An Organization That Makes a Difference: The International Alliance for Invitational Education®

During the last few monthly blog posts, we have examined Elements 1-4 of the Coherence Lab framework.   Element 1 of the framework emphasizes the need for Building Focus and Coordination. Element 2 examines the need to Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Element 3 sets the expectations for stakeholders to Change Behavior at Scale. Element 4 of the Coherence Framework encourages Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working.

Advocates of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Purkey, Novak & Fretz, 2020), readily see the correlation between the Coherence Lab’s framework and Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices. This correlation simply proves again that IE is not something more to add to one’s pedagogical plate. Invitational Education (IE) theory IS the plate!  As evidenced by its lack of attribution to any theoretical foundation, the Coherence Lab might suggest its framework is innovative. 

Yet, for over 40 years proponents of IE theory believed that through intentional invitations for vibrant and active interactions an intentionally, caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) educational leader can systemically address institutional needs through an inventory of the entire network: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps), which influences the potential for success.

Although uncited, the Coherence Lab’s Framework readily integrates tenets of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey, 1992; Purkey & Novak, 2016). Frankly, this blog post can focus entirely on organizations that take an established theoretical foundation and repackage or rebrand previous tenets and assumptions as something new.  Although capitalism may be driven by greed, academia should always embrace ethics and integrity.

So, let’s discuss solutions. How can someone stand up for ethical practices and demand integrity?  Leaders can begin by intentionally invite stakeholders to become more knowledgeable.  Then encourage direct support for the institutions, alliances, or groups that exhibit research-based practices and theoretical foundations that make better possible. 

My journey as an educational leader led me to Invitational Education theory and practice, which then brought me to my first International Alliance for Invitational Education®(IAIE) World Conference in 2013. You will find the IAIE is a not-for-profit group of educators and allied professionals from throughout the world, dedicated to the development of positive school, work, and home environments as well as being opposed to those forces that demean and defeat human potential. Through IAIE membership, you are invited to learn how to intentionally create climates based on care, optimism, respect, and trust while networking with IAIE members internationally.  By joining the IAIE, you will receive: 

·         “Fundamentals of Invitational Education” (Purkey & Novak, 2016), 

·         The monthly Alliance newsletter,

·         Access to the Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice and the IAIE Abstracts.

·         Free participation in IE-themed webinars,

·         Discounted rates for the IAIE World Conference,

·         Information for how your school can earn an Inviting School Award,

·         A network of members engaging in Invitational Education research and practice.  

 An annual individual IAIE membership is $35.00.  Here are ways to join the Alliance:

·         MEMBERSHIP | IAIE (invitationaleducation.org) You can join with credit card or PayPal.

·         If you prefer to pay by check, make it payable to IAIE and mail to:

Tammy Baker, IAIE Manager;  PO Box 594.  Nicholasville, KY  40340. 

Email: tammy.baker@invitationaleducation.org

To learn more about Invitational Education theory and practice or the IAIE, please visit: ABOUT | IAIE (invitationaleducation.org)

School reform requires systemic change: A metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps). This structural analysis of school climate discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). IE research and documented practices exhibit how IE theory addresses “the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (Purkey and Siegel, 2013, p. 104). While there is no quick fix for educational problems, the IE framework encourages ongoing vigilance before affirming sustained change (Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Strahan & Purkey, 1992). Vigilance is required because changing how a school operates requires transforming its people (Asbill, 1994).

During 2023, be resolute in your endeavor to model and nurture an intentionally inviting stance.  We must intentionally promote IE theory and practice in our demonstrated efforts to encourage the learning for all mission (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). We must lead others in the “direction and purpose for all Invitational thought and action” (Purkey & Novak, 2016, p 11).

Crucially, we must willingly teach others to extend intentional invitations. As proponents of IE theory, we know others are better served through empowering opportunities for achieving one’s human potential.  Therefore, encourage dialogue that promotes critical thinking and open-mindedness.  Willingly reject any exhibition of contempt, which merely destroys motivation and incites further division.  As champions of IE theory and practices we must always promote intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (I-CORT) in all our educational, leadership, and interpersonal opportunities. 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2022). An Organization That Makes a Difference: The

            International Alliance for Invitational Education®. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal

            practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management,

            New Mexico State University.

 Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

 Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Purkey, W.W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational theory and Practice 1(1), 5-15.

