Tag Archives: Teachers

Educational Transformation in Schools and Colleges in the US and South Africa: Lead the Change Interviews (Part 3)

Posted on April 1, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

In part 3 of this month‘s Lead the Change (LtC) interviews, IEN shares excerpts from interviews with the presenters discussing “Equity-minded leaders transforming the global educational landscape,” at the upcoming Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association. These presenters will address topics like quantifying superficial institutional social justice policies in universities and the importance of rejecting copy paste reform models in grade schools. These interviews are a part of a series featuring presentations sponsored by the Educational Change Special Interest Group produced by Elizabeth Zumpe and colleagues from AERA’s Educational Change Special Interest Group. The full interviews can be found on the LtC website. For Part 1 see “Leveraging Partnerships, Networks and Teacher Collaboration for Educational Change” and Part 2 “Leaders, Leadership Practices, and Educational Change in the US, Korea, and Hong Kong: Lead the Change Interviews (Part 2)”

“It’s not always about college”: Teachers’ sense-making around the shifting purpose of high school —Aaron Leo (AL) & Kristen Wilcox (KW), University at Albany (SUNY)

Lead the Change (LtC): What are some of the ideas you hope the field of Educational Change and the audience at American Education Research Association (AERA) can learn from your work related to practice, policy, and scholarship?

AL & KW: NYKids’ research offers a unique contribution to the field of Educational Change considering we are investigating schools which have sustained above-predicted outcomes for an extended time. As all schools are unique, our findings are not meant to be copied and pasted onto every location; instead, we view the lessons learned from positive outlier schools as a partial roadmap which can inspire and inform educators grappling with challenges in their own particular school-community contexts. Moreover, our qualitative approach provides a way to hear directly from educators as they describe, in their own words, their unique school and community ecologies, the obstacles they have encountered, and the particular policies, practices, and programs they have designed to overcome them. Our full dataset from the seven participating schools include: 70 interviews, 43 focus groups, 361 collected documents, and field notes taken during four school tours.

“As all schools are unique, our findings are not meant to be copied and pasted onto every location.”

One aspect common to the positive outlier schools we studied was an effort to make curriculum relevant, engaging, and responsive – especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures. For instance, at Lafayette Jr.-Sr. High School, educators have worked to ensure that the sizeable population of students from the Native American Onondaga Nation were provided culturally relevant activities and were represented in the school’s activities, appearance, and values. This process took many forms such as flying the Onondaga flag outside the school, creating a section in the school library featuring Native American authors, and working with a Native American liaison and My Brothers’ Keeper Coordinator to foster positive connections between the school and Onondaga community. At Fillmore, educators also developed culturally responsive approaches, but these looked different in a rural locale with a long history of agriculture. In this context, educators reinstated the Future Farmers of America program and provided hands-on opportunities for students to care for plants and animals on school grounds. To engage their students, Fillmore teachers worked together to create cross-disciplinary lessons and project-based learning opportunities.

We feel that these findings are of high value to the field of Educational Change as they provide examples of educators working to identify and address challenges in varied contexts. As our improvement hub has been supported by the state for over two decades, our research, and research-based tools have attracted the attention of the New York State Department of Education and have been highlighted by our advisory board member organizations including the New York State Council of School Superintendents, The New York State School Boards Association and several others that in turn influence policy in our state.

Call for efficacy: Changes in prior learning assessment (PLA) measures in the Florida college system — Giang-Nguyen T. Nguyen (GN) & Carla Thompson (CT), University of West Florida, Rashmi Sharma (RS), Western Illinois University

GN, CT, & RS: The researchers hope that AERA and the field of educational change could be the space to share research that directly impacts the students of the underserved community. The audience at AERA could learn about the current landscape of prior learning assessment (PLA) in Florida. This one segment of research from Florida has far-reaching implications beyond the US. By shedding light on PLA, the researchers hope that the participants from other states and internationally can advocate for transparency and support the community college students. Moreover, the audience at AERA could make the change by being the change they want to see in practice.

“The audience at AERA could make the change by being the change they want to see in practice.”

The researchers are advocating for uniform and sustainable policies at the state level guided by federal guidelines as a critical step in ensuring equitable access to PLA opportunities for community college students. The researchers are hoping that the participants will engage in scholarly discussion about the following implications of the research and provide their insights and actionable suggestions:

Sustainability in Education Systems. Researchers hope to see a shift in thinking about the sustainability of educational reforms related to educational practices and policies. We are advocating for creating a system for continuous improvement on PLA for community college students, where changes could be implemented and evaluated regularly to take into account the needs of different groups of students.
Bridging research to practice. Research shows that students have limited access to PLA information so it is important to provide multiple avenues of information for easy access. Using evidence from the research to inform the practice, the researchers propose changes at the state and federal level policies that involve multiple stakeholder groups.
State-Level Uniformity. Advocate for state-level uniform policies that ensure consistency across institutions, making it easier for students to understand and access PLA opportunities. Such policies can standardize some processes like credit evaluation, eligibility criteria, and application procedures. State mandates can require institutions to make PLA information readily available through multiple channels, such as websites, orientation sessions, social media, and advising services.
Federal Guidelines as a Framework. Federal guidelines can establish minimum standards to ensure that PLA policies promote equity, inclusion, and access for all students, particularly those from underserved communities. The federal government can incentivize states to adopt uniform PLA policies by tying funding or grants to comply with these guidelines. Federal guidelines can encourage states to adopt reciprocity agreements, ensuring that PLA credits earned in one state are recognized in others, thereby supporting student mobility.
Collaboration Across Stakeholders. Encourage collaboration among educators, policymakers, and advocacy organizations to align state policies with federal guidelines. There is a need to consider local needs and provide professional development opportunities to ensure administrators and faculty are well-equipped to implement uniform PLA policies effectively.

