtain higher education for free
(U Minosvity, 2013).
Overall, students’ perceptions about human rights in
Ukraine show that some of the students do not know and
some of them do not perceive human rights injustices.
This could be because they do not actually exist, or,
more likely, that because the participants represent the
most successful level of Ukrainian youth and are fulltime students, they may have a different viewpoint than
others might have. The majority of orphans, people with
disabilities, and ethnic minorities can typically afford to
study only as part-time students if they do at all, so they
do not usually socialize and even meet each other. On the Thus, students perceive that in Ukraine today, access to
other hand, these institutions may not have as much to learning opportunities in higher education depends a lot
perceive.
on how students are able to pay. The burden of payment
— 15 —
for obtaining higher education in Ukraine most commonly
rests on the shoulders of students themselves and/or their
families. Educational loans are not available in the country,
although before presidential and parliament elections
educational loans are often promised. Then opportunities
to get an educational loan are advertised but when it
comes to a real situation, students and their parents never
meet loan program requirements (Studentsky, n. d.). The
findings indicate that 61.5% of the students rely on their
parents’ savings, 22.5% on state programs, 10% use their
own savings, and only 4% suggested bank low-interest
loans (1%–3%) if the latter were available. If the weight
of payment for education rests on prospective students’
shoulders, this might impact students’ expectations
concerning university administrators’ permission for fulltime students to work part time. In fact, 56% of students
deny that Ukrainian institutions of higher education
are supportive in the issue. Twenty-nine percent of the
surveyed chose the answer “I do not know,” and 15% of
the respondents think that they would be allowed to work
part-time while studying full-time.
This means that in the conditions of the free-market
economy, students perceive that they have fewer
opportunities to obtain higher education because they
have to pay for it, so they have to work to have money
to pay. At the same time, their university schedule and
their schedule at work do not fit each other and university
administrations may be unsupportive concerning working
students as they may miss classes for their jobs (Maistruk,
2011).
According to the survey data, 43% of the participants
perceive that the government does not support lower
income students, 30% think that the poor have benefits
for admission to and studying at Ukrainian institutions
of higher education, and 26% marked the answer “I do
not know.” This breadth of responses shows that the real
situation is unknown; it could be because these responses
do not belong to the people with incomes below the
poverty line.
The data imply that in terms of access to learning
opportunities, there are some areas where students think
they can do better, but some areas in which they seem to
be doing okay.
Quality
Estimating the percentage of institutions of higher
education in Ukraine that provide quality education,
24% of participants responded that only one-half of
institutions of higher education in Ukraine can provide
quality education for students. A smaller number of
students (21%) answered that quality education in Ukraine
is provided by 75% of institutions of higher education.
Sadly, the majority of respondents, 48%, perceive that
only 25% of institutions of higher education in Ukraine
provide quality training.
Most students have given thought to the role higher
education plays in their lives. Sixty-six and one-half
percent of respondents think that knowledge is more
important than having a higher education certificate, 5%
of the surveyed answered “I do not know,” and 1.5%
of students consider a higher education certificate and
knowledge as equally valuable parts of one unit. Only
27% perceived that a higher education certificate as more
valuable than the knowledge it conveys.
Twenty-four percent of the participants think that if they
enrolled in paid higher education, rather than on a tuition
waiver, it would be easier for them to progress to a degree.
However, 69% perceive that only knowledge matters in
progressing to a degree.
Ukrainian students’ responses indicate that they do realize
that knowledge is more important than a college degree
certificate. However, observing reality around them, they
concede that for the sake of a better career they need
both the education and the diploma.
Engagement
In answering questions about engagement aspects of
social justice, there was a fairly wide range of respondents’
views. The majority of the participants responded that
the country needs from 60% to 100% of the younger
generation to have a college degree. Forty-four percent
think that Ukraine needs 60% of the population to obtain
higher education; 42% chose the full 100%; and only 4%
consider that as low as 25% with degrees will satisfy
Ukraine’s needs. In other words, participants perceive
that engagement in education is important to life.
Concerning the lecture/discussion ratio, student feedback
indicates that 52% of respondents perceive that the
ratio of 50/50 would be the most productive for learning
in a theoretical course, 32% prefer a lecture/discussion
ratio of 67/33, and 12% chose a 33/67 ratio of lecture
to discussion. Four percent of students expressed their
desire to have no more than 5% lecture in a theoretical
course.
In another example of how participants choose to be
engaged, they were asked about their choice of learning
more theory or practice at institutions of higher education:
52% of respondents answered that theory and practice
should be delivered to students in equal parts (50/50),
while 13% of the participants think that theory should be
taught twice as many hours as practice. By contrast, 32%
of students think that they should have twice as many
— 16 —
practical classes as theory. Finally, 3% of respondents
gave answers varying from “I do not know” (1.5%) to
favoring 40% of lectures in a course (1.5%). In sum, about
one-half of the surveyed students prefer to be taught
theory and practice in equal parts, and at least 33.5% of
respondents prefer to have more practice than theory in
the studying, which means that students prefer to move
to more applied education.
The survey data imply that most students are not sure of
their future despite the fact that they are already studying
at the university and the probability to find a prestigious
and well-paid job may be quite low. Seventeen percent
of respondents chose the answer “I do not know” when
asked if they will find a good job upon graduation. Only
26% of them think that they will be able to find a job in
Ukraine in the field of their major. The findings imply that
more than one-half of the participants (57%) are prepared
to fail in finding a job according to their specialty in their
own country. And so, the data implies that students do not
feel secure in the own country even with higher education.
They are ready to look for a job in other countries, which
means a loss for Ukraine.
Finally, to the survey’s open-ended question that asked
participants to add something if it is not covered by the
previous questions, 5% of students noted the dire need
to monitor corruption in institutions of higher education.
There were phrases like “Corruption!” (9 students),
“Please, monitor corruption” (3 students), and “It’s
a shame to have corruption here” (1 student). These
remarks can be considered atypical, as usually Ukrainian
students do not trust that survey responses will be taken
into real consideration; this indicates very strong support
for changing the situation related to social injustice.
Conclusion
Of course, students’ feedback based on one survey
cannot serve as a guide for changing higher education
in Ukraine, but it can provide some ideas and pathways
to solutions for the existing problems. The authors fully
realize that the data received from the 271 participants
students are but the first step toward research for socially
just higher education in Ukraine and a tiny step toward
a democratic society. However, it is also important to
consider that these results came from those Ukrainians
who are already students; they have gained admission
to university. If we had been able to survey Ukrainians
who failed to enter institutions of higher education, the
answers may have been much more critical of the state
of society.
Many of the answers we received were not very informative
taken singly. However, analyzed in concert they provide
a basis for further research based on a wider range of
questions for the survey and engaging more students
varying in age, major, location, social background, and so
on. Our students’ voices may be very helpful in defining
what might be changed in our national higher education.
Further research may emphasize how students come
to their perceptions, for example, where they get their
information and how well-evidenced they perceive it to be.
In addition, it might be interesting to uncover the reasons
that many students chose “I don’t know” as answers
on the survey. In addition, future studies might focus
on dependence/influence/connection of respondents’
answers to their age and year of study at institutions of
higher education, on the students’ gender, field of studies,
and the institution where they are enrolled. Interviews and
observations, along with the inclusion of faculty data,
would also make for a richer and more complete picture
of this context. We have a long way to go, but as Theodore
Roosevelt said: “We can best get justice by doing justice”
(Roosevelt, 1905).
References
Abeng, Z. (2013). Ukraine’s forgotten children with
disabilities, left for dead. Zuzeeko.com: Home
of Zuzeeko’s Blog. Retrieved from http://www.
zuzeeko.com/2013/07/ukraines-forgottenchildren-with.html
Bassin, M. & Kelly, C. (Eds.) (2012). Soviet and PostSoviet Identities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Buffeted in the Borderland: The treatment of asylum
seekers and migrants in Ukraine. (2010). Human
Rights Watch. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/
reports/2010/12/16/buffeted-borderland-0
Harees, L. (2012). The mirage of dignity on the highways
of human ‘progress’: The bystander’s perspective.
Bloomington, IN: AutorHouse.
Herszenhorn, D. M. (2013). Kiev protesters see potent
ally under a spire. The New York Times. Retrieved
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/world/
europe/ukrainian-protesters-find-powerful-ally-inorthodox-church.html?pagewanted=all
Ingram, I. L. (2007). A critical reflection model to teach
diversity and social justice. Journal of Praxis in
Multicultural Education, 2(1), 23–41. Retrieved
from http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=jpme
Khartia universytetiv Ukrainy: Akademichni svobody,
universytets’ka avtonomia ta osvita [Charter
of universities in Ukraine: Academic liberties,
— 17 —
Hromadska dumka pro ZNO, vstup do Vyshiv,
problem vyschoi shkoly [Testing, and equal
access to quality higher education: Public opinion
about EIT, admission to institutions of higher
education, problems in higher education]. (2011).
Fond “Demokratychni Initsiatyvy Imeni Il’ka
Kucheriva.” Retrieved from http://dif.org.ua/en/
publications/press-relizy/thyjkuyuio.htm
university autonomy, and education]. (2009).
Osvita Ukrainy. Retrieved from http://old.niss.gov.
ua/book/Osvita/7.pdf
Maistruk, S. (2011). “Pratsiuvaty ne mozhna
navtchatysia,”—de postavyty komu? [“You cannot
do work study”—where to put “cannot”]. Ridna
kraina. Retrieved from http://ridna.ua/2011/02/
pratsyuvaty-ne-mozhna-navchatysya-depostavyty-komu/
Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (Eds.) (2010.) Leadership for
social justice: Making revolution in education. 2nd
ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Miller, D. (2001). Principles of social justice. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Ministerstvo osvity i nauky Ukrainy. (2014a). Derzhavne
zamovlennia 2014 roku [State order for 2014].
Retrieved from http://www.mon.gov.ua/ua/
activity/70/7082/
Ministerstvo osvity i nauky Ukrainy. (2014b). Stratehia
reformuvannia vyschoi osvity v Ukraini do 2020
roku [Strategy of reforming higher education
in Ukraine till 2020]. Retrieved from: http://
www.mon.gov.ua/img/zstored/files/HE%20
Reforms%20Strategy%2011_11_2014.pdf
Natsional’ni menshyny v Ukraini (National minorities in
Ukraine) (2014). Wikipedia. Retrieved from: http://
uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Національні_меншини_в_
Україні
Nieto, S. (2006). Teaching as political work: Learning from
courageous and caring teachers. The Longfellow
Lecture. Child Development Institute. Sarah
Lawrence College. Bronxville, NY. Retrieved from
http://www.slc.edu/cdi/media/pdf/Occasional%20
Papers/CDI_Occasional_Paper_2006_Nieto.pdf
Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice (Original ed.).
Harvard, MA: Belknap Press.
Roosevelt, T. (1905). National Duties. September
2, 1901. The Strenuous Life: Essays and
Addresses. Retrieved from http://liveloveleslie.
com/2011/05/03/10-famous-and-real-quotes-onjustice/
Stereotypy pro vyschu osvitu ta yii znachennia dlia
kariery [Stereotypes about higher education and
its impact on a career] (2010). Osvita.ua. Retrieved
from http://osvita.ua/vnz/career/9049/
Studentskyi borh navchannia v kredyt [Student debt
of education loans]. (n. d.). Pleyady. Retrieved
from: http://pleyady.kiev.ua/korisni-statti/7166studentskij-borg-navchannja-v-kredit.html
U Minosvity vyznaly fakty koruptsii v osviti [Ministry of
education and science of Ukraine acknowledged
the facts of corruption in education]. (2013).
Osvita.ua. Retrieved from http://osvita.ua/vnz/
consultations/36679/
U.S. Department of State Bureau of Consular
Affairs. (2014). Ukraine Human Rights Report.
NCBuy.com. Retrieved from http://www.
ncbuy.com/reference/country/humanrights.
html?code=up&sec=5
Zajda, J., Majhanovich, S., Rust, V., & Martin-Sabina,
E. (Eds.). (2006). Education and Social justice.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Nataliia Borysenko, PhD,