Purkey, W.W.., & Novak, J.M. (2016). An introduction to invitational theory. https://www.invitationaleducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/art_intro_to_invitational_theory-1.pdf

Purkey, W.W., Novak, J.M., & Fretz, J.R. (2020). Developing inviting schools: A beneficial framework for teaching. Teachers College Press.

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach   

            to professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from:             http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Strahan, D., & Purkey, W. W. (1992). Celebrating diversity through invitational

            Education. The International Alliance for Invitational Education.

Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working

           Last month you were invited to reflect upon your teacher education or leadership programs. A guiding question in this regard asked you to consider how effectively did (does) your preparation programs concretely develop intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT)-driven educators capable (and willing) to embrace systemic models, promote cooperative learning, exhibit high expectations, utilize HOTS, and analyze data to monitor and adjust as needed? This month we examine Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

Reference the Coherence Lab framework chart (below) to review the first three elements needed to promote effective advocacy and systems change. Initially we emphasized Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. Last month we then examined Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Advocates of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016) appreciate Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale.  Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices believe that through intentional invitations for vibrant and active interactions an ICORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the entire network: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success.

As proponents of the Coherence Framework move practitioners to Element 4, IE theory and practices is reinforced by the need to align our beliefs and values around equity through our mindsets and our actions. To encourage equitable ways of thinking, stakeholders need to reflect on their individual identity, acknowledge and address biases, and design at the margins resulting in a constellation of solutions that ultimately work for all stakeholders.

Equitable ways of working require framing the problem as a defined tool for equity rather than a statement that perpetuates inequity. Subsequent exploration of solutions can then intentionally invite people who most deeply experience the problem so their expertise can drive the solution finding process. Through a circular rather than a linear process, focus is placed upon what is learned as a measure of an initiative’s success.  Equitable systems, tools and culture can be developed despite the potential for risk or fear of failure.

However, when dysfunctional institutional inertia prevails and is consistently exhibited an organization either fails or refuses to take accept where the institution is compared to where its organizational mission states it should be heading. For instance, dysfunctional inertia continues to blame disengaged parents for student failure and poor school climate.  By contrast, strong and effective leadership humbly poises the question: “Is it reasonable to suggest many parents in low SES, urban school districts were previously students in that school district?”  Therefore, the culture of the community is that schools are a place of failure.  Education failed to free them of the bondage of poverty--as promised!  As a result, the opportunity gap chained these parents to the achievement gap.  When that becomes the prevailing cultural reality, then the potential for equity loses to systemic injustice.

The Coherence Framework (below) readily integrates tenets of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Likewise, Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011) readily integrates with Continuous Improvement Theory as a sustainable school improvement framework.  The continuous improvement management approach reinforces Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM) system, comprised of 14 points posited as “essential for business success” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 33). 

A skillful educational leader begins developing an effective collaborative culture by understanding the interdependency of the improvement process rather than merely undertaking elemental processes for change. Leaders interested in promoting an equitable and truly collaborative learning culture must embrace this reality: It is not enough to want to change or need to change, to become enculturated within an organization, stakeholders must experience positive change. a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates non-negotiable goals to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2021). Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable ways

            of thinking and working. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. APQC.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

Effective Advocacy for Change: Progress rather than perfection

          As we continue examining how to effectively advocate for inclusive education and the Learning for All Mission, reflect upon your previous efforts to establish non-negotiable goals (NNG) (Marzano & Waters, 2009). As requested last month, how did you rate your efforts to model effective collaboration?  What has been most difficult in removing identified obstacles to needed change? 

An effective leader recognizes when and how staff can work autonomously and collaboratively, thereby developing or removing staff as necessary, which promotes the culture of high expectations within the school (Eck & Goodwin, 2010).  Establishment of non-negotiable goals (NNGs) are a product of earlier collaboration.  Intentional invitations promote staff empowerment (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Determination to collaborate, time to meet, willingness to ask serious questions, creation of an action plan, and always meeting with an agenda, promotes collaborative communication aligned to the established NNGs. 

Positive change can be the outcome of innovative thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clearly-defined mission.  Unintended consequences, which often fall into the pool labeled “negative change,” typically ignore the characteristics connected with positive change.  In conclusion, leaders interested in promoting a collaborative learning culture must embrace this reality: It is not enough to want to change or need to change, to become enculturated within an organization, stakeholders must experience positive change.

Let’s return to the Coherence Lab framework chart (below) for envisioning effective advocacy and systems change. Previously we observed that the framework is divided into four elements.   Last month we emphasized Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. This month we will further examine Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships and Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale.