Youth and institutional change: The impact of student protests on curricula transformation in higher education — Tafadzwa Tivaringe (TT), Spencer Foundation

TT: A key insight from this work [with students in higher education in South Africa and the US] is that practical efforts to facilitate institutional change that are rooted in research stand a better chance of delivering on the promise of transformation. For example, my work finds that while there was a statistically significant increase in course offerings that aligned with students’ demands for more social justice curricula, sentiment analysis of the syllabi of those classes in both country’s colleges demonstrated that a significant proportion adopted neutral framings on the subject. Furthermore, while colleges in both countries adopted courses that had titles and/or course descriptions that referenced social justice, most of the goals of those courses did not involve pedagogical outcomes that explicitly involve addressing injustice. This was despite explicit student demands for curricula transformation that includes ethical commitments to social justice during the #FeesMustFall and #BlackLiveMatter protests (Nyamnjoh, 2016; Taylor, 2016; Tivaringe & Kirshner, 2024). These findings show that there is a gap between students’ input and institutional responses that, if not fully understood, undermines our collective capacity to deepen equity within higher education institutions.

My research underscores a growing call by many educational change scholars on the importance of centering the experiences of those most affected in the policy process (Furlong & Cartmel, 2006; Henry et al., 2013). Too often, policies and programs designed to support people marginalized in the policy making process fail to take their input seriously. This can lead to a false sense of redress and repair. Even more, it can erroneously shift attribution of bad outcomes to individuals, rather than a proper interrogation of the inadequacies of said policies in achieving desired outcomes.

Lastly, there is often a discomfort with the use of quantitative and computational methods in educational change. I must admit that this skepticism is not without cause: those tools have historically been used to stall and/or attack efforts to advance social justice in education (DiGarcia et al., 2018; Dixon-Román, 2017). However, by leveraging a combination of text-mining machine learning algorithms and longitudinal structural equation models to examine the impact of student protests in South Africa and the United States, I join a growing group of critical scholars (e.g., de Freitas & Dixon-Román, 2016; Lukito & Pruden, 2023) who believe and indeed demonstrate that sustainable and effective research on educational change ought to include such tools in its repertoire. Additionally, given the global nature of inequities, it is imperative that reparative efforts learn across contexts. Yet, as we have argued in our work (Kirshner et al., 2021; Tivaringe & Kirshner, 2021) insights in the field of education are disproportionately drawn from the global North. As such, insights that could be critical in learning how to deepen social justice are marginalized. My conference paper offers one instantiation of a comparative approach that, while neither perfect nor exhaustive, ensures that change efforts are informed by both local and global insights.

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News, Interviews, Lead the Change

Tagged education, higher education, Interview, Lead the Change, news, Teachers, Teaching

Responding to Local Conditions: The Evolution of Fundación Escuela Nueva’s Approach to Teaching & Learning in Rural Colombia and Beyond

Posted on March 19, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

What does it take to support effective teaching and learning in rural Colombia? That was the question that the founders of Fundación Escuela Nueva (FEN) set out to address in the 1970’s. Since that time, FEN´s flagship program, Escuela Nueva, has encompassed an innovative approach to learning that has expanded in Colombia as well as other parts of the world, including Vietnam, Zambia, and El Salvador. To get a better understanding of Escuela Nueva’s evolution and the lessons learned along the way, Jonathan Beltrán Alvarado spoke with Laura Vega, Ed.D., Head of Community Connections and Training at Fundación Escuela Nueva (FEN).

This post summarizes that conversation and draws on slides from a presentation Dr. Vega made at Teachers College, Columbia University, in November 2024. Fundación Escuela Nueva Volvamos a la Gente (FEN) is a non-profit organization created to develop, strengthen, and expand the implementation of the Escuela Nueva model. Last November, Fundación Escuela Nueva was one of three organizations to receive a 2024 Best Practice Prize from the Jacobs Foundation for “their effective application of scientific evidence, use of a clear results framework, and potential for scaling and implementation around the world.”

Vicky Colbert and colleagues designed the Escuela Nueva model in 1976 as a specific response to the difficult conditions for education in rural Colombia. At that time, schools struggled with high dropout rates and low academic achievement, reinforcing negative perceptions of the capabilities of the students, teachers, and their communities. Amid the country’s ongoing internal conflicts, many students experienced trauma and low self-esteem along with their troubles in schools. In a pre-internet world, teachers and principals in these communities worked in isolation, with few resources, little support, and weak school-community relationships.

Compounding the isolation, many teachers had limited pre-service training and were not prepared for handling multi-grade classrooms, an everyday necessity in small schools located in the sparsely populated countryside. As Dr. Laura Vega explained, “It is pretty isolating when you are a rural teacher. In many, many areas, you are on your own. That is hard, and it was even harder fifty years ago.” Beyond the isolation, Vega described a number of other challenges for rural education at that time: “insufficient time for effective learning, rigid calendars, rigid evaluation, a very rigid system of promotion. Of course, not enough materials for children, but those materials and the pedagogy weren’t appropriate either. There was an emphasis on memorization, not on comprehension, and the curriculum didn’t make any sense for the students and for the teachers….”

“It is pretty isolating when you are a rural teacher, in many, many areas, you are on your own. That is hard, and it was even harder 50 years ago.”

At the time, rural education in many countries of Latin America, including Colombia, was shaped by the Escuela Unitaria (Unitary School) model promoted worldwide by UNESCO in the 60s to provide education in rural areas. The Unitary School offered primary education in schools where a single teacher worked with all grades through the use of self-instructional materials and individualized learning cards. Colombia was one of the countries where this approach was tested, alongside other experiences that used a variety of methodologies to pursue a similar aim. The approach, however, came in the form of whole-class instruction. As Vega put it, that meant “teachers were responsible for adapting generic materials, and while they could use any books or resources available, this wasn’t effective.”

A book cover with a map

Description automatically generated

This challenge motivated Escuela Nueva founder Vicky Colbert and her colleagues to try to use the limited resources to transform the Escuela Unitaria model into an approach more responsive to the context’s conditions, addressing key technical limitations of its design. Alongside many pedagogic innovations in the learning experience, both for children and teachers, the new approach included a structured and comprehensive curriculum that fulfilled government education guidelines and provided learning materials to facilitate teachers’ and students’ work. As Vega explained, Escuela Nueva’s innovation emerged in a local context of meaning and experience with tested practices. “It’s not something that no one ever thought of before,” Vega said, “it’s re-organizing things that already exist and using them in a new way.”

“It’s not something that no one ever thought of before; it’s re-organizing things that already exist and using them in a new way.”