is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Foreign
Languages for Chemistry
and Physics Schools of the
Institute of Philology at Kyiv
Taras Shevchenko National
University. She has also
taught at the Institute for
the Humanities of National
Aviation University and at
Pereiaslav-Khmelnytsky
Hryhoriy Skovoroda State
Pedagogical University.
Dr. Nataliia Borysenko is a
2014—2015 Fulbright Fellow
at College of Education,
Washington State University
(Pullman, WA).
Petro Borysenko, PhD, is
an Associate Professor in
the Department of Foreign
Languages for Chemistry
and Physics Schools of
the Institute of Philology
at Kyiv Taras Shevchenko
National University. He also
is an Adjunct professor
at the Institute of Foreign
Relations of National Aviation
University and at PereiaslavKhmelnytsky Hryhoriy
Skovoroda State Pedagogical
University.
Testuvannia ta rivnyi dostup do yakisnoi vyschoi osvity:
— 18 —
Spotlight on the Road Map Project English Language Learner
Action Plan and Implementation Tool Kit
Roxana Norouzi and Hilary Loeb
The South King County region is rich with racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. Over two-thirds (67%) of
students are students of color (Road Map Project, 2013). The region also represents over 160 different
language groups and nearly one in five students (16%) speak a language other than English at home. Figure
1 provides a breakdown of English language learners [ELLs], by grade, illustrating that the majority are in
the elementary grades. (Road Map Project & OneAmerica, 2013). Yet in a region of immense diversity, vast
educational disparities still exist. In South King County1, ELLs drop out of school at close to twice the rate
of non-ELL students. A sizable majority (90%) qualify for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (Road Map Project,
2013)2. These inequities reflect opportunity gaps for low-income, ELL, and students of color and call for a
deep commitment to social justice in education.
The Road Map Project
Road Map Project ELL Work Group
This article provides an overview of recent efforts as
part of the Road Map Project to support ELL students to
succeed academically. Launched in 2010, the Road Map
Project is a direct response to the growing opportunity
gap, the persistently inequitable allocation of resources
in education which results in disparate outcomes for
low-income and students of color in South King County.
By addressing gaps in our local education systems, the
Road Map Project’s collective action initiative is aimed at
driving dramatic improvements in student achievement—
cradle through college and career—in the low-income
communities of South King County. The commitment
is to double the number of students in the region who
are on track to graduate from college or earn a career
credential by 2020.
Figure 1: Proportion of English Language Learners
in Each Grade in South King County Road Map Region
(Road Map Project & OneAmerica, 2013, p. 2)
It was clear that an intentional focus on supporting ELL
students was needed soon after the Road Map effort was
launched. Led by the immigrant rights advocacy group
OneAmerica, a network of school district representatives,
community-based organizations, state agencies, and
early learning/post-secondary institutions came together
to form the Road Map Project ELL Work Group with the
focus on identifying high pay-off strategies for ELLs.
As a result of the collaborative work of individuals
and organizations invested in closing the educational
opportunity/achievement gap for ELLs in South King
County, the group developed the Road Map ELL Action
Plan and the Implementation Tool Kit (Road Map Project &
OneAmerica, 2013).
In early 2013, after working together for a year and a half,
the team began developing an Action Plan framework by
researching and establishing best practices to effectively
support ELL students. This process included monthly
Work Group meetings to design and refine
the plan, an all-day retreat to mutually
determine priorities, inventories of current
district and department practices, and
numerous meetings throughout the year
with experts in each of the key focus areas.
ELL Action Plan and Tool Kit
The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify
key systems level change strategies for
ELLs that will help the Road Map Project
reach the 2020 goal of doubling the
number of students on track to earn a
postsecondary degree or credential and
support the successful integration of ELL
____________________
1. South King County school districts include Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, Seattle, and Tukwila.
2. Data on ELLs was not available for Seattle and Kent School District
— 19 —
students in the school system. The Action Plan and
implementation Tool Kit, developed by leaders of the ELL
Work Group, articulates comprehensive action steps for
creating a stronger and more equitable education system
for ELLs.
First, the group determined the priorities and defined
the basic elements that must exist in every institution for
comprehensive support of ELL students, intentionally and
visually placing the student at the center of all efforts.
Most importantly, the Work Group emphasized equity
because they
believe that linguistically and culturally diverse
students and their families bring value and asset to our
classrooms and communities. To ensure all students
reach their full potential, current and former English
language learners must be intentionally prioritized
within our educational structure, with accountability
tied to ELL student performance within all institutions.
(Road Map Project & OneAmerica, 2013, p. 4)
A cornerstone of the efforts of the ELL Work Group is that
educational success will only be actualized for all students
through a focus on equity and the strengths that students
bring to their education as opposed to the deficits.
The Action Plan and Tool Kit identify numerous
approaches to improve services to ELLs and their parents
and caregivers within five domains of practice (see
Figure 2 below). For example, in “Strong Instructional
Practice” the Work Group has cited training for teachers
and administrators focused on the needs of ELLs so they
may be prioritized in school improvement efforts and
policy decisions. A related goal is to provide professional
development for all teachers in learning and implementing
instructional strategies that will be effective with ELLs.
It follows that all teachers will need to be supported in
aligning ELL instruction with the Common Core and
Next Generation Science Standards so ELL students
have access to core content and can gain language
skills within the context of academic coursework.
(See Figure 2 below)
ELL Policy Developments
As a result of this collective action work over the past
English
Language
Learner
GroupGroup
Action Plan
two
years,
the
ELLWork
Work
has secured a number of
Figure 2: ELL Action Plan Framework (Road Map Project & OneAmerica, 2013, p. 6)
Reflect linguistic and cultural diversity in
curriculum and teaching practice
Provide primary language instruction
Create articulated pathways
for high school to college
completion
Promote family engagement
support that reflects student
demographics
Provide outreach and
guidance for postsecondary options
Communicate importance
of primary language and
culture to families
Train all teachers
to support ELLs and
align with new standard
Train state, district, and
school leadership in ELL needs
Collect defined
ELL typology data
Use appropriate
assessments to determine
needs and course placement
— 20 —
OneAmerica / December 2013
positive developments for ELLs. These include:
• Implementing policies and practices in all seven
Road Map Districts to allow students to earn
competency based credit for knowledge of their
home language further instilling language and
culture as a strength in our education system,
• Securing $18.8 million in new state basic education
dollars to support ELLs who have transitioned out
of ELL programs but still need support to reach
academic proficiency as these students are at great
risk of falling into the opportunity gap, and
• Gaining funding to provide over 80 teachers and
principals with the opportunity to earn an ELL
endorsement in the Road Map Region of South King
County so they are better prepared to teach and
build systems for ELL students.
World Language Credit and Seal of Biliteracy
One of the greatest accomplishments of the ELL
Work Group has been efforts to establish language
and diversity as an asset in education. The underlying
tenant of many ELL programs is to teach students
English as quickly as possible, yet the ELL Work
Group has taken a stand around the importance
of home language development and cultivation
alongside English to advance academic success.
One way in which the group has furthered this effort
is the opportunity for students who are fluent in a
language other than English to earn World Language
Credits by demonstrating proficiency in that language
through assessments approved by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) (OSPI,
n.d.). Several years ago, Seattle and Highline began
offering this opportunity to their students and as a
result of the collective work of the ELL Work Group
and pilot funding from a local foundation, now all
seven Road Map School districts have policies and
practices in place to award competency-based
language credits.
So far, over 1,500 students in the Road Map Region
have earned over 4,000 credits in more than 50
different languages. An effort like this emphasizes
the strengths and assets that immigrant and refugee
communities bring into their educational experience.
Along with the academic benefits and making these
students more competitive in an emerging global
economy this opportunity has instilled a sense of
cultural pride in ELLs.
Education Northwest reported on the early
implementation of the World Language Credit in the
Road Map Region (Greenberg Motamedi & Jaffery,
2014). The researchers state that the number of
ELLs has grown to over 50,000 students in 2012-13,
a number that has increased by 50% since 2004-5.
The evaluation found that students were assessed
in 47 languages, with over 70% earning three or four
high school credits on their transcripts. Receiving
these credits made students confident about their
bilingualism. While participation in this program did
not change students’ attitudes toward school, the
program helped free up schedules so students could
graduate on time. The program also helped students
recognize the personal, social, and cultural value of
bilingualism.
As a result of this momentum in the Road Map region,
along with the advocacy of the ELL Work Group and
grassroots mobilization in immigrant communities
the legislature passed a bill and Governor Inslee
signed a law in March 2014 stating that students
demonstrating a high level of proficiency in world
languages other than English would receive a Seal of
Biliteracy on their transcript and diploma. Washington
is one of nine states that have passed a seal that
officially recognizes students for being bilingual.
Other states include California, Illinois, Louisiana,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and
Texas (Californians Together, Velázquez Press, & the
National Association of Bilingual Education, n.d.).
The emerging regional efforts to honor bilingualism
and raise achievement for ELLs indicates that
addressing the needs of this student population goes
beyond academics and meeting new standards.
This work is anchored in a social justice agenda to
help ensure that school systems tailor supports to
all ELLs as they recognize and build on the assets
these students bring. The ELL Work Plan and Tool
Kit are rich resources that provide a research-based
framework for policies and practices in educational
settings. The Tool Kit addresses the complexity
of serving ELLs and their families by providing
guidance on community relations, instruction, and
policy development.
In 2015, the ELL Work Group will continue to focus
on implementation of the ELL Action Plan with a
specific focus on diversifying the teacher workforce
to better match the demographics of the student
population, providing an array of postsecondary
opportunities to older ELL students and establishing
more community and institutional partnerships to
meet the needs of diverse students and families.
The hope is that innovations in South King County
can serve as an example for educators and systems
across Washington and can spur significant shifts in
education that enable all ELL students to reach their
full potential.
— 21 —
References
About the Authors
Californians Together, Velázquez Press & the
National Association of Bilingual Education.
sealofbiliteracy.org (n.d.). Retrieved January 2015,
from http://sealofbiliteracy.org/
Greenberg Motamedi, J., & Jaffery, Z. (2014). Credit for
proficiency: The impact of the Road Map World
Language Credit Program on student attitudes
toward bilingualism and school. Portland, OR:
Education Northwest. Retrieved December 2014,
from http://www.k12.wa.us/WorldLanguages/
RoadMap/Road_Map_Credit_for_Proficiency_
Report.pdf
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(n.d.). Competency credits for world
languages. Retrieved December 2014, from
http://www.k12.wa.us/WorldLanguages/
CompetencyBasedCredits.aspx
Road Map Project. (2013). 2013 Results Report. Seattle,
WA: Road Map Project. Retrieved December
2014, from http://www.roadmapproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/2013-Results-Report_
Reduced-File-Sz.pdf
Hilary Loeb has worked on
multiple efforts to address
access to and success in
postsecondary education.
She directs the Puget Sound
Coalition for College and
Career Readiness at the Puget
Sound Educational Service
District.
Roxana Norouzi has
worked with immigrant and
refugee populations in the
Seattle area for the past 10
years. Currently, she leads
work around the closing the
opportunity gap for ELLS
as the Director of Education
and Integration Policy for
OneAmerica, Washington
State’s largest immigrant
right’s organization.
Road Map Project & OneAmerica (2013). English
Language Learner Work Group Action Plan