While building focus and coordination is an initial step toward coherence, lets agree that cultivating trusting relationships strengthens coherence by empowering everyone through choice and decision-making.  This requires profession development.  There are three core sub-elements of Cultivating Trusting relationships:

1.      Engage Authentically: Inviting leaders in education involve local stakeholders with varied experiences, perspectives and beliefs. When engaging with stakeholders, it's important to be transparent about the role and decision- making responsibility of stakeholders. It’s also important to approach each engagement with empathy. Engaging stakeholders with transparency and empathy exhibits intentional understanding of stakeholders’ needs, motivations and interests.

2.      Recognize and Address Power Dynamics: Intentional, empathic listening exhibits understanding when addressing individual identities and power dynamics, This is a key sub-element for building trusting relationships. Effective leaders recognize that power dynamics impact the way we engage with one another and make decisions. Rather than authority alone, power is often attributed due to cultural identity. It is therefore prudent to confront issues of identity and power to comfortably cede power in favor of more equitable and authentic engagements.

3.       Support Inclusion: Intentionally inviting leaders embrace the experiences of stakeholders and honor their expertise resulting from being in proximity to issues or problems needing to be addressed.

When seeking to apply Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale, intentionally inviting leaders believe greater student success is possible when educators utilize an intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) mindset. Through intentional invitations for vibrant discussions and active interactions an ICORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the networks: People. places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success. This intentional desire promotes collaboration,  exhibits critical, higher order thinking skills (HOTS), that appeals to emotions.  Well-defined ley outcomes allow valid analyzes through accessible, reliable data.  

Reflect upon your teacher education or leadership programs. How effectively did (does) your preparation programs concretely develop ICORT-driven educators capable (and willing) to embrace systemic models, promote cooperative learning, exhibit high expectations, utilize HOTS, and analyze data to monitor and adjust as needed? Let’s explore these points next month when we examine Element 4 of Coherence: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2021). Effective advocacy for change: Progress rather than

    perfection. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press

 Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

How to Advocate for Inclusive Education and the Learning for All Mission

Before beginning this month's discussion, please reflect upon your commitment to welcoming and successfully educating all students. All means regardless of the students’ current abilities, gender, or socio-economic status. In this endeavor, consider the extent to which you empower your colleagues to develop high quality inclusive educational environments? What do you consistently model to promote professional learning communities in your school to develop inclusive opportunities, resources, school-based guidance and access to local and national best practices or experts? 

 Researching the most significant feature common to world-class schools, Lezotte and Snyder (2011) found a continual effort toward becoming “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67). This was evidenced by a consistent exhibition of a clear vision leading toward the desired mission, commitment by all to learning for all, and sharing the responsibility for success of the mission.  These certainly appear to be the minimal culture exhibited by an effective school.

As we begin considering the power of effective advocacy, let’s agree that effective leaders exhibit the ability to inspire change despite facing complex bureaucracies, competing interests, lack of funds, and a range of stakeholder priorities. The ability to effectively advocate for focused change is increased through additional training or utilization of research-based action models.  While most action research approaches utilize a similar circular model, there are approaches designed to advocate for specific challenges.  For instance, the Coherence Lab's theory of action addresses the needs of historically marginalized people by: 

• Supporting educational leaders to coherently focus and collaborate on key priorities, cultivating trust amongst diverse stakeholders, and build intentional focus on equity within policy-making and decision-making processes.
• Developing teams of education systems leaders to develop solutions for complex problems and to scale or sustain inspiring and empowering change that support educator
• Identifying school leaders and teachers who share priorities and policies and are equipped to champion school-based continuous improvement and optimal student experiences and learning outcomes, especially for those who have been historically marginalized.

The Coherence Framework illustrated below exhibits the collective and interdependent elements supporting coherence-building.  Note, that as with most action-research approaches, the framework intentionally circular.  Coherence work is deeply interconnected and never ending.

As a tool for effective advocacy and systems change, observe that the framework is divided into four elements.  Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale. Element 4: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

 

In the endeavor to “Build Focus and Coordination” effective advocates and systems change leaders should seek to establish (a few) priorities, model desired collaboration and remove obvious obstacles.