A close-up of a chart

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The Escuela Nueva model

This approach to learning involves a shift from traditional whole-class instruction to child-centered, active learning where students work in small groups. To achieve this, FEN developed a series of learning guides that ease rural teachers’ access to high-quality learning materials and allow them to work effectively with multiple grade levels and students to learn at their own pace. As Colbert described it in Scaling Innovation: The Escuela Nueva Story: “A learning guide is like a hybrid between a textbook, a workbook and the guide of the teacher, all in one, but directed to the student, not to the teacher. Here, what we wanted to do was empower the students. We designed the materials very, very concrete, simple, pragmatic learning materials for children very focused on questioning — higher level thinking skills. We gave a structure to their learning process. The children started working individually, in pairs and in groups, dialoguing among themselves, constructing knowledge together.”

Democratic participation is built into daily school life in the Escuela Nueva approach through a student government that allows children to serve in concrete roles and offers real agency in shaping their learning environment. The model also positions teachers as facilitators, not lecturers, and supports them in making that transition by providing specialized training, ongoing support in the process, and professional development opportunities. Escuela Nueva also deliberately draws on the communities’ funds of knowledge, making families active participants in their children’s education rather than passive observers of a curriculum created with urban schools in mind.

These elements are drawn together as part of what Escuela Nueva describes as four interconnected components: curricular, teacher training, school-community, and administrative.

Curricular: focusing on developing effective learning environments and relevant content and processes through an active and participatory methodology. It promotes student-centered learning, the development of basic competencies (cognitive and socio-emotional), cooperative and personalized learning, continuous and qualitative assessment, and flexible promotion. Learning guides, rather than traditional textbooks, form the core classroom resource, designed as self-directed, reusable materials that guide students through structured thinking.
Teacher training: focusing on the professional development of teachers to improve their pedagogical practices and their role as facilitators of learning. Teachers receive comprehensive training through in-situ, intensive, and experiential workshops. Additionally, they participate in micro-centers (teacher learning circles) to build communities of practice that foster exchange and collaboration.
School & Community: aiming to strengthen the relationship between the school and the community, promoting the active participation of parents and other local stakeholders in the educational process. The model positions students and families as knowledge creators, employing diverse pedagogical strategies to reinforce cultural identity and strengthen community connections. It encourages an open-school model where the community is actively involved in learning and contributes to students’ social and cultural development.
Administrative: seeking to ensure leadership and administrative support to enable adequate learning environments and ensure the long-term sustainability of the model. It builds trust and ownership among the school community and facilitates the connections between classroom learning and local community life.

A diagram of a curriculum system

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A number of studies have examined the impact of Escuela Nueva’s approach, with some showing improvements in language and math skills and others showing benefits for students in the development of democratic values, prosocial behavior, and self-awareness. The model has also demonstrated its ability to transform teaching practices in rural settings and emergency situations where traditional approaches have struggled. The micro-centros and leaders’ networks have also helped to break the isolation that often characterizes rural education and have contributed to the development of more positive attitudes among teachers. Beyond the classroom walls, Escuela Nueva has engaged families and community members in the educational process, encouraging them to take an active part in student learning, contributing their knowledge and experiences in the classroom, not just in attending meetings.

Escuela Nueva’s adaptations and expansions

As part of its mission and commitment to innovation and evidence-based practices, Fundación Escuela Nueva (FEN) has adapted elements and strategies of the Escuela Nueva model to cater to the needs of diverse contexts and populations, resulting in new programs and initiatives. For example:

Escuela Activa Urbana (Urban Active School): adapts EN strategies to urban contexts with one teacher per grade.
Círculos de Aprendizaje (Learning Circles): focuses on out-of-school and highly vulnerable children and youth (e.g., displaced & migrant children); this program supports students’ transition to the mainstream educational system.
Online campus: provides teachers’ professional development and support.
SAI (Ancestral Indigenous Knowledge): aims to strengthen the intercultural approach and integration of ancestral indigenous knowledge into everyday practices.

In addition to these adaptations to the Escuela Nueva model, the organization has worked in scaling and expanding the approach in culturally different countries such as Mexico and Vietnam. In general, for FEN, scaling to a new context involves several key steps, including:

Building awareness through country research and finding appropriate local partners. As part of that process, beyond reading about the model, partners are expected to visit and experience Escuela Nueva in action.
Conducting a pilot project.
Engaging in an adaptation or “contextualization” phase where FEN works with local partners and teachers to tailor and contextualize the learning guides and other strategies.
Gradually expanding the model – starting with one school, then two, then three, while providing continuous support. This support is primarily directed at local partners rather than individual teachers.

While recognizing the importance of context, Vega stressed that taking a systemic approach is a key lesson from FEN’s efforts to scale the model. As she explained, “When implementing the model in different countries like Vietnam or Mexico, it’s imperative to maintain this systemic process. You cannot implement isolated pieces – a bit of training here, learning guides there, or just thinking about student tools. The process must be comprehensive; otherwise, you won’t achieve anything resembling the Escuela Nueva model.”

“When implementing the model in different countries like Vietnam or Mexico, it’s imperative to maintain this systemic process. You cannot implement isolated pieces – a bit of training here, learning guides there…”

Vega also emphasized that the successful expansion of Escuela Nueva hinges on finding the right local partner. To that end, FEN has worked with various types of partners, from ministries of education to NGOs and international organizations, each bringing different knowledge, strengths, and challenges. Government partnerships offer ample reach but can be vulnerable to administrative changes and low sustainability, while NGOs may provide dedicated focus but face resource constraints. But whoever the local partner is, as Vega stated, “The local partner essentially becomes your extension in that country.”

FEN´s next steps

Most recently, FEN has focused on deepening its impact rather than expanding further. This strategic choice reflects the belief that educational transformation is not a short-term project but a long-term commitment that requires sustained attention to quality and network building. All of which can take three to five years or more to show substantial results. That work includes strengthening assessment practices, enhancing teacher training, expanding support systems, and building internal capacity. The organization is also exploring new ways in which its programs, strategies, and model can more intentionally support gender equity, intercultural education, project-based learning, and the development of a growth mindset among students.

As it works to deepen its impact, FEN continues to focus on reorganizing existing educational elements into a coherent system rooted in a local context rather than reinventing education from scratch. In the process, the model demonstrates that educational transformation doesn’t always require massive investment or revolutionary new ideas but takes careful attention to how the different components of the educational process can work together systemically to create networks of people who understand and value what they are doing.