and Tool Kit. Retrieved December 2014, from
http://www.roadmapproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/ELL-Work-Group-Action-Plan.
pdf
— 22 —
Using a CORE Cohort Model to Close the Achievement Gap
for Underserved Ninth Grade Students
Jebadiah Lillejord and Jeremy Delamarter
Abstract
Closing the so-called “achievement gap” is an issue of social justice. Though programs designed to serve motivated
at-risk students are somewhat effective at closing this gap, “unmotivated” students from underserved populations
are in danger of dropping out. Programs that stress relationships and academic rigor may provide support for these
underserved students. At-risk and “unmotivated” ninth-grade students participated in a CORE cohort model. After
one academic year, students in the CORE cohort passed their classes at a significantly higher rate than students in
the control group. CORE students also demonstrated a significant increase in STAR reading scores from September to
May, while the control group did not. However, survey results indicate that despite the program’s tentative successes,
participants had mixed feelings about the cohort model, and the program’s long-term effects remain unclear.
Keywords: Social justice, at-risk students, CORE, achievement gap
Students
Closing the so-called “achievement gap” has become
increasingly recognized as an issue of social justice,
and educators have called for many different responses:
social justice pedagogy (Esposito & Swann, 2009; Kraft,
2007), representative curriculum (Gibson & Parks, 2014),
community relationships (Carlisle, Jackson, & George,
2006; DeLugan, Roussos, & Skram, 2014), and increased
rigor (Callopy, Bowman, & Taylor, 2012) to name a few. As
important as these individual components are, the heroic
efforts of an individual teacher to incorporate them into
her lessons may not be enough to confront and overcome
the inequalities both in students’ prior learning and in
their social realities. Instead, systemic and programmatic
interventions designed to support the academic and
personal growth of underserved students are a necessary
part of equitable education (Carlisle, Jackson, & George,
2006).
Recently, programmatic responses to the achievement
gap have begun to serve the needs of the culturally and/
or economically disadvantaged students (Bergerson,
2009). For example, the AVID program is designed for
highly motivated students whose cultural, familial, and/
or linguistic background means that they are unlikely
to attend college. The AVID program “targets students
of color and low socioeconomic students by making a
college preparatory curriculum available to them” (p. 90).
Evidence suggests that the AVID program serves these
students well, and, in one local district, AVID students
from minorities and at-risk groups enroll in AP classes at
almost three times the rate of their non-AVID counterparts
(Mizrahi, 2014).
But
AVID
does
not
reach
everyone,
and
some
disadvantaged students still fall through the cracks.
While AVID serves students who are motivated to go
to college, few programs exist for students who do not
display such interest. Unfortunately, these “unmotivated”
students often represent racial and cultural minorities,
and they often come from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. Unfortunately, they often lack familial and
cultural support systems that might promote academic
excellence. Though schools have enacted programs
like AVID to support motivated “at-risk” students, these
“unmotivated” students’ needs often go unmet, and by as
early as ninth grade, many of them have already become
casualties of the educational system (McCallumore &
Sparapani, 2010).
One key aspect of supporting these “unmotivated”
and underserved students is by creating a system that
stresses both relationships and rigor (Rivera-McCutchen,
2012). Accordingly, cohort models that emphasize both
the interdependence among cohort members and the
relational support of faculty and staff might serve to
meet these students’ social and academic needs. With
this in mind, one large, urban high school in the Puget
Sound area created a cohort model for disadvantaged,
incoming ninth graders who had been identified as at risk
of dropping out and who did not qualify for AVID or other,
more traditional support structures. This cohort model—
known as the CORE program—included both structured
and individualized academic support by a team of CORE
teachers, as well as a common progression through
rigorous academic courses. What follows is a description
of the program itself and its impact on students’ STAR
reading scores, course pass rates, and absenteeism after
one year. The quantitative measures of program impact
are augmented by qualitative student surveys.
— 23 —
The CORE Program
The CORE program as described here took place during
the 2013-2014 school year. By creating a cohort model in
which participants took their academic courses with the
same group of students, by creating a first-period CORE
class designed to foster meta-cognitive goal setting and
monitoring, and by creating a regular and intentional
communication system among all CORE teachers, the
CORE program hoped to 1) raise student achievement
and 2) create a sense of belonging and interdependence
among the group and between students and teachers.
It was hoped that creating a sense of community would
contribute not only to students’ immediate academic
success but also to their longer term commitment to
school. Achieving these aims required a multi-faceted
approach.
Participants
The CORE program was enacted at a large suburban
9-12 public high school in the Pacific Northwest. Sixtyone percent of the students were non-white (roughly
25% Hispanic, 20% Asian/Pacific Islander, 9% African
American, 7% two or more races). There were 54% of the
students on free or reduced lunch.
To select participants for the study, the high school
administrative team and CORE-subject teachers created
a survey that was sent to eighth-grade teachers in the two
feeder middle schools. Teachers were asked to identify
students who were: 1) not enrolled in support programs
like special education or AVID; 2) struggling academically,
as evidenced by MSP scores and in-class work; 3) absent
fewer than 10 times in the school year; and 4) not discipline
problems, as evidenced by classroom behavior and lack
of suspensions.
High school administrators and teachers met with the
identified students to confirm their fitness for the study.
In the end, 45 students were asked to join the CORE
program upon entering ninth grade, and 41 students
agreed to participate. These students composed the
treatment group (n=41). Nine teachers volunteered to
be CORE teachers. Two regular, non-honors ninth-grade
English classes were chosen as the control group (n=60).
Induction through Summer Bridge
To foster relationships, CORE students attended a
week-long summer bridge program. This allowed them
to become familiar with the school, meet some of the
teachers, and participate in activities where they began to
develop a positive association with school. For example,
students worked in small groups to develop trust and
rapport through games and activities such as a trust
fall, three-legged races, etc. These basic and carefully
selected team-building activities began the process of
creating camaraderie and interdependence, which are key
traits in a functional cohort. They also engaged in more
pragmatic activities, such as learning about the layout of
the school building and locating their future classrooms.
The combined purpose and effect of these activities was
not only to demystify the first days of high school but also
to create a sense of anticipation and excitement among
the students.
First Period CORE
Once the school year began, the CORE students were
divided into two cohorts, one with 20 students and the
other with 22. Each cohort was enrolled in a first-period
academic skills class. The class was a hybrid of teambuilding and academic support. Early in the year, first
period CORE teachers worked with students to set goals,
both personal and academic. Students’ goals were posted
on classroom walls, and the entire class participated in
monitoring each others’ progress throughout the year.
The academic skills class also gave students a chance
to reflect on their academic progress in other content
classes. Students struggling in humanities courses
worked with their first period CORE teachers to identify
specific areas of weakness, and the teacher would
help them craft a plan to catch up on missing work or
to approach the other teacher to ask for help. The first
period CORE teachers would begin and end each week by
officially checking in with other CORE teachers regarding
students’ progress and behavior. When necessary, these
issues were addressed in first period.
Students also used this time to collaborate on homework.
Teachers sometimes paired students intentionally for
group work. Other times, students self-selected according
to need. Some class periods were used for team building,
while others focused on specific academic skills. Overall,
the first period CORE classes were fluid and dynamic,
allowing teachers to respond to students’ needs and to
differentiate instruction on an almost daily basis.
The academic support provided during first period CORE
was designed with these disadvantaged students in
mind. Because these students did not qualify for other
academic support, such as ELL, Special Education, or
AVID programs, and because of their disadvantaged
backgrounds they had been identified as being in danger
of failing and/or dropping out. By and large, these
students lack familial and/or cultural support structures.
Therefore, the daily accountability that the CORE teacher
— 24 —
and the rest of the cohort provided played a critical role
in creating an environment in which these students might
not only survive in school but thrive, as well.
Other CORE Classes
The accountability continued beyond first period. Each
cohort remained together for math, science, English,
and social studies. These classes, combined with the
first-period class, comprised the CORE classes. Thus,
students attended five of their seven classes with their
CORE cohort. Students were able to choose different
electives, but, due to scheduling logistics, many ended
up taking the same electives, such as PE.
CORE Teachers
At the end of the previous school year (Spring 2013),
the principal had asked nine teachers to consider
participating in the CORE program. All nine teachers—
two math, two English, two general science, one social
studies, and the two first period CORE teachers—
agreed to participate. Their participation was voluntary.
During in-service days at the beginning of the school
year, prior to students’ arrival on campus, the nine
teachers met to establish their communication
protocols. They agreed to write weekly email progress
reports for each student. These progress reports were
sent to the other teachers. Thus, all nine teachers were
aware of each student’s academic and social progress.
Furthermore, student concerns and/or highlights
became the property and responsibility of the entire
group.
In addition to the required weekly emails regarding
student progress, CORE teachers from both cohorts
met once a month in a common, teacher-directed
Professional Learning Community (PLC). They set their
group agenda based on the needs they were observing
in their CORE classes. They discussed strategies for
student intervention, analyzed student data (e.g., class
grades, STAR test scores, and discipline/attendance
records), and examined resources for their own
professional growth. Each PLC meeting was attended
by an intervention specialist who served as an
additional resource. Additionally, CORE teachers met
as needed to discuss acute student problems, both
social and academic.
CORE Celebrations
To reward student progress, CORE celebrations were
planned at the end of each semester. First through third
periods were blocked off, and students with passing
grades and few absences/disciplinary issues were able
to attend a party. Students who were failing one or more
class used this time to catch up on missing work or make
an academic plan. Students with multiple absences/
disciplinary infractions met with the Dean of Students for
an intervention.
Assessments
Both CORE and control groups took the STAR reading
test three times: in September, January, and again in
May. The September and May tests constitute pre- and
posttests. The STAR test was chosen as a measure of
students’ academic progress for four reasons: 1) the
STAR test was already in use by the district; 2) the
Center for Response to Intervention highlighted the
STAR test’s reliability, validity, and generalizability when
working with at-risk students; 3) the STAR test was
already set to be administered three times during the
school year, making repeated measures of students’
progress feasible; and 4) the STAR test allowed for
grade-level benchmarks to be set, and the flexibility of
the test allowed for easy implementation.
Toward the end of the school year, students were
surveyed about their perceptions of the CORE program.
These qualitative surveys contained three openended questions that asked students to identify the
advantages and disadvantages of the CORE program
and to identify which aspects of the program they
considered the most helpful. The survey also contained
three yes/no questions asking whether students would
recommend the program to others, whether they liked
the small class sizes, and whether they liked their
CORE teachers.
In addition, rates of attendance and passing grades
were gathered for both groups at the end of each
semester.
Results
To track students’ academic progress during the CORE
program, three different quantitative measures were used:
comparisons between groups’ overall pass rates, STAR
reading scores within groups, and STAR reading scores
between groups. In order to assess the CORE program’s
impact on students’ commitment to school and sense
of belonging, a quantitative comparison of groups’
attendance rates was used. In addition, CORE students
were given an open-ended, qualitative survey regarding