Effective advocates and systems change leaders seek to build a shared vision.  They identify, plan, model, the pursuit of clearly-defined priorities. They identify how attainment would be measured. They identify distractors, inefficiencies, or redundancies related to these priorities. They help others to know when to say no to these obstacles or barriers to clear alignment with to the identified priorities. Beginning with district leadership, a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates NNG to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

Effective advocates and systems change leaders create a culture of collaboration.  While difficult, collaboration must be more than aspirational.  By promoting a culture rooted in collaboration, effectiveness in this area is exhibited in the ability to differentiate between instances when communication or coordination are more powerful and necessary than collaboration. The development of an effective collaborative culture results from understanding and embracing the interdependency of the improvement process rather than merely undertaking elemental processes for change. 

Effective advocates and systems change leaders can identify and willingly address the systemic barriers, inertia, outdated tools and unresponsive processes that allow fragmentation to persist. Doing anything for the sake of compliance is seen as part of the problem.  Rather, effectiveness is exhibited by management that focuses upon the implementation and attainment of core priorities.

Educators benefit in a number of ways from working together to identify a clear, shared vision, developing a collaborative culture focusing on learning, engaging in collective inquiry, remaining action oriented, committing to continuous improvement, and being results oriented (Dufour et al., 2008).  The six elements of an effective PLC promote learning by doing.  As with many action-based processes developed for sustaining success, the six elements work most effectively if treated as an interdependent, cyclical process. 

So, as we continue examining how to exhibit advocacy for inclusive education and the Learning for All Mission, reflect upon what you have already done in relation to these needs.  Consider your efforts to establish your school’s (or class’s) non-negotiable goals (NNG) (Marzano & Waters, 2009). How would you rate your efforts to model effective collaboration?  What has been most difficult in seeking to remove obstacles to desired change? 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2022). How to advocate for inclusive education and the

    learning for all mission. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

 

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

 

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the 

           correlates. Solution Tree Press.

 

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press

 

Twelve Research-based Components for an Effective Teacher Preparation

To address teacher shortages in New York State (NYS), the Northeast and Islands  Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) used data from the NYS Education Department to conduct two related studies. Among other variables, the studies sought to better understand the pathways by which both new and experienced teachers obtained certification, in what areas, and where they were employed. One REL study was conducted with teachers with less than one-year of experience who began teaching between 2015-2018 found: 

·  While the majority of new teachers earned certificates through the traditional in-state pathway, this varied somewhat by certification area. The proportion of teachers who earned certificates through the individual evaluation pathway was higher for the shortage certification area of career and technical education than for other certification areas.

·       The most frequent certification area for new teachers was in the shortage certification area of special education (40 percent), while the shortage certification areas of career and technical education and bilingual special education were among the least frequent areas (1 percent each).

·       New teachers employed in high-need districts had higher rates of retention in the same district for a second year than did new teachers employed in average and low-need districts

The second related REL study examined how teachers with more than one-year of teaching experience earned additional certificates between 2015-2017. These findings included:

• About 5 percent of experienced teachers in 2015/16 earned additional certificates between October 2015  and October 2017, and these teachers had fewer years of teaching experience (on average 7 years) in New York State public schools than did teachers who did not earn additional certificates during that time (on average 15 years).
• More than half of experienced teachers earned additional certificates through the traditional in-state pathway, while about a third did so through the individual evaluation pathway.
• Special education was the most common shortage certification area in which experienced teachers earned additional certificates (27 percent). 

Obviously, the results from the two REL studies could be used to effectively communicate with current or prospective teachers and NYS teacher preparation programs. Ideally, the results of the referenced REL studies would inform other state policymakers’ work to address statewide shortages. Crucially, the preparation of teacher candidates must become as efficient and effective as possible.  Paraphrasing Covey (1989), in the pursuit of helping to create positive change, we must be effective with people and efficient with time; rather than vice versa. Invitational Education theory and practice, advocates for the utilization of an intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) mindset. Through intentional invitations for vibrant discussions and active interactions an ICORT-driven stakeholder within any teacher preparation program would willingly systemically address institutional needs through an inventory of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the teacher candidate’s potential for success.