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News, Global Reports/Studies

Tagged education, Learning, Teachers, Teaching, technology

Leveraging Partnerships, Networks and Teacher Collaboration for Educational Change: Lead the Change Interviews (Part 1)

Posted on March 12, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

This week’s Lead the Change (LtC) interviews explore the power of partnerships, networks and collaboration for supporting system improvement. This is the first in a series of posts that will featuring excerpts of interviews with presenters participating in the Educational Change Special Interest Group sessions at the upcoming Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association in Denver in April. This post includes presenters from the session titled: “Organizing Systemic Change in Education: Leveraging Partnerships, Networks and Teacher Collaboration.” These interviews are part of the Lead the Change series produced by Elizabeth Zumpe and colleagues from AERA’s Educational Change Special Interest Group. The full interviews can be found on the LtC website.

Networks for Knowledge Brokers: A Typology of Support-Seeking Behaviors — Anita Caduff (AC) University of Michigan, Alan Daly (AD) & Marie Lockton (ML) University of California San Diego, Martin Rehm (MR) University of Southern Denmark

AC, AD, ML, & MR: Our research offers important insights into the field of Educational Change, particularly for practitioners, policymakers, and scholars interested in understanding the critical role of knowledge brokers in improving education for all learners. Knowledge brokers do not operate in isolation; instead, they are embedded within relational ecosystems that provide access to various forms of support, such as financial resources, infrastructure, strategic advice, capacity building, networking, and knowledge mobilization. We define knowledge mobilization as the movement of knowledge and resources to where they will be most useful through a multidirectional process that supports the co-construction and use of knowledge. By examining how knowledge brokers navigate these ecosystems and engage in support-seeking behaviors, our study highlights three major contributions to practice, policy, and scholarship.

“Knowledge brokers do not operate in isolation.”

To begin with, we surfaced seven distinct knowledge broker profiles based on their social network dynamics and support-seeking behaviors: (1) networked strategist, (2) resource-driven strategist, (3) balanced strategist, (4) capacity-centered networker, (5) self-sufficient mobilizer, (6) balanced mobilizer, and (7) well-funded all-rounder. For example, the self-sufficient mobilizer operated without any financial support to sustain their operations; they focused solely on knowledge mobilization and strategic advice. In contrast, the well-funded all-rounder had high levels of support in all dimensions: infrastructure and finances, strategic advice, networking, and knowledge mobilization. Understanding these profiles helps the field to have a better grasp on the activities of these important educational actors as well as to support knowledge brokers in designing tailored strategies to enhance their effectiveness based on their unique circumstances and needs.

Additionally, the study surfaced three significant tensions that influence knowledge brokers’ support-seeking behaviors. For example, knowledge brokers often compete for scarce resources (e.g., grants) while recognizing the potential benefits of collaboration to achieve shared goals (i.e., the tension between competition and collaboration). Further, brokers balance efforts to create immediately observable, focused outcomes with aspirations for broader, systemic, and long-term impact. The third tension that emerged was between autonomy and interdependence. While autonomy enables alignment with internal organizational goals, interdependence with partners offers access to critical resources but sometimes requires compromising on internal priorities. For example, a knowledge broker may rely on their partners for funding, networks, and expertise and, as a result, occasionally need to cater to the external demands of these partners. These tensions highlight knowledge brokers’ complex balancing act and underscore the importance of creating policies and practices that encourage collaboration, sustainable funding, and alignment between short- and long-term goals.

By mapping knowledge brokers’ relational ecosystems and differences in support-seeking behavior and tensions, this study shifts the focus away from knowledge brokers alone to include the supports they leverage in their broader relational ecosystems. As such, this study suggests that knowledge mobilization is not exclusively an attribute of the knowledge brokers, but is influenced by, and distributed within, a wider knowledge mobilization ecosystem. This reframing opens new avenues for research and practice, including questions about how brokers’ ecosystems influence their effectiveness and how to strengthen these ecosystems. This shift in perspective encourages researchers and practitioners to consider not only the actions of knowledge brokers but also the systemic supports and partnerships that enable their work.

*From left to right:* Anita Caduff, Ph.D., Marie Lockton, Ed.D., Alan J. Daly, Ph.D., & Martin Rehm, Ph.D.

Reimagining the role of broker teachers in cross-sector partnerships — Chun Sing Maxwell Ho (CH) The Education University of Hong Kong, Haiyan Qian (HQ) The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Chiu Kit Lucas Liu (CL) University of Oxford

CH, HQ, & CL: This research highlights the transformative power of Hong Kong school–university partnerships (SUPs) in reshaping middle leaders (ML) within schools, offering valuable insights for practice, policy, and scholarship in educational change. We demonstrate how SUPs enhance MLs’ connectivity and brokerage across the school, promoting a layered and collaborative leadership structure. This finding aligns with previous research that highlights the importance of distributed leadership in fostering school improvement. For instance, Leithwood et al. (2020) argue that effective school principals distribute their leadership to engage both formal and informal teacher leaders, thereby enhancing their influence through interactions with others. Similarly, Spillane and Kim (2012) emphasize that leaders enact practices differently according to the school context, which supports the notion that SUPs can tailor development activities to meet specific needs. Furthermore, Bryant and Walker (2024) suggest that principal-designed structures can significantly enhance middle leaders’ professional learning, which is consistent with our findings on the positive impact of SUPs on MLs’ connectivity and brokerage.

“Our findings underscore the necessity for policies supporting sustained, context-specific leadership development.”

Key takeaways include the importance of designing SUPs to foster reflective dialogue and interaction among all school members, thereby nurturing an inclusive, interdisciplinary learning community. Schools can involve interdisciplinary projects where teachers from different subject areas worked together with university researchers to develop integrated curricula. These projects encouraged teachers to engage in reflective dialogue about their teaching methods and explore new ways to connect different subjects. By working together, teachers were able to create a more cohesive and interdisciplinary learning environment for students, promoting a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement (Ho et al., 2024). Our findings underscore the necessity for policies supporting sustained, context-specific leadership development and integrating university resources to facilitate these changes. For scholars, this study provides a model for examining the effects of leadership training on organizational dynamics, emphasizing the role of middle leaders in driving school improvement and fostering a collaborative professional culture.