their perceptions of the program and its effects at the end
of the school year.
— 25 —
Academic Progress
The CORE group’s mean scores increased significantly
from the pretest to the midtest (df = 1; F = 9.892; p = .003).
However, the CORE group’s means decreased from the
midtest to the posttest. This decrease was not significant
(p = .733). Despite this decrease, the overall gains from
the pretest to the posttest were still significant (df = 40; t
= -2.662; p = .011).
Classes passed. A higher percentage of CORE students
passed all of their classes at the end of both semesters.
In addition, the disparity between CORE and control
group pass rates increased over time, and the difference
between their second semester pass rates was significant
(Table 1).
Though the control group’s mean scores were higher
overall, they did not demonstrate overall significant
increase. Furthermore, in contrast to the CORE group,
the control group’s data indicated a sphericity violation
(Mauchly’s score: p = .006). With sphericity assumed,
there was no omnibus significance between the means
(df = 2; F = 2.129; p = .123). Because of the sphericity
violation, the Greenhouse-Geisser values were also taken
into account. These were also not significant (df = 1.723;
F = 2.129; p = .131). The lack of omnibus significance
was confirmed by within-subjects contrasts. The control
group’s means decreased slightly from pretest to midtest.
The means also increased from midtest to posttest. There
were no significant differences between any of the control
group’s means, including the pretest and the posttest (df
= 59; t = -1.456; p = .151).
The CORE group increased or maintained their passing
percentage from first to second semesters. In contrast,
the passing percentage the control group decreased over
time. The number of control group students failing two
classes increased between first and second semesters,
whereas fewer CORE students were failing two classes by
the end of the second semester. The difference between
the groups was not significant. The differences between
the groups grew, however, and by the end of the second
semester, CORE students were passing all seven classes
at a significantly higher rate than the control group (df =
99; t = 2.132; p = .019).
Reading scores within groups. Because STAR reading
scores were gathered three times from the same students,
a general linear model of repeated measures was used to
compare scores (Table 2).
Reading scores – between groups. Though the control
Table 1
Course Pass Rates by Semester
n
Passing Percentages
Passing five courses
(failing two)
Passing six courses
(failing one)
Passing seven courses
(failing none)
1st Sem
2nd Sem
1st Sem
2nd Sem
1st Sem
2nd Sem
CORE
Group
41
12.2% (n=5)
9.75% (n=4)
19.5% (n=8)
19.5% (n=8)
68.3%
(n=28)
70.75%
(n=29)*
Control
Group
60
23.3%
(n=14)
25%
(n=15)
13.3% (n=8)
16.7%
(n=10)
63.3%
(n=38)
58.3%
(n=35)
* Significant at the .05 level
Table 2
STAR Reading Scores – Within Groups
n
STAR Reading Scores
September
Pretest
January
Midtest
Mean Score Changes
May
Posttest
m
SD
m
SD
m
SD
Pre to
Mid
Mid to
Post
Pre to
Post
CORE
Group
41
771
207
835
228
827
250
+64**
-8
+56*
Control
Group
60
890
218
885
228
921
248
-5
+36
+31
* Significant at the .05 level
** Significant at the .01 level
— 26 —
group’s posttest scores were higher than the CORE
group’s scores, the only significant difference between
the groups’ scores were on the pretest (Table 3).
Table 3
STAR Reading Scores – Between Groups
n
STAR Reading Scores
September
Pretest
January
Midtest
MayPosttest
m
m
m
CORE
Group
41
771
835
827
Control
Group
60
890
885
921
119**
50
94
Mean Score
Differences
** Significant at the .01 level
An independent samples t-test was used to compare the
groups’ mean scores on the three tests. The only significant
difference was found between the groups’ pretest scores
(df = 99; t = -2.734; p = .007). The differences between the
midtest (df = 99; t = -1.085; p = .281) and posttest (df = 99;
t = -1.862; p = .066) scores were not significant.
In conclusion, although both groups’ scores rose
overall, only the CORE group demonstrated significant
improvement from the pretest to the posttest. Furthermore,
although the control group had higher overall scores, the
groups’ posttest scores were not significantly different. In
addition, the CORE group started with significantly lower
pretest scores. Their significant improvement between
the pre- and posttests rendered the difference between
the groups’ posttest’s scores insignificant.
Commitment to School and Sense of Belonging
Attendance rates. Both CORE and control groups
exhibited a significantly higher number of absences in the
second semester when compared to the first semester.
The CORE group averaged 15.41 absences in the first
semester and 42.6 in the second semester: this was
significant at the .001 level (df = 40; t = -5.785; p = .000).
Similarly, the control group averaged 11.83 first semester
absences and 30.13 second semester absences, which
is also significant at the .001 level (df = 59; t= -7.757; p =
.000). However, though both groups showed a significant
increase in absences, there was no significant difference
between the groups’ absences in either semester.
Student perceptions of the CORE program. Twentynine students (71%) completed the end of program survey.
The researchers used grounded theory to identify the
trends emerging from the narrative data in the responses
to questions 1-3 and to code the data into discrete
categories (Richards, 2005).
Question One: “What are the advantages of the CORE
program?” Analysis of the data revealed that responses
fell into two general categories. Eleven students (38%)
reported that the extra time provided by the firstperiod CORE class was the greatest advantage of the
program. Seven students (24%) cited “organization” as
an advantage, though it is unclear from the data whether
they meant that the program was well-organized or that
it had helped them with their own organization. Other
categorical responses (e.g., “motivation” or “extra help”)
had fewer than three responses and do not indicate
trends. Only two students responded that there was no
advantage to the program.
Question Two: “What are the disadvantages of the
CORE program?” As with Question 1, the responses to
Question 2 fell into two categories. Twelve students (41%)
claimed that seeing the same students in every class was
a disadvantage. In contrast, nine students (31%) reported
that there were no disadvantages to the program. Other
categorical responses (e.g., “confusion” or “more focused
discipline”) had only one response.
Question Three: “What did you find the most
helpful about the CORE program?” Three categorical
responses emerged from the data. Ten students (34%)
found “organization” to be the most helpful, although,
again, it is unclear whether they meant personal or
programmatic organization. Ten students (34%) cited
“extra time” as the most helpful aspect of the program,
and six students (21%) said that “motivation” was most
helpful. Two students (7%) found “academic success” to
be helpful, and one student (3%) claimed that there was
nothing helpful about the program.
Questions 4-6 were yes/no. Twenty-eight students (97%)
said they would recommend the CORE program to others,
28 (97%) said they liked the small class sizes, and 28
(97%) said that they liked their teachers.
Discussion
The data gathered here tell a complicated and sometimes
contradictory story. At first glance, some aspects of the
CORE program seem to have yielded significant and
positive results, particularly in the percentage of courses
passed by CORE students and in their overall increase
on the STAR reading test. The students who participated
in the CORE program had been deemed to be at risk of
dropping out of high school based on their middle school
test scores, grades, attendance, and disciplinary referrals.
At the end of the first semester, both CORE and control
groups passed roughly the same number of classes.
By the end of the second semester, however, the CORE
group passed a significantly higher number of courses
— 27 —
than the control group.
Additionally, though the students in the control group
outperformed the CORE students on STAR reading exams,
the disparity between the groups narrowed dramatically
over the course of the year. The CORE group’s September
pretest scores were significantly lower than the control
group’s. By the posttest in May, however, the CORE group
had made significant gains, while the control group actually
lost ground. This suggests that whatever impact the CORE
program might have on students’ reading performance
takes effect early in the process. Though the CORE group
scored slightly lower on the posttest in May, their overall
gains for the year were significant. In contrast, the control
group did not demonstrate significant improvement over
the course of the year, and by May, though a gap between
the groups’ scores remained, it was no longer statistically
significant. In essence, the once-significant achievement
gap between the CORE and control students disappeared.
Though encouraging, these results must be interpreted
with caution. Equivalency between groups was not
established, and it is possible that the CORE and control
groups represent two different populations. Students
were neither randomly selected nor assigned, and other,
non-identified variables may be at play. Furthermore,
longitudinal data establishing a relationship between
CORE participation and other measures of academic
success (e.g., high school graduation, SAT scores, college
acceptance, etc.) do not yet exist. It may be that a one-year
intervention is insufficient to effect lasting change, and it
may be that CORE would be most effective if continued
on in 10th grade and beyond. The long-term impact of the
CORE program remains unknown, and though data on
the original CORE participants continues to be collected,
it will be years before they can be analyzed for possible
longitudinal effects.
In addition, it is possible that other measures of academic
improvement may have yielded different results. The
STAR reading tests were chosen due to a combination of
practical and financial factors, and evidence of the CORE
program’s effect on math and/or science performance
was not collected. It is possible that whatever impact the
program has is narrowly limited to performance on this
one measure alone.
remain,
however,
particularly
with
The lack of affiliation with the group is perhaps mirrored
by the dramatic spike in absences in the second
semester. Though the data do not suggest any causal
relationship between increased absences and lack of
group affiliation, the non-significant differences between
the CORE cohort’s the control group’s second-semester
absences seem to support the theory that CORE students’
commitment to school and/or sense of belonging did not
increase. Whatever effect the CORE program may have
had on commitment to school and sense of belonging did
not manifest in differing attendance rates.
The question, then, remains: if the CORE program had a
positive impact on student achievement, what were the
means of that impact? Which aspects of the program
were the most effective in fostering academic success?
On the whole, students attributed their academic success
to “increased time” and “organization.” As stated earlier,
it is unclear from their responses what they meant by
organization. It may be that the CORE program helped
them organize their own academic priorities, or it
may be that they were commenting on the organized
communication among CORE teachers, though the latter
is unlikely. It is possible that students were referring to the
meta-cognitive impacts of the program. The goal setting
and reflective activities in the first period CORE class may
have been the most impactful on their own learning. This
is speculation, however, and the short nature of students’
responses do not allow for a more detailed and nuanced
analysis. Furthermore, only 29 of 41 (71%) of the CORE
students responded to the survey, and it is possible that
students who were dissatisfied with the program did not
respond.
What is clear, however, is that despite the tentatively
positive data on CORE students’ academic performance,
the aspects of the CORE program that were the most
effective remain unknown. Students’ self-assessments
may not be accurate; these surveys were qualitative,
and no reliability or validity data exists. Additionally, the
attendance records and survey results seem to indicate
no increased commitment to school or the group. In fact,
a number of students cited the group as a weakness of
the the program. Given the tentatively encouraging data on
— 28 —
Nevertheless, given the importance of ninth grade
for students at risk of dropping out, the academic
improvement demonstrated by the CORE students may be
met with cautious optimism. Though a great deal remains
unknown, these initial results suggest that the CORE
program merits further study as a potential instrument for
closing the achievement gap.
Concerns
quantitative and qualitative data addressing students’
commitment to school and sense of belonging. It was
hypothesized that a cohort model would create a sense of
interdependence, and that students’ increased academic
performance would be due in part to their commitment
to the group and to each other. And yet, despite nearly
all of the respondents reporting that they liked the CORE
program and would recommend it, nearly 50% of them
claimed that the greatest disadvantage to the program
was seeing the same students in every class. They
identified the group as the program’s greatest liability.
CORE students’ academic progress, however, it is our
hope that future studies will seek to broaden the scope of
inquiry into both the short and long-term academic impact
of ninth-grade cohort models and the actual means of that
impact. Ultimately, we hope for a systematic approach
toward inclusion and equity that enables all students to
succeed.
About the Authors
Jebadiah Lillejord has been
a teacher and data analyst for
10 years in the Federal Way
Public Schools. He earned
his doctorate in Curriculum
and Instruction from Seattle
Pacific University.
References