Between the need to develop professional dispositions, the requirements to exhibit content proficiency, and the expected outcome to be “day one ready”, student teaching can be a time of anxiety for the novice.  Does it need to be? The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) through its Coalition for Teacher Preparation has done extensive research and pilot testing to prove that the observable presence of 12 Components within a model for teacher preparation programs can optimize the student teacher's potential. Let's examine the NYC Coalition's 12 leading indicators of success:

Rich Clinical Experience

·         Semester-long experience in NYCDOE host school in communities of color, 4-5 days/week

·         Student teaching seminar aligned to student teaching experience 

·         Candidates co-teach and take gradual responsibility for the classroom alongside a Cooperating Teacher who embodies culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy

Opportunities for Practice and Ongoing Feedback

·         Regular observation by and feedback from Site Coordinator

·         Use of multiple sources of data, e.g. videos, K-12 student perceptions

·         Structured feedback cycles, both formal and informal – driven by the Site Coordinator and Cooperating Teachers, using agreed upon and aligned rubrics, provide candidates actionable, coherent feedback to improve their practice

Practice Based Coursework 

·         Aligns to NYCDOE core pedagogical practices, relevant NYS standards, and NYSED Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework

·         Encompasses perspectives from communities of color

·         Prepares candidates to be culturally responsive and sustaining educators (in partnership with DOE)

·         Provides high-quality opportunities to practice learning from coursework, e.g. micro-teaching, case-based instruction, simulations, video analysis, and lesson study

Performance Assessment and Gateways

·         Grounded in current NYCDOE evaluation framework, Framework for Teaching

·         Relies on multiple sources of data and includes structured feedback 

·         Occurs regularly each semester

·         Co-scoring of select artifacts to ensure inter-rater reliability

·         Tied to interventions and supports as well as clear exit criteria

Site Coordinator Faculty Position

·         Full-time faculty member with robust, recent, and preferably NYCDOE experience, who serves as partnership liaison

·         Develop and teach methods coursework

·         Conduct student teaching seminar

·         Mentor Cooperating Teachers and teacher candidates

Teacher Educator Professional Learning

·         Actively participate in yearly convenings, engage in regular professional development series with Coalition, and commit to sharing experiences and resources with the broader Coalition

·         Develop and implement formal and informal professional learning that aligns with the Teacher Educator Practices Framework and that supports teacher educators to deepen their understanding of how marginalized communities are impacted by structural inequities

·         Train and calibrate on Danielson Framework for Teaching, NYSED CR-SE Framework, and professionalism/disposition rubric

Teacher Educator Practice

·         Ongoing application of learnings to improve curricula, teaching, and coaching of teacher candidates

·         Focused on surfacing and mitigating implicit biases and integrating CR-SE & racial literacy into coursework

·         Feedback that support teacher educators; to improve their practice and further embody culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy

Partnership with Schools

·         Student teacher placements at school sites that serve BISOC, students experiencing economic hardship, Students with Disabilities, Multilingual Learners, LGBTQI+, and other students who have been marginalized by systemic inequities

·         Student teacher experiences scheduled around and responsive to the NYCDOE calendar

·         Recruitment, selection, and professional learning support of exceptional Cooperating Teachers

Robust and Diverse Recruitment pipeline

·         University-district partners co-develop strategic teacher recruitment plans, including goals to increase numbers of BIPOC teachers and address district shortage areas

·         Plans contain focused, measurable, and time-bound goals and benchmarks and address equity and inclusion goals

Monitoring Plan

·         Make collective commitment across partners to share data

·         Plan for what data is needed by whom and when to do what 

·         Dictates details of how data is collected, analyzed, and used

·         Build coherence throughout the Shared Governance Structures, anchored in evaluating progress towards full implementation of the 12 Components

Systems to Collect and Analyze Data

·         Identify disproportionate outcomes

·         Use data visualizations and reports to facilitate decision-making

·         Collect and disaggregate data on:

·         Teacher candidates (e.g., student perception survey, NYCDOE teacher evaluation framework)

·         Cooperating Teacher (e.g., TEPF look-fors)

·         Pilot program (e.g., pilot experience survey, stakeholder focus groups, annual progress reporting against Gates O&Is )

·         Sustainable program development (e.g., school employment records, principal survey, teacher educator focus groups, NYCDOE ORD data such as licensure needs and attrition)

Routines for Using Data

·         Governance meetings at least 2x per semester at the school level, at least quarterly at the IHE level, and biannually at the NYCDOE level

·         Communication protocols

·         Data collection analysis and use plans

You and your Professional Learning Community are invited to reflect upon why this model should be effective with the teacher candidate and efficient with stakeholders’ time. Why should this model promote diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.  Why should this model optimize the student teacher’s potential for Day One Readiness?  Compared to your institution’s teacher preparation program, what might be missing?  

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 31, 2021). Twelve research-based components for an effective

teacher preparation. [Web log post] Retrieved from

 http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

 

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning

communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books