Transforming school systems to support adolescent learning and well being: Evidence from four California districts — Sarah M. Fine (SF) University of California San Diego, Santiago Rincon-Gallardo (SR) Liberating Learning

SF & SR: The first takeaway is that there is a growing number of spaces of vitality and deep learning in California’s high schools, but these remain mainly outside the academic core. The local education agencies (LEAs) in our sample are leveraging new funding to expand and transform Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses into incredibly vibrant places for applied learning. Most LEAs we have visited in California are working successfully to de-stigmatize CTE, to disrupt patterns of social reproduction, and to add “high skill, high wage” pathways for all. Young people are incredibly alive and engaged in these courses, doing work ranging from building fully functional tiny homes for unhoused populations in their community to producing, running, and broadcasting live shows for their school and the larger community, to designing and testing rovers that can explore Jupiter’s moons. Visual and performing arts are also incredibly vital spaces. In less optimistic news, in many of the systems we visited, the academic core seems to have been left on life support, with many classes still featuring low-complexity tasks, teacher-centered instruction, and traditional assessments. This is consistent with research and theory on the remarkable power of the default culture of schooling to maintain the dynamics within the pedagogical core stable despite deliberate attempts to change it (Elmore, 1996; Mehta & Fine, 2019; Tyack & Cuban, 1995) Linked Learning, an approach to student learning that intentionally and strategically links together student’s personal purpose with hands-on, immersive learning opportunities, and disciplined knowledge, is a promising but generally immature effort to connect the vitality that characterizes CTE to core academic classes.

A second takeaway is about the importance of steadiness, systemness, and symmetry when undertaking system-level work to improve adolescent learning and wellbeing. To draw on the work of our shared mentor Richard Elmore (2004), all of the LEAs in our sample were engaged in impressively steady work, developing a clear set of goals and then pursuing those goals over the long haul without succumbing to mission creep or being buffeted by changes in the political winds. In most of the systems that we visited, we also encountered strong evidence of what Michael Fullan (2025) calls systemness – meaning, a broad range of stakeholders (parents, educators, leaders, learners, even crossing-guards) recognized their roles in shaping and enacting the goals of the system. And finally, most of the leaders in the sample clearly recognized the importance of what Sarah and Jal Mehta (2019) call symmetry, e.g.an overall stance and set of values and beliefs about learning that applies both to young people and to adults.

“Successful system transformation requires deprioritizing old academic obsessions.”

Last but not least, our work suggests that successful system transformation requires deprioritizing old academic obsessions. In many of the systems that we visited, there has been a strategic and courageous decision to de-prioritize or eliminate the programs and metrics connected to “the old game” of No Child Left Behind-style academic achievement. One district, for example, decided to deprioritize state standardized tests, while another phased out all Advanced Placement courses and replaced them with dual enrollment opportunities. Elsewhere, system leaders have started to move attention away from California’s college and career readiness indicators, focusing more on the quality of student engagement and learning every day in schools, as well as on indicators of lifelong learning.

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News, Interviews, Lead the Change

Tagged education, Interview, Lead the Change, news, Teachers, Teaching, technology

Leading a school in a context of uncertainty: Indrek Lillemägi discussed the initial responses to the COVID-19 school closures in Tallinn, Estonia

Posted on February 26, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

What was it like to lead a school in Estonia through the school closures? This week, Indrek Lillemägi looks back on his experiences in the pandemic as leader of the Emili Kool (named for Jean Jacques Rouseau’s book Emile, or On Education), a private K-9 school that Lillemägi helped launch in 2016. In the first part of the interview, Lillemägi described how he applied what he learned at the Emili Kool as the founding principal of a new upper secondary school, Tallinna Pelgulinna Riigigümnaasium, that opened in Tallinn in the fall of 2023.

This interview is one in a series exploring what has and has not changed in education since COVID. Previous interviews and posts have looked at developments in Italy, Poland, Finland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Vietnam. This interview with Lillemägi was conducted by Thomas Hatch a few months before the Pelgulinna Riigigümnaasium opened. The interview has been edited for length and clarity

Thomas Hatch (TH): When you were the principal at the Emili Kool, you were responsible for guiding the school’s initial response to the spread of COVID-19 and the related restrictions. Can you first tell us about any directions you received about how to handle the emerging situation?

Indrek Lillemägi (IL): Maybe a week before the government’s decision to close all the schools in Estonia we had a school crisis meeting and made our first decisions then. We had most e-learning systems set up already – Office 365, student accounts, online chats – so, overall, the transition went fairly well, though video lessons were messy at first. Months later, teachers described it as a really smooth transition since we had those systems in place already. We didn’t have to rush to find new solutions.

Indrek Lillemägi, Principal at Tallinna Pelgulinna Riigigümnaasium

TH: Was it common to have those systems in place in Estonia? I understand that in Finland it varied a lot.

IL: It was the same in Estonia – some broad government directions but schools invented solutions. Our staff was pretty young so our teachers were very good with technology. They were already tech fans, and they were pretty innovative. But schools were in very different situations. I heard stories about some teachers who just threw up their hands and refused to do video lessons or digital assignments.

TH: What were the broad government directions about initially – mostly health and safety?

IL: The initial regulations were about health and safety, staying home, things like that. It took time before they gave directions on curriculum and the schedule. Later, the Ministry of Education started publishing some directions about learning and studying, but they were not too directive, especially that first spring. I remember that some of the recommendations included do not leave any student behind and to find out if every student had internet access and a computer access so schools could provide devices to students if needed. As a private school, most of our students had computers, but some bigger families didn’t have enough. I think we only gave out computers to maybe every fourth or fifth student, and we had enough computers to give out ourselves. But many tech companies in Estonia also started helping schools get computers to students who needed them. I think most students who needed a computer got one that first spring.

Initially, schools didn’t have to do video lessons if they didn’t want to. Some teachers decided just to assign individual work and just have a reflection or something once a week. But people found that it didn’t work like that; schools needed to create an online learning environment. We started with video lessons, and then we added more and more lessons. But they were not lessons like in the classroom. It was more like individual work, with a teacher working as a mentor, helping out students one by one and explaining something important.

The school vision and values posted on the Emili Kool website

TH: How did you make those decisions about instruction for the school? What guidance did you give teachers?

IL: In that first or second meeting we decided that we need to make a decision together, and it’s more important to make a decision than to leave things too flexible or too messy. We had a really solid structure of staff meetings, and we also decided together which apps we would use, how many letters we would send home each week, it was all written down for the teachers. As a small school, we were able to able to make the big decisions together with most teachers. Normally, many decisions are made by the leadership team, but these decisions were more collective, with all of us discussing things together early on.