Bergerson, A. A. (2009). College preparation programs.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4), 85-97.
Callopy, R., Bowman, C., & Taylor, D. A. (2012). The
educational achievement gap as a social justice
issue for teacher educators. Catholic Education,
16(1), 2-25.
Carlisle, L. R., Jackson, B. W., & George, A. (2006).
Principles of social justice education: The social
justice education in schools project. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 39, 55-56.
DeLugan, R. M., Roussos, S., & Skram, G. (2014).
Linking acadmemic and community guidelines
for community-engaged scholarship. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
18(1), 155-167.
Jeremy
Delamarter
is
an assistant professor and
director of field experiences
for the College of Education
at Northwest University in
Kirkland, Washington. His
research interests include the
relationship between teacher
preparation programs and
pre-service teacher identity
formation.
Esposito, J., & Swann, A. N. (2009). Pathways to social
justice: Urban teachers’ use of culturally relevant
pedagogy as a conduit for teaching social justice. Perspectives on Urban Education, 38-48.
Gibson, K., & Parks, M. W. (2014). Toward social justice:
Literature to promote multiple perspectives.
Promising Practice, 21(2), 41-50.
Kraft, M. (2007). Towards a school-wide model of
teaching for social justice: An examination of the
best practices of two small public schools. Equity
& Excellence, 40(1), 77-87.
McCallumore, K., & Sparapani, E. (2010). The importance
of ninth grade on high school graduation rates
and student success in high school. Education
Digest, 76(2), 60-64.
Mizrahi, L. (2014). Annual AVID Report. 2014 Northwest
University College of Education Faculty
Development. Bellevue, WA.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rivera-McCutchen, R. L. (2012). Caring in a small urban
high school: A complicated success. Urban
Education, 47(3), 653-680.
— 29 —
The Principal Preparation Inventory and Its Contribution
to the Growth of Educational Leadership Candidates’ Capacity
in Working with ELL Students
Dr. Tiffany Wright, EdD and Dr. Cheryl T. Desmond, PhD and Ms. Sara Sharkey
Abstract
Principal candidates in preparation programs who are able to understand and support the social, economic, and cultural
diversity of the students, staff, and community they will lead must engage meaningfully with these issues throughout
their preparation program, and develop the knowledge, skills, and experiences that examine and underpin civil rights
and racial justice through their integration into the program and as demonstrated in assessment outcomes. One area
where this is seen is through an assessment that is comprised of several “real-life” scenario-based experiences that
challenge the candidate to respond positively to various challenges that a principal will encounter including those of
civil rights and racial justice, and it provides information to the student about areas of individual needed growth and
to program faculty to inform curriculum and instruction. The focus of this particular article is to highlight the results of
the module related to working with English language learning (ELL) students and families.
Keywords: principal preparation, ELL, social justice
Statement of Purpose
The preparation of educational leaders and principals who
will advocate for civil rights and racial justice in schools
and communities requires more than a dip in the water via
a module with related assignment in one course in their
program. Principal candidates who are able to understand
and support the social, economic, and cultural diversity
of the students, staff, and community they will lead must
engage meaningfully with these issues throughout their
preparation program, and develop the knowledge, skills,
and experiences that examine and underpin civil rights and
racial justice through their integration into each course,
in case studies, in the internships, and importantly, as
demonstrated in assessment outcomes.
We highlight a cohort-based, master’s and postmaster’s
program, initiated in 1998, that was designed with social
justice and civil rights as a core component of each aspect
of the program. As one illustration of the commitment to
social justice, we require each candidate to complete a
day-long, diagnostic assessment after completing the
first course to determine each candidate’s composite
of knowledge, skills, and experiences accrued to this
point on the path as a teacher/leader and the candidate’s
adherence to legal, ethical, just decision-making, and
underlying understanding of social justice as it relates to
schools and K-12 students. This particular article will focus
on the ESL student case study module that emphasizes
one component of diversity necessary for school leaders
to value.
will encounter, including those of civil rights and racial
justice. We focus on the candidate’s descriptive analysis
of one of these scenarios, when responding to the needs
of an ELL student and to her family’s concerns and in
compliance with Title III.
This is one section of the larger mixed method assessment
instrument, administered to aspiring principal candidates
in a master’s and postmaster’s principal certification
program at a regional, comprehensive state university.
The purpose of the comprehensive instrument is
twofold: 1) To provide a pre-assessment of a candidate’s
readiness for the role of principal early in their program
and to serve as a diagnostic tool for the candidate’s
subsequent course work and the concluding internships
and 2) to inform any necessary curricular and pedagogical
changes to the program for each cohort of candidates.
Theoretical Framework
According the United States Department of Education,
teacher and principal preparation programs need to
be included in the larger conversations related to staff
evaluation and providing equitable learning environments
for all students (Rich, 2014). Just as the educational
literature has emphasized the importance of teachers
understanding the cultural differences of children, scholars
and researchers in the field of principal preparation have
urged training programs to educate their candidates for
cultural diversity, inclusion, and social justice (Hernandez
& Kose, 2012). In addition, much of the research over the
The assessment is comprised of six “real-life” scenario- past decade has painted a poor picture of educational
based experiences that challenge the candidate to leadership preparation in the U.S. Hess and Kelley (2005)
respond positively to various challenges that a principal contend that graduate schools usually do nothing more
— 30 —
than hope that aspiring principals are prepared for their
role. Levine (2005), in his extensive examination of principal
preparation programs, concluded that the majority of
the programs ranged from “inadequate to appalling” (p.
23). He found that, as a rule, university courses within
principal preparation programs often had little connection
to each other and scant relevance to the demands
and expectations of modern-day administrators. The
expectations for scholarship were poor, thus encouraging
those interested in receiving an advanced degree the
opportunity to do so with minimal credentials and effort.
At the same time, Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) published
a review of the research on transformational leadership
which has led to a growing body of scholarship on
effective leadership frameworks and practices and on
exemplary preparation programs1. In 2006, King, Levinger,
and Schoener identified the importance of rubrics and
performance indicators in improving the quality of the
knowledge and skills measured and developed through
the process of program candidate assessment and
growth. Currently, the assessment is given to first-year
students to ascertain current skills and provide individual
and program guidance.
Our graduate program in leadership for teaching and
learning aims to provide preparation that facilitates
school leaders’ propensity to lead from a social justice
perspective while developing and demonstrating the
knowledge, skills, and practices of exemplary school
leaders. Increasingly, the body of literature on school
leadership has pointed to the importance of social justice
in regard to race, ethnicity, social class, and cultural
diversity in growing educational leaders.
The education and support of English language
learners (ELL) in PK-12 schooling is an area demanding
increased attention. Between 1998 and 2009 there was
a 51% increase in the number of ELL students in U.S.
schools—from 3.5 million to 5.3 million—representing
about 10% of the student population (Roy-Campbell,
2013). The ELL population has spread beyond the major
urban areas and states where it has typically resided.
Theorharis and O’Toole (2011) conducted research on
school leaders serving the population of ELL students
in their schools. The authors found that, to better serve
their ELL population, school leaders opened themselves
up to the challenges and needs of ELL students.
Following this new knowledge, they involved themselves
in efficient restructuring of their school. This rebuilding
included educating and certifying fellow faculty and
staff, communicating with families and community, and
building a continuous, uninterrupted connection between
_______________________
ELL students and the school community. Researching
further, Theorharis and O’Toole (2011) discovered that
school leaders and other school staff dedicated time
to observe and recognize the disconnection between
ELL students and their classroom environment when
utilizing pullout ELS services. This led to a school-wide
collaboration to adopt co-teaching methods, in order to
serve their ELL community more efficiently. This approach
allowed ELL students to sit among their fellow Englishspeaking classmates without interruption, while both the
ELS and classroom teacher co-create educational goals
and delivered instruction togetherness. In their study
on sustaining high performance and learning in Florida
public elementary schools, with majority students of color
and at least 10% designated as ELL, Acker-Hocevar and
Cruz-Janzen (2008) identified the actual tasks performed
by teachers and principals and their skills, knowledge,
and values that contributed to student success. They
concluded that “principal and teacher preparation
programs must be changed ‘from the ground up,’ away
from traditional and theoretical role definitions with better
connections to the actual tasks performed by teachers
and principals in successful schools” (Acker-Hocevar
and Cruz-Janzen, 2008, p. 87) Brooks, Adams, & MoritaMullaney (2010) supported these studies by transforming
their conversations as school leaders beyond surface
issues relating to working with ELL students to conduct
deeper discussions about relations of power in schools
and how that specifically impacts the ELL population.
The conclusions of this research carry implications for
educational leadership programs that prepare candidates
who will work as leaders to advocate for the inclusion
of all students in appropriate educational programming
and who will develop a school climate and culture that
will enable the academic and behavioral success of ELL
populations.
Description of the Assessment
In 2008-2009, the program coordinator and one permanent
faculty member joined with five recently retired or current
administrators to design the program’s new assessment
instrument, the Principal Preparation Inventory (PPI).
The series of six scenarios in the instrument included
“real-life” case studies that focused on the principal’s
job tasks: teacher supervision/instructional leadership;
school, parent and community relations; English
language learners and diversity; special education;
student achievement outcomes; and data-driven decision
making. The scenarios were aligned with state standards
for principal certification and with NCATE’s Educational
Leadership Constituent Council standards for leadership
programs.
1. See Martin & Papa, 2008; Goldring, Huff, Spillane, & Barnes, 2009; Davis, Kearney, Sanders, Thomas, & Leon, 2011; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012
— 31 —
The PPI was piloted in 2009 and administered in 2010
and 2011. Two independent scorers completed a blind
scoring of each candidate’s essays on a plus-minus
scale with qualitative comments. At the completion of
the scoring, each candidate met with a program faculty
member to review these results and areas of strength
and weakness relating to the role of the principal, and to
focus on objectives for the candidate’s remaining courses
and the final internships of the program. In review of the
PPI in 2011, however, the evaluators found that the PPI
scoring yielded substantial qualitative information for
each candidate but did not allow for a clear comparison
of the candidate’s progress through the program and for a
quantitative evaluation of the program’s relevance to the
“real-life” role of the principal.
To address these concerns, the PPI was revised in 2012
and 2013 (with refinement in 2014) to incorporate some
Likert scale items within the scoring of each scenario. The
program coordinator provided training for the scorers to
enhance inter-rater reliability. When presented to each
candidate, quantitative and still-existing qualitative
results provided a complete picture of development up to
the time of the administration of the PPI.
The focus of this paper is on selected results of the PPI
administration from 2014 related to the ESL module. In
addition to the results being presented, this paper will
also outline changes or additions made to the program
since 2012 in order to prepare leaders to better adhere to
legal and ethical principles relating to working for growth
for this particular population of K-12 students.
that have systematically occurred with this particular
population of students. By completing descriptive analysis
on the scenario each year, the researchers also hoped to
help each candidate identify areas of strength and growth
in the planning of the individual aspects of remaining
coursework and fieldwork. Analyzing the qualitative
comments for each candidate and looking for overarching
themes within those comments also provided rich data for
program and individual candidate improvement.
Participants
Participants in the 2014 PPI (n=12) were all members of
the 2013 cohort. This sample consisted of eight females
and four males and contained professionals working in
high schools (n=3), middle schools (n=7), and elementary
schools (n=2). With the exception of three participants
who worked in an urban environment with over 50%
Hispanic student population and over 30% ELL student
population, the other nine participants had little prior
experience with the ELL student population, nor did any
of the participants state that they were multilingual.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The ESL Scenario consisted of eight items. The mean
score, standard deviation, and range for each item are
listed (see Table 2).
Table 2
Item Abbreviation
Table 1
Inter-rater Reliability Over 3 Years for ESL Student Case
Study
Scenario
Chronbach’s Alpha
2012
r = .87
2013
r = .88
2014
r = .79
SPSS descriptive statistics were used. By completing an
item analysis, the researchers anticipated findings that
would lead to program improvement related to working
with ESL students, hereby working to “right civil wrongs”
Potential
Range
For Scenario 4, ESL Student Case Study, inter-rater
reliability was first assessed to determine the ability to
analyze results further. The results showed strong-tomoderate inter-rater reliability over the past three years
(See Table 1).
Standard
Deviation
Instrument Items for ESL Scenario
Mean
Data Sources
1) Reviewed progress monitoring*
1.19
.384
1-2
2) Reviewed PA exit criteria for ELL*
1.03
.139
1-2
3) Parents’ rights & responsibilities**
1.03
.139
1-4
4) Meeting with receiving school*
1.12
.226
1-4
5) Advocacy for student**
2.12
.583
1-2
6) No right of refusal*
1.08
.195
1-4
7) Federal Law Requirement*
1.00
.000
1-2
8) True to Vision **
2.31
.663
1-2
* no/yes items, **Likert scale items
The results demonstrated that the candidates had the
— 32 —
lowest mean score (M=1.0) on Item 7 (Did the candidate
note that, as required by federal law, the academy
must provide ESL services to any qualifying student).
The possible range of scores for this item was 1-2 as
it was a yes/no item. The next lowest mean scores
(M=1.03) were seen on another yes/no item, Item 2 (Did
the candidate discuss reviewing the Pennsylvania Exit
Criteria for English Language Learners) and a Likert
scale item, Item 3 (Did the candidate help the parent
to understand her rights and responsibilities according
to the Pennsylvania Department of Education
guidelines). The highest mean score (M=2.31) was on
Item 8 (Candidate behaving in a way that’s consistent
with written vision), and the second highest mean
score (M=2.12) was seen on Item 6 (Did the candidate
demonstrate strong advocacy for the needs and the
rights of the child). For the items demonstrating more
variability, this meant that candidates demonstrated a
wider range of scores overall, indicating more individual
modifications were needed for each candidate’s
program to improve their individual knowledge, skills,
and experiences of candidates throughout the rest of
the program.
Qualitative Results
There were several emergent and common findings
among the qualitative comments provided to the
candidates. The following passage appeared in the
results for each of the twelve candidates:
student’s current levels of progress.
Two other candidates demonstrated similar positive
attributes when working with this module in the PPI.
The candidate used compliments to set a positive
tone for the parent meeting and offered to assist the
student and her parent in finding several options to
help the student meet her goals in reading/writing.
For example, suggesting summer school and ELL
programs at the local college were viable possibilities.
Candidate #10 started the meeting by focusing on
a positive approach to develop a good rapport with
the parent. This included displaying empathy for the
mother’s disappointment and praising the student’s
high achievement scores in math and science.
Starting a parent encounter on a positive note is
beneficial in setting the tone for a collaborative parent
encounter.
The candidate presented some viable suggestions for
helping the student achieve her goals. Specifically,
the candidate was going to meet with the high school
principal to propose a compromise and solution for the
issue at hand. This strong advocacy for the student is
commendable.
Discussion and Conclusions
In looking at the overall means, it is clear that our
candidates had few prior experiences in the area of
working with students learning another language at the
The candidates did not express any knowledge or time of this assessment. The faculty members working
understanding of the ESL laws and regulations in this
with the program, therefore, were able to engage in
response. The candidate’s response also showed a
lack of understanding of the student’s rights regarding conversation with the candidates and include additional
these laws and no knowledge that the science experiences into the program on an individual level
magnet high school must provide ESL services since within the practicum experiences of each candidate.
it is a public school. In addition, the candidate did not On the program level, the 2012 and 2013 results of the
recognize that the school district is out of compliance PPI with the overall low mean scores of candidates
with ESL regulations. The building principal is on the ESL scenario, especially the items related to
responsible to know and ensure that the building is in following through with Pennsylvania Department of
compliance with ESL laws and regulations.
Education (PDE) mandates, indicated that our principal
candidates needed additional knowledge, skills, and
These comments provided by the scorers to the
experiences related to working with ELL students and
candidates directly correspond with the quantitative
their families. Modifications have already been made
data indicating the candidates’ lack of adherence
in the two of the three core courses, i.e., the school
to ESL laws and regulations in working with this
law and school and community relations courses, in
population of students. Conversely, there were many
the program curriculum. Changes included specific
qualitative examples within the individual results that
chapter and text readings on the legal rights and
highlighted strengths of the candidates in leading for
policies for ELL populations, on programs that support
social justice. One example is stated here:
the academic capacity and needs of ELL students,
Candidate 12 focused on establishing a good rapport and on best practices for building culturally responsive
with the student and her mother. The candidate is family-school relationships. Online and in-class
commended for beginning the meeting in a positive discussions focus on the importance of supporting ELL
manner by praising the student’s progress in math students and their families for academic and school
and science. In addition, the candidate addressed the success and how collaborative, “power with” relations
— 33 —
in schools can positively impact ELL populations.
leader in working with ELL students and their families.
Some of the programmatic and specific course
changes to address candidates’ lacking in experience
working with ELL students also directly aligned with
the strengths the candidates demonstrated in this
module. The items that had the highest overall means
for the candidates related to maintaining one’s vision
while working with the scenario and working positively
through relationships and advocacy to provide the
student and family with the appropriate resources
despite not fully demonstrating an understanding of
the legal steps and procedures of working with this
population. It is evident that these candidates would
benefit from working within the framework identified by
Theorharis and O’Toole (2011), which includes school
leaders educating themselves and certifying faculty
and staff on the needs and challenges of the ELL
population, as well as advocating for inclusive services
that foster uninterrupted relationships between the
school community and ELL students. This framework
also supports and reinforces school leaders’ valuing
of children who are learning English and promotes
leaders’ understanding and inclusion of their cultures
as a central part of the community.
In addition, Acker-Hocevar and Cruz-Janzen (2008)
concluded that principal and teacher preparation
programs must be changed “from the ground up,”
away from traditional and theoretical role definitions
with better connections to the actual tasks performed
by teachers and principals in successful schools.
Our instrument provides a scenario that does just
this. The authors also stated that we must prepare
these candidates through models that help them to
see the theory in practice as they learn, keeping in
mind that effectively working with various cultures
entails affirming all cultures and valuing the wealth of
human assets they bring, in order to promote deep
reform, and that is the essential purpose of using the
PPI results in the programmatic sense. In order to
alleviate and correct the wrongs that ELL students
and their families have experienced over time in their
schooling, this program aims to prepare social justice
leaders who will support faculty, staff, students, and
families from different ethnicities and cultures who did
not have English as their first language and advocate
for participatory inclusion for these families to the
fullest degree. Candidates demonstrated the highest
scores in the module for items related to advocating
for students and staying true to their visions. The
curriculum of their program was modified to support
the desire for advocacy with the understanding of the
legal and ethical responsibilities of a moral school
References
Acker-Hocevar, M. & Cruz-Janzen, M. (2008). Teacher
and principal preparation programs: Reforms that
sustain high performance and learning in high
poverty and diverse schools. International Journal
of Learning, 14(10), 87-95.
Brooks, K., Adams, S. R., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010).
Creating inclusive learning communities for
ELL students: Transforming school principals’
perspectives. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 145-151.
Davis, S., Kearny, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C., & Leon,
R., (2011). The policies and practices of principal
evaluation: A review of the literature. San
Francisco: West Ed.
Davis, S. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Innovative
principal preparation programs: What works and
how we know. Planning and Changing, 43(1/2),
25-45.
Goldring, E., Huff, J., Spillane, J. P., & Barnes, C. (2009).
Measuring the learning-centered leadership
expertise of school principals. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 8, 197-228. DOI: 10:
1080/1570760902737170
Hernandez, F., & Kose, B. W. (2012). The developmental
model of intercultural sensivity: A tool for
understanding principals’ cultural competence.
Education and Urban Society, 44(4), 512-530.
Hess, F. M., & Kelley, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What
gets taught in principal-preparation programs.
Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-274.
King, C., Levinger, B., & Schoener, J. (2006). Leadership
development quality assessment process
(LDQAP). Newton, MA: Education Development
Center, Inc.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of
transformational school leadership research,
1996-2005. Review of Educational Research,
52(3), 309-339.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York:
Teachers College Press: The NewEducation
School Project.
Martin, G. E., & Papa, R. (September/October 2008).
Examining the principal preparation and practice
gap. Principal, 88(1), 12-14, 16. www.naesp.org
Rich, M. (2014, April 25). Obama administration plans
new rules to grade teacher training rules. The New
York Times, accessed from: http://www.nytimes.
— 34 —
com/2014/04/26/us/obama-administrationplan-seeks-to-rate-teacher-training-programs.
html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
Roy-Campbell, A. M. (2013, May/June). Who educates
teacher educators about English
Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive
ELL: Social justice leadership for English
language learners. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 47(4), 646-688.
About the Authors
Dr. Tiffany Wright is the current coordinator of the Educational Leadership program at Millersville University. She is
an Assistant Professor in her fourth year of full-time service
to the Educational Foundations department.
Dr. Cheryl Desmond is the previous coordinator and one
of the founders of the Educational Leadership program at
Millersville University. She is Professor Emerita of the Educational Foundations department after many years of
service.
Ms. Sara Sharkey is one of the current graduate assistants
for the Educational Leadership program at Millersville
University. She is studying to earn her M.Ed in school
counseling with the hopes of working in this role at a middle
school in the future.
— 35 —
Thinking About Thinking About Learning: A Student Teacher’s
Reflection on Student Voice, Metacognition, and Authenticity
Lucie Kroschel
Light shone in through the tall windows of our classroom.
It was the first period and students were still waking up.
I, on the other hand, was prepped and ready. Caffeinated.
Today was the day I was going to get through one of the
final criteria I needed to complete the Washington State
Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA). I was going to
capture the long elusive “student voice.”
The Washington TPA demands use of metacognition by
students in the classroom in very specific terms. “Student
voice” as it is called by the assessment is, essentially,
students’ ability to think metacognitively about their
learning progress and process, in direct connection to the
learning targets of a given unit. Metacognition basically
means “to think about thinking.” Dr. David Carroll (2013)
asserts that “[a]t its heart, student voice is about fostering