“We decided that we need to make a decision together, and it’s more important to make a decision than to leave things too flexible or too messy.“

TH: What was the decision on schedule/plan? Did you tell teachers they needed students online 9am-3pm?

IL: In the beginning, all the teachers had to meet their students at least two times per week, so all the students had at least two online lessons per day. And the student from each grade had morning gatherings or morning circles at 9 O’clock every day. The teachers met with the students; they looked at the schedule and their aims; and maybe they talked about their feelings. In some cases, maybe it was important to wake students up. After the online morning meetings, the students had much more free time or autonomous learning time, and then they were brought together again by a teacher at the end of the day teachers and students would gather together again at the end of the day.

TH: That’s interesting that the teachers were talking to the students about their feelings. Was that normal before COVID?

IL: Yes, that was normal. But we wanted to make the online learning as safe, socially and emotionally safe as possible for the students, and part of that was finding things pre-COVID that we could bring to the to the online version, and morning gatherings were one of those things.

TH: Was the morning circle just for the primary students or all students?

IL: Both. In the primary school, the students would meet with their homeroom teacher. At the lower secondary school, the students had different subject teachers, but we still have the class teacher system in Estonia so the lower secondary students would meet with their class teacher. The head of studies made the schedule at the beginning and end of the day, but the primary teachers could decide for themselves what do in the middle of the day.

TH: What about parents? What information did you share with parents?

IL: I actually have the recommendations that we sent to parents and students that first month. It was a Facebook post, but we also sent it to them directly. It’s from the 17^th of March, 2020 — the first month of home learning. The first recommendation is about organizing a comfortable learning space. The second is to discuss and write down the rules of home studying; make a schedule with resting and active time; make a routine; and at the end of every day write down 3 “success stories.”

TH: As I understand it, the Estonian government made the decision early on to get students back to school as soon as possible. As you moved into the next phases and particularly as you tried to get most students back in person in the fall, what were some of the biggest issues you had to deal with.

IL: I think the fears of people was the biggest issue. Teachers had different fears; parents had different fears. Some people were really open to coming back together, learning together, but some people were really scared to come back. Of course, people had different situations. Some had grandparents or sick people at home, and they had to be more scared. Others were thinking about all the economic problems as a lot of the parents either lost their jobs or their businesses went down, so they were much more stressed. And some parents refused to bring their children back to school. I remember there were some mathematicians who sent the calculations and said it’s going to be really bad if we come together, and they had modeled everything out.

As a private school, there were also lot of economic questions. Lots of people were in an uncertain situation, and they didn’t know if their salaries would be cut. In general, in Estonia not too many people had deep economic problems because the government still supported small businesses and they provided some salary compensation, but still there was a lot of uncertainty.

We tried to deal with everything through lots of communication, explaining everything, and we tried to be as flexible as we could. Some families wanted their children to stay home, and, in the first year, even after we came back in person, we accepted that, and we developed individual plans for those students to work online. But later on, during the second COVID wave, we said “These are the rules of our school, and we will all come together,” and we didn’t make these individual plans anymore.

“We tried to deal with everything through lots of communication, explaining everything, and we tried to be as flexible as we could. Some families wanted their children to stay home, and, in the first year, even after we came back in person, we accepted that, and we developed individual plans for those students to work online.”

TH: What were some of the issues you had with online learning? As a private school, since parents were paying, maybe you didn’t have too many issues with students disappearing, but were there issues of mental health and stress?

IL: We didn’t really have issues with students disappearing, but we had some issues with home routines not being supportive enough – so some student might just sleep in the morning and not show up online. But no students fully disappearing; we kept parent contacts.

There were also some students who worked individually with our psychologists or social workers during the closures, and some students came into the school and worked alone in the classroom, while a psychologist worked in the next room. We helped to create routines for those students who couldn’t work at home for some reason.

When school opened again, we found some increased stress and anxiety among students, but it was not too bad compared to before COVID. I still remember when we came back to school it was actually like a new positive beginning. There were really positive vibes, particularly in the primary school, where the students’ strong relationships were in their families or in their school; they don’t have friends someplace else. So they came back to school and met their friends again.

“when we came back to school it was actually like a new positive beginning. There were really positive vibes… they came back to school and met their friends again“

TH: In the US and other parts of the world there has been a lot of talk about academic “learning loss.” Has there been any talk about “learning loss” in Estonia?

IL: Yes, of course. For some of the students, their results went down. And for some students home learning actually helped, but that’s only for the academic part. we don’t know about the social part because the social skills and relationships are rarely measured. We thought for about one third of the students, home learning helped their academics; for one third, it didn’t matter; and for one third it was more difficult. Later on, when the students came back, we had the extra support for some students and some extra lessons. We also had summer learning camps.

TH: Who paid for the summer learning camps?

IL: There was government funding for the summer learning camps, but schools had a lot of autonomy for organizing them. So the camps in some schools were more focused on social skills, but we put the two things together. These were like social learning camps where the students just spent time together, but they could also learn their ABC’s again.

TH: Were those primarily for the students who were struggling or could anybody come?

IL: Anybody could come, but I remember we talked a lot about that: That even if a student is doing okay in mathematics and sciences, it doesn’t mean that that he or she doesn’t need this social part, because that was a big loss.

TH: You also said that the school gave students more individual work during remote learning than they had in the past. Have they continued any of that or have things just gone back to the way it was?

IL: Yes, after I left, they started doing individual e-learning days about once a month. Of course, everyday life in the school was also affected by the COVID experience because all the online systems became a normal part of learning and studying, so all the online collaboration methods for writing together, for doing video presentations they became part of normal life as well.

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News

Tagged education, Learning, school, Teachers, Teaching

Pushing the boundaries of the conventional school: Indrek Lillemägi talks about the development of a new upper secondary school in Tallinn, Estonia

Posted on February 19, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

What’s involved in launching a new school? This week, Indrek Lillemägi looks back on his experiences working on the development of a new upper secondary school, Tallinna Pelgulinna Riigigümnaasium, that opened in Tallinn, Estonia in the fall of 2023. Previously Lillemägi was the founding principal of a private school in Tallinn, the Emili Kool (named for Jean Jacques Rouseau’s book Emile, or On Education) that opened in 2016. In the first part of this two part interview, Lillemägi discusses some of the key steps in the development of the upper secondary school and some of the lessons he learned from his earlier experiences in establishing the Emili Kool. In the second part of the interview, Lillemägi describes what it was like to lead the Emili Kool through the first part of the COVID pandemic in Estonia.