metacognitive awareness in learners about their own
experiences with learning” (p. 36). In order to demonstrate
that students had partaken in metacognitive thinking
connecting directly to our unit learning goals, I needed to
collect evidence via video or written work.
This was a relatively small humanities class. Made up of
about 15 ninth and tenth grade students, it sometimes
had a sleepy feel early in the morning. As we entered the
last part of our lesson, I announced that we were going to
do one final activity. I told my students that this was not
something that would affect their grade but that it was
important and would certainly take some reflection on
their part.
I took a deep breath and turned to the table groups around
me. “I would like for you all to consider your own process
of learning, during our unit,” I began. In the clearest way
I could, I explained that they should not just think about
what they learned during the unit, but how they learned
it. I paused. Looking out over my classroom I saw blank
faces all around. Unsure how to offer better explanation,
I handed out the worksheets I had created to help them
through the task.
I was pleased with how my lesson sequence had turned
out. It was the end of our unit on the Vietnam era in which
our class had read Tim O’Brien’s novel, The Things They
Carried and, through a variety of in-class exercises and
activities, considered the role of perspective in how we
understand history. I worked hard to engage my students
not only in various discussions, writing, and group work,
but also in some mild reflection activities. It did not seem
that one final reflective activity today would feel too out of
the ordinary to my students.
Students were given two worksheets. On the first, they
were prompted to answer one of the essential questions
of our unit, effectively restating one of the unit’s enduring
understandings (EU). The EU and question were not new
for these students. Essential questions had been put on
the board daily and discussed in small group literature
circles as well as with the whole class. The second sheet
was similar, though rather than having the students answer
an essential question they were simply given one of our
learning targets and asked to rate their understanding.
To “rate” their understanding I asked students to “take
their temperature” on a scale of 1-5 with regard to the
learning targets. A “1” which read, “I have frostbite!”
meant, essentially, “I have no idea what is going on.” A
“5” on the other hand, read, “I have a fever!” and meant,
“I am hot with knowledge! I totally get it!” Students were
directed to circle a number on the line and then explain
their rating. In retrospect, I’m aware that the “take the
temperature” analogy may not have been an extremely
clear parallel to rating understanding, but at the time I felt
it was a reasonable and fun analogy.
As a grand finale to the worksheet, I asked students to
look back at their answers and ask themselves, “Why did
I give myself the particular temperature rating I did?” and,
“How do I know I understand?”
We debriefed this last question together as a group.
Because I was concerned about meeting standard on
this aspect of the TPA, I also videotaped the experience.
From off screen, you can hear my voice as I congratulate
the students on completing the worksheet and then ask
for some answers for the big last question: “How do you
know that you understand?”
The stationary video captures a little more than half the
students in the small class. Visible are a couple of table
groups staring at their papers or out into space. “So, I’m
really curious about how you may have answered that last
question. How do you know that you know?” I say from
off camera.
Radio silence. Blank faces.
Eventually, I call on a student. She is willing. This student
— 36 —
suggests that she knows she understands because she
believes she could explain the concept to someone else.
Another student, after some prodding, offers an actual
explanation of the enduring understanding in her own
words, reinforcing the first student’s assertion. I am both
impressed and pleased.
But others in the class look either dumbfounded or only
mildly engaged. I try to guide the conversation forward,
calling on other students, but without much grace. A
third student simply explains that he knows because “he
gets it.” I prod him, “but how do you know you know?”
I begin. There is some laughter from my students. I
again start in, trying to keep it light. Watching the video
now, I see eyebrows raised, confusion, giggles. It looks
contrived. I keep rambling. “It is important you know you
know because it is most important you know, not me,
your teacher…” I stumble. “Do you get what I’m saying?”
Heads turn. No, not really. I am giggling now. Whatever, I
think. Knowing that a couple students had responded in
the way I needed for my TPA student voice rubric, I was
pleased, relieved even. I threw in the towel and ended it.
“OK guys, well, good job. Class dismissed.”
And that’s a wrap. Student voice? Check.
Looking at this now, I think more about my own experience
as a student. In high school, I was not a poor student,
by any means, but I was highly compliant. Because I did
relatively well in most of my classes and was on good
behavior, I was rarely checked in on by my teachers. I also
never sought much extra help. School was about going
through the motions: friends, fun, getting the grades, and
moving along. I certainly had memorable and inspiring
teachers, and I liked school—I had always been told I was
“good at it”—but the broader purpose of it was lost on me.
It was just what everyone did, right? During high school
I do not recall spending time thinking about my learning
or my learning process in any critical way, or the purpose
for it, other than to eventually go to college, which was, at
that point where my life plans stopped.
Thus, watching the video, I try to put myself in my students’
shoes. I think about how I would have responded to a
question like this in high school. Being the highly compliant
student I was, I believe I would have, at the very least,
walked through the activity, but it is hard to say whether
I would have invested energy into it. I suspect that there
is little-to-no way that I, as a freshman in high school,
would have known what to do with such a prompt. How
do I know that I know that? What?I’m confused. Wait--is
this part of my grade? Ummm, I guess I know because I
know? I don’t know.
Now, as a teacher, thinking about my highly compliant,
mostly well-supported high school students in the video,
and comparing my own hypothetical reaction, I wonder
how much—or if—they benefitted.
This thought is a little upsetting.
Initially, after the class ended, I was highly congratulatory
of myself. You nailed it, Lucie. Pat on the back!Totally
captured the student voice thingy. Finally! And yet, now
watching the video, so many of my students seem to be
staring aimlessly. I just see students being put through
a contrived metacognitive ringer of my making. I wonder
what other barriers or complications exist in my current
students’ lives that might have made such a reflection
difficult. I clearly had tunnel vision as I tried to pass the
Washington State teaching standard. Did they benefit at
all from my stumbling through this TPA task? Or were they
just the unfortunate guinea pigs in my disjointed student
voice adventure?
The TPA in Washington asks educators to get students
to think about their learning, reflect on their progress
toward learning targets, and, in turn, make visible the
value and purpose of the education they are taking away.
Philosophically, I agree with this mandate.
In practice however, teaching metacognitive thinking to
students comes with incredible challenges. Throughout
the unit I worked hard to think of ways to engage my
students to consider their own learning. In truth, I am not
sure I was truly equipped to weave together metacognitive
skill building, demanding content, district and state
standards, and the other pressures that come with a first
go at classroom teaching. It was—is—a lot to navigate.
But I certainly tried. As I look back on this unit and
on my student teaching, I am struck by my efforts
to elicit metacognitive thinking practices from my
students. Although Washington’s parameter for student
metacognition, student voice, feels rather narrow, the
pathway I took in trying to capture it during my student
teaching, I believe, has taught me a lot. My pathway
involved three attempts.
Three Attempts
During the course of my student teaching, I tried to
capture student metacognition three different times.
Through the first activity I wanted students to practice
working in small groups, and then reflect on their behavior
in that group. From this activity, students were able to
consider their place in the class, their contributions, their
responsibility to others in a group, and on a very basic
level, begin to establish some classroom norms about
group work. In the second activity, a week or two into our
unit, I had my students complete a reflective worksheet
— 37 —
after an in-class Socratic seminar. Because my earlier
activity had been based on group work behavior, I tried
to make this reflection slightly more content focused.
Still though, student responses swung heavily toward
their actions in the seminar and their relationships
with their peers. They identified strengths, such as the
fundamental need for contributions during a seminar
to enrich their learning, and weaknesses that they felt
affected the outcome and value of the seminar. The
open-ended nature of the questions presented during
this reflective activity gave students the freedom to
explore their learning experience during the seminar.
Their answers offer evidence of the direct connection
made by students between their awareness of the
social dynamics present in our class and the necessity
for discussion and interaction in order to expand
understanding of the content.
With my third attempt, because I was nearing the end
of my student teaching, I had become increasingly
more desperate to capture Washington’s particular
definition of student metacognition, “student voice.” To
meet this standard, I created a couple rather extensive
worksheets for students to complete at the end of the
unit. Through the worksheets, my students were asked
to explain learning targets and rate their understanding
of those targets. See Figures 1a and 1b below for an
example my worksheet with student comments.
Figure 1a
Not only did the questions involved in this “end of unit
reflection” demand that students consider their own
progress toward the learning targets, to answer any
questions and rate their understanding, they also had
to “think about their thinking.” The worksheet asked
students to give examples of their learning process
(“how do you know that you know?”), as a way to
illustrate this understanding. It was this attempt that
allowed me to meet standard for student voice on the
TPA. Yet I also saw drawbacks. While some students
seemed to fully engage in the debrief conversation
about this worksheet, others seemed lost or bored. As
noted in the earlier narrative, although this extensive
worksheet met all requirements of the Washington
TPA, the process felt decidedly teacher-centered.
While all prior reflective activities in our classroom
gave students leeway to explore their relationship with
their learning process and their learning community,
the goal of this worksheet was far more narrow in
asking students to evaluate their understanding of a
particular learning target. Considering the otherwise
student-centered nature of my classroom, I believe
that—to my students—this activity may have felt
inauthentic. As I reflect on my multiple attempts to
support students’ reflections on their learning, I am left
with some questions. How do we keep our efforts to
teach metacognition authentic? Do we always need
to evaluate a specific learning target? How can we
evaluate new teachers in this area while keeping our
efforts student-centered? In this next section I share
my reflections on these questions.
Figure 1b
— 38 —
Reflections on Metacognition and
Student Voice
Metacognition is Learned and Takes Practice
One of the biggest take-aways I have from reviewing
my efforts toward eliciting metacognitive thinking in my
classroom is the value I saw in offering regular opportunities
for reflection and self-assessment throughout the unit.
I have learned that metacognitive thinking is a learned
skill and takes consistent practice. Carroll writes that “[e]
xpecting students to be aware of learning targets and
take responsibility for working toward them… involves a
considerable degree of ‘self-regulation’” (p. 36). I’ve come
to believe metacognitive thinking is at least part of what
helps students to build their ability to self-regulate and
manage their learning process. Therefore, as teachers,
it seems vital to offer students regular opportunities to
practice reflection on their learning.
I now see how my “stumbling” through the TPA’s “student
voice” was actually a happy accident. I initially saw my
first two attempts at metacognition as “failed student
voice attempts.” Neither attempt focused directly enough
on my learning targets. I have now come to believe these
activities offered incredible value to students in that they
inadvertently built upon each other. For example, the skills
developed during the initial activity likely became useful
in subsequent reflective activities. Had I not journeyed
through this process and created multiple reflective
activities for my students, I may have not derived this
important take-away.
Metacognition Requires Reflective Options
As cited in the above narration, my students and I visited
the final question on the worksheet (Figure 1a) as a group,
out loud. “How do you know that you know?” I asked the
class. After the class, I reviewed their responses on the
worksheet. One student responded to this last question
on the worksheet with clear frustration, “I don’t know how
I know! I just know! Because I’m mildly intelligent!!!”
Reading this student’s response impressed upon me how
this particular reflective exercise may not have worked for
him. It has since made me consider how I may need to
offer reflective options for different learners. In short, we
must work to meet students at their metacognitive level.
Just as educators talk about the need to differentiate
lesson plans to meet different student needs, we need to
differentiate our attempts to teach metacognitive thinking
practices.
Reviewing the video of this exercise helped me to see
this. Sitting center on the screen, although he remained
quiet— this student actually seemed engaged, listening
attentively to other students’ answers to the question.
From watching this, I hypothesize that this student
may have benefited from listening to his peers explain
their thinking processes. Although he could not offer an
explanation of his own learning or thinking process on
paper, peer interaction may have supported him, building
his metacognitive thinking habits. I’m learning that
students can, probably should, and may need to engage
in metacognitive practices in a variety of ways.
Metacognition is a Tool for Relationship Building
and Community
After finishing graduate school I was hired as a humanities
teacher at the Tacoma School of the Arts (SOTA), the same
school where I had once student-taught. I love my job. I feel
lucky to be in a supportive professional environment with
dedicated students. As a teacher now, I continue to lean
on the tools and practices I created as a student teacher,
as well as the resources I derive from my Humanities
Inquiry team. I continue to use metacognitive tools in
my classroom to enhance student learning. Interestingly,
I find myself much more drawn to the open-ended style
reflections from my “early attempts” at student voice
than to the more formal version which helped me meet
standard on the TPA. In writing this article, I’ve had to ask
myself, why is this?
Although my “third attempt” allowed me to meet all requirements of the Washington TPA, I found that I struggled to make the experience authentic and meaningful
to my students. While the aim of student voice is to help
students think metacognitively, ultimately this activity
was created for my teacher evaluation. Students seemed
to pick up on this. While all prior reflective activities in
our classroom gave students leeway to explore their
relationship with their learning process and their learning
community, the goal of this worksheet was far more
narrow; asking students to evaluate their understanding
of a very particular learning target.
After some reflection I have come to recognize that it is
the authenticity with which I ask a student a question
that guides the authenticity of their answer. In many
ways, teaching is just as much about guiding students
toward mastery of content and concepts as it is about
mentorship and human connection. The earlier reflective tools I created, although perhaps lacking in their
direct connections to learning targets, effectively met my
students where they were at that moment in my classroom.
Thus, I am faced with a dilemma. I value metacognitive
thinking as a teaching tool, but recognize the challenges that come with using it effectively in teaching.
As the state decides the fate of student voice in the
— 39 —
TPA,1 I wonder if we have acknowledged the difficulty of eliciting thinking about learning targets in ways
that are not contrived. I worry that the specificity of what
Washington asks pre-service teachers to do in terms of
teaching metacognition may be both too challenging and
not particularly effective. Considering the other emotional and professional demands new teachers face, I worry
that what could be an effective learning opportunity may
simply become a “one-hit wonder” to an overwhelmed
student teacher attempting to check criteria off an extensive list with little benefit to the students involved.
That said, my experience completing the TPA and being
challenged by student voice has also taught me important lessons. It has demanded my own self-reflection and,
even a year later, pushes me to question the effectiveness of my teaching and the quality of my interactions
with my students. I aim to be an authentic, whole-hearted teacher who shows genuine concern and care for my
students. In thinking about the TPA, I wonder whether
it is even possible to measure the authenticity of mentorship or the human connection educators have with
students, something that, to me, is essential to being an
effective teacher.
One Year Later
My students are seated in a circle in our classroom. This
large, upperclassmen class has just completed a Socratic
Seminar exploring the life and leadership of the Prophet
Muhammad, and the Five Pillars of early Islam. Scribbling
furiously on their rubrics, I’ve asked them each to grade
themselves on the seminar. “What grade would you give
yourself and why?” I’ve also asked them to cite at least
one new learning and one appreciation for some aspect of
the seminar discussion. After the students finish writing,
we share.
Harry begins. “I appreciate how the seminar seemed to
really flow. Sometimes in seminars it seems like there are
lots of awkward silences and people are just throwing
quotes out there for no reason. So yeah, I appreciated
that people seemed really ready to discuss.”
Maria, a particularly talkative student, responds.
“I agree with Harry, but I also think I learned that it is
sometimes good to just listen, like, I sometimes feel like
I need to get what I want to say out there really fast so I
can get my idea in.” Maria’s voice speeds up with this last
interjection, and then she pauses. “But then if I don’t get
the chance, somebody else makes a good point and that
makes me re-think about what I was going to say in the
first place.”
As my students make their way around the circle some
comment on specific learnings, while others compliment
each other. I encourage these compliments but also ask
that students be specific about their learning. When a
student’s appreciation is that “the seminar was good,” I
push. “What was ‘good’ about it? Tell us more.”
Anthony is a senior. He is perpetually behind on readings
in class and is one of my students of concern. Today in the
seminar, he was very quiet, only adding a short comment
toward the end of the discussion. I await his reflection.
“One thing I got from today was how I seem to understand
more when I get to listen to people talk about things. Like
when Anna was talking about the charity thing. Somebody
explained how giving to charity, what was that called
again?” Students chime in to help Anthony out. “Yeah,
Zakat. Anyway, Anna said it was all about ‘serving your
fellow man’ and so I think I finally get why people have to
donate to charity, it’s like walking the talk.”
Anna looks pleased. The camaraderie that this debrief
promotes seems to have seeped into the skin of my
students. Lots of students share an appreciation for one
student in particular, Kenny, who facilitated the seminar.
Kenny is glowing. They compliment his ability to ask
poignant follow-up questions and gently invite the quieter
students into the conversation.
“Usually, I get really nervous in seminars,” says Dorothy.
“I get worried that I’m going to say something stupid, so
it was really cool how Kenny helped me clarify my idea.”
I do not grade this reflection. Because we do this often,
my students know this. For them it is a moment to relax
and think about their learning in any way fitting to them.
When we have a weak seminar or a weak class period,
my students tend to arrive at that conclusion on their own
and I believe it drives them to improve. One of my greatest
appreciations for this practice is how carefully my students
tend to listen to one another. It builds their community.
During a seminar (especially with these upperclassmen
students) discussion tends to flow relatively easily. But the
tone of the debrief is very different. The stakes are lower
and students want to both give and receive feedback. It
gives them ownership over their learning in a way that I
cannot force.
This debrief is not an exact measure of my student’s
understanding of content or ability to reflect. It does not
clearly assess whether my students can summarize a
____________________
1. This is the first year the Washington TPA is officially being used to measure the competency and qualifications of pre-service teachers. While pilot versions of the
TPA required candidates to meet standard on student voice rubrics, the 2014 Washington TPA only requests that teacher candidates seek evidence for student voice.
Student voice rubrics, although graded, are not being used as criteria this year to measure new teacher competency.
— 40 —
learning target. It does, however, put reflective activities
in the hands of my students. While I might guide
conversation, my students lead it. My students come to
the table with different experiences and different baggage.
For some, reflecting on their learning comes naturally. For
others, they need practice or other students to model for
them. Maybe they simply need me to create an enriching
environment where they can explore their learning process
safely. No matter how I look at these experiences I cannot
find a way to easily assess them. Reflection is messy
and imperfect, but I appreciate now that it takes ongoing
practice, seems to require options, and is connected to
classroom community. While I will continue to work to
promote metacognition in my classroom, I don’t have
expectations that it will become “cleaner.” So, for now I
will instead just continue do my best, offer guidance to
my students, and perhaps, most importantly, authentically
listen.
References
Carroll, D. (2013). The teacher performance assessment
and student voice: Challenge for teacher
education, opportunity for teaching. Washington
State Kappan, 7(1), 35-41.
About the Author
Lucie Kroschel received her
Masters of Arts in Teaching
from the University of Puget
Sound in 2013. She is currently
a Humanities Instructor at the
Tacoma School of the Arts, a
public high school in downtown
Tacoma, Washington.
— 41 —
Washington State Kappan:
Autumn 2015 Call for Manuscripts
Deadline for Submission: July 15, 2015
Professional learning communities: Fostering cultures that strengthen teaching and
learning
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) across a variety of contexts represent a powerful form of professional
development for increasing teaching and learning. From changes in mandated assessments to new approaches to
teacher evaluation, from revised curriculum materials to Common Core State Standard implementation, professional
development through a PLC approach is supported by considerable research examining teacher collaboration in
professional development, both to support initial learning and to enhance school implementation of long-term teacher
learning plans (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2003; Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). The PLC
approach draws upon scholarship on situated teacher learning (Borko, 2004) stressing the importance of linking
professional development directly to activities and learning opportunities in participants’ schools, fostering an active
approach to teacher learning that shows value for positive and sustained change (National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2008; Joyce & Showers, 2002). From informal groups of classroom teachers
engaged in shared planning to structured PLC examinations of theory and practice among teachers, administrators,
and teacher educators, this form of collaborative learning provides important opportunities for professional growth.
We invite articles that serve as a catalyst for exploring the real, concrete, active dimensions of social justice from a
variety of perspectives. Those interested in submitting a manuscript may want to consider the following questions:
• In what ways are districts and schools working to support PLCs to improve instruction and increase student
learning and achievement?
• How might PLC models be meaningfully integrated with university teacher education programs?
• What are examples of how PLCs are being implemented at the classroom level?
• In what ways are ESDs facilitating or supporting PLC approaches to development and training programs?
• What do professional learning communities mean to students, parents, or school communities?
We are calling for several types of articles:
• Theory or research articles: 3,000 to 4,000 words (not including references) submitted by authors within or
outside of Washington State.
• Teacher-focused articles: 1,000 to 2,000 words (not including references), submitted by authors residing in
Washington State.
• Professional materials or book reviews: 750 to 1,000 words in length, submitted by authors residing in
Washington State.
• Commentaries: 1,000 words or less, written on a single theme at the request of the editor and editorial board.
For more details, see the call for manuscripts online:
https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/wsk/announcement
For online manuscript submission guidelines, go to:
https://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/wsk/about/submissions - authorGuidelines
For additional information and manuscript submission guidelines, please contact Antony Smith, editor:
ansmith@uwb.edu or (425) 352-5416.
For past issues of Washington State Kappan, please go to: http://www.pdkwa.org
— 42 —
References
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Resercher, 33(8),
3-15.
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002, Summer). Effects of professional development on
teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
24(2), 81-112.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College
Record, 103, 942–1012.
— 43 —

Social Justice in Education: Diversity, Equity, Citizenship

Transcription

Similar documents

Keep It Moving. - Center for Integrative Medicine

Delve Deeper into The English Surgeon

English Language Learning

August 2013 - Summit Road Society

English Language Learners

sissero

Vitamins and Dietary Supplements

Fairmont Grand Hotel Kyiv Welcomes You!

details.

2014 - US-Ukraine Foundation

Христос Воскрес! - Maria Antoniv Fine Art

Lemko Oral History Project Underway - US

Historical Maps of Europe