This interview is one in a series exploring what has and has not changed in education since COVID. Previous interviews and posts have looked at developments in Italy, Poland, Finland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Vietnam. This interview with Lillemägi was conducted by Thomas Hatch in May of 2023, a few months before the Pelgulinna Riigigümnaasium opened. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Thomas Hatch (TH): Can you give us a sense of what it’s been like to develop a new upper secondary school in Estonia? What were some key milestones or challenges leading up to your opening in September of 2023?

Indrek Lillemägi (IL): We started with a little over 400 students in the 10th grade in the fall of 2023. We will add an 11^th grade this year, and a 12^th grade next year, and we will end up with a school with about 400 students in each grade at the upper secondary level. So it will be a big school, with more than a thousand students.

But this new school is part of a longer story because it’s one of a series of new State-run gymnasiums or upper secondary schools that the Ministry of Education has created in some municipal centers over the past 10 years as populations decreased. But Tallinn is another story because their population is increasing, without enough places in upper secondary schools, so three new gymnasiums were approved. The Ministry of Education then hired me along with two other new headmasters to create the schools together, so I’m not working alone. We worked in the same room every day, and we did a lot of things together. We’ve hired people together. We’ve developed communications together. We’ve done a lot of bureaucracy together. We’ve shared a lot, but we also had our own communities to serve. Of course, we are also different as principals and as humans, and we have different things we believe in, so the schools are pretty different. But in the process, we were together.

A collage of different images of a building

Description automatically generated — The construction of the school was completed in August 2023. It is the largest wooden building in Estonia.

TH: These state-run gymnasiums will function along with the upper secondary schools run by the municipalities?

IL: Yes, exactly. We are the extra ones, and none of the municipal schools will close because of us. But, after 5-6 years when student numbers decrease again, the municipality may have to make some tough decisions, and they may have to close some schools.

For the new schools, the Ministry gave us full autonomy. They just said “this is the budget; this will be the new school building of yours; and these are the regulations.” We were given full leadership autonomy to build our schools. It’s enormous trust that they had in us. I don’t think that’s possible in any other country. We also had the full support from the Ministry of Education. We had all the lawyers, all the experts, helping us.

“[T]he Ministry gave us full autonomy. They just said, “this is the budget, this will be the new school building, and these are the regulations. We were given full leadership autonomy to build our schools.“

When I first started writing down the strategy for building a new school, I tried to understand what’s going on? What’s going in education in Tallin? Of course I had some knowledge, but I had time to really talk to people, different school heads, different teachers, and parents and also with the local community where my school would be located. I tried to understand what’s missing because I really believe that strong educational systems are heterogeneous. Students and parents should be able to choose their school according to their values or principles. So I didn’t want to copy the “best school.”

TH: Were the regulations specific to the new schools or are you referring to the general regulations?

IL: Just the general regulations. But I have to say, we were even pushed to try out the borders of the regulations or touch the “grey zone.” I think the Minister of Education sees us as being able to try out more new things, and then our experience can either be transferred to other places or they can be taken as a lesson.

TH: How did they push you or encourage you to take those risks?

IL: It wasn’t anything official, but it was through our weekly meetings with some of the those involved with the management of state schools. The schools include the new state gymnasiums but most of the schools that are managed directly by the state are schools for students with special needs or vocational schools.

TH: So from there, what was your journey?

IL: From there, I tried to combine three things. One was what I was hearing from the local community in Northern Tallinn where the school would be. They tend to be very socially active, and the local citizens want to be involved. Second, a lot of students told me about the challenges in their lives that do not have any part in their education. Mostly, the students talked about stresses related to climate issues and their mental health. They said, “these are big things in my life, but I don’t deal with these things at school.” These stories from the students really influenced me.

“A lot of students told me about the challenges in their lives that do not have any part in their education. Mostly, the students talked about stresses related to climate issues and their mental health. They said ‘these are big things in my life, but I don’t deal with these things at school.‘”

Then of course there were my own passions and things that I am interested in. When I started writing down what kind of school I would like to have, I wrote down that the focus of the new school would be about dealing with the problems that do not have easy solutions – questions of climate and the environment and questions of democracy and how to build strong democratic institutions. I set these as the focus points of the school. Of course, I didn’t write down any specific details about the curriculum; I just wrote down the principles for myself. Now, the values of our school are based partly on these principles.

Then when I was hiring the head teacher, I showed the candidates the paper with the principles, and I asked them: “Would you like to work for that?” A lot of people applied for this position, and I hired someone who had been working last nine years in Netherlands in an International School. After she moved back to Estonia, we started working together and talking together about the curriculum about the learning methods, and about the other focus points of our school. Eventually, we hired a team of eleven people who worked on building everything from the curriculum to the bureaucracy. We then started hiring the rest of the staff when we started dealing with student applications and everything else.

TH: What are the focus points of the other schools?

IL: Ours is democracy and environment, solving complex problems. One school that’s located near the Technical University in Tallinn focuses on technology and science, and the third school third focuses on self-expression.

We also met with the heads of the other two new schools to talk about what could bring these three new schools together. We decided that, for all of them, the curriculum would allow students to create their own individual learning paths. We wanted our students to be able to put together their own curriculum and to have much more choice compared to the average school. Because of that, we created a network of courses that could be shared between these three schools. Now, the students of one school can take courses at the other two schools as well. These are elective or “selective” courses. Some are online, but many are in-person. Most of the selective courses are on Thursdays when students can move between schools, and when students can choose which courses to take or what internships or other activities to participate in. That means we have to coordinate our schedules with local universities, vocational schools, and NGOs as well. But now, on Thursdays, our students can move around the city between morning course time and afternoon time. If a student goes to the university, they stay there half the day. The other days are more conventional with 70-minute lessons. Less conventional is an 80-minute midday break when students again have more responsibility for deciding how to use their time. In addition to lunch, they can use the time to rest, to do group or individual work, or go the gym or on walks.

TH: Are there other unusual aspects to your school day?

IL: The first two weeks don’t follow the regular schedule. Students go through an onboarding program where we take them through a narrative arc that goes from the Big Bang to civilization’s end. They build relationships and learn about the school’s approach and theory of knowledge – how different fields do research and gain knowledge. It’s a completely different two-week program than most students have had before. The other two schools have a similar onboarding approach, though it’s slightly shorter. Teachers from all three schools worked together to develop the approach.

We also have mentoring groups in which a teacher meets with a group of about 18 students which is smaller than the average class size. The mentoring groups have weekly lessons to reflect on social-emotional and group challenges. The mentors are the regular subject teachers, but we also provide them with special training. These kinds of mentor groups are becoming more common in the state gymnasiums.

TH: What were some of the key lessons from your work founding the Emili School that you brought to your work with this school?

IL: This may sound like a cliches, but of course, the relationships are the most important. Everything in education starts from building relationships, first with one student. Then building a strong community and strong relationships with the local parents, grandparents, local NGO’s, local businesses, and so on. I knew these things, but I didn’t have the experience of how to involve all these people, how to make them understand everyday life in a school and the challenges in a new school.

TH: What were some of the things you learned to do to help build those relationships?

IL: One of the key lessons was that I started being more and more honest. In the beginning, I felt responsible for “selling” the school – I talked a lot about the vision and ideas. But, later, I also started talking honestly about the challenges, the difficulties, even the problems we faced. I began to understand that being honest built much stronger relationships, so people who joined our community were not disappointed later on – they had the transparent view before joining.

“I began to understand that being honest built much stronger relationships, so people who joined our community were not disappointed later on – they had the transparent view before joining.“

TH: What were one or two of the biggest challenges you faced when you were starting that school?

IL: Probably that private education in Estonia is uncommon – less than 5% of students go to private schools. So parents think “private school” means a paradise school with no problems. The challenge was that in the beginning we were a normal school with the same challenges and growing pains all new organizations have. As I started telling a more honest story, with open school days where parents and community members could visit, I think they began to see and appreciate the hard work and emotions teachers go through, and they developed a better appreciation for the work the school was doing.

TH: Was there a particular issue parents were surprised about, or was it just in general they expected perfection?

IL: Probably the emotions throughout the school day was something they talked a lot about, especially in primary school. There’s someone crying; someone’s sad; someone’s telling a story about their weekend – it’s full of emotions. And they saw the teachers trying to be really empathetic, trying to support all the students – the sad ones, the crying ones – and I think that was surprising to them. And I think parents often expect teachers to have free time during breaks. But especially in a starting school with new methods, we were doing a lot of preparation and a lot of reflecting and learning together. Parents expected teachers to have more free time than they actually did.

TH: Can you share a bit about how you planned to assess student outcomes and your progress in developing the school?

IL: That’s a big topic! We’re bringing many innovations together like much more collaborative teaching. As an example, in the 10th grade we have two “pillars” – one for natural sciences and one for cultural studies. In the natural sciences, the biology teacher, geography teacher, physics teacher, chemistry teacher, they all work together. We have also changed the national curriculum by changing the order of the learning outcomes so it’s more much more integrated than usual. Teachers often just follow the textbooks but the textbooks in different fields don’t go together very well. Some of the topics are really similar in geography, in physics and chemistry, but they are learned in different times in the different fields so students have trouble putting the big picture together. Our science teachers worked together for almost a year before the school opened, and they’ve done a lot of work reordering the national curriculum learning outcomes. That means they have to design assessments that align to those more interdisciplinary learning outcomes. It all starts from the dialogue and from feedback based on these learning outcomes.

Besides descriptive feedback, we use percentages from 0-100 rather than letter grades. But what’s different is that the students get one percentage for all the sciences, not a separate percentage for each subject. All of this influences the learning process because the teachers have to work together to create the final assessment or final project; they assess it together; and they plan together.

But at the end of 12^th grade, the regulations still require us to give the students marks in each of the subjects. We do use pre-tests in the subjects, some of these are provided by the State, but the pre-tests and final subject tests are just for reflection for the students and teachers, they don’t influence their school marks in each pillar.

TH: How did other schools in Tallinn react to your planning to develop these new State gymnasiums?

IL: There been different emotions. We heard that some Directors or Head Teachers told their teams some horror stories about us, but some of them were really supportive. Some of the Directors have asked us to come to their schools to explain everything about the school to the students, so really different approaches.

Next Week: Leading a school in a context of uncertainty: Indrek Lillemägi discusses the COVID-19 school closures in Tallinn, Estonia

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News, Covid-19, New Schools

Tagged education, Estonia, Learning, New Schools, school, Teachers, Teaching

Research Practice Partnerships, Improvement Science & Leadership: The Lead the Change Interview with Dave Osworth

Posted on February 5, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

In this month’s Lead the Change (LtC) interview, David Osworth draws from his experiences in a research practice partnership and his work with improvement science as he discusses how to support leaders and center equity and justice in research and practice. Osworth is an assistant professor in the department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His research focuses on race, class, and equity in educational leadership and policy. The LtC series is produced by Elizabeth Zumpe and colleagues from the Educational Change Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. A pdf of the fully formatted interview is available on the LtC website.

Lead the Change (LtC): The 2025 AERA theme is “Research, Remedy, and Repair: Toward Just Education Renewal.” This theme urges scholars to consider the role that research can play in remedying educational inequality, repairing harm to communities and institutions, and contributing to a more just future in education. What steps are you taking, or do you plan to take, to heed this call?

Dave Osworth (DO): I appreciate this year’s AERA theme. I think a common pitfall for the academy is to focus exclusively on the creation of new knowledge without thinking about how this knowledge is relevant to the everyday work of educators or can help to make schooling a more equitable space. I have at times been guilty of staying exclusively in the theoretical without thinking about the transition to the practical. AERA’s theme calls upon us to think about the ways in which our research can lead to action.

One way that I am trying to respond to this call is by examining the ways in which research practice partnerships (RPP) may help to drive leadership capacity within a school district. For example, I have been part of an RPP between an R1 university and a large school district focused on fostering leadership capacity. RPPs are intended to be long term collaborations between researchers and practitioners involving boundary spanning through high levels of communication and the development of strong trust. With this RPP, like others, the research process is entwined with practice. Additionally, we have made sure that this partnership is very responsive to the needs of the district. As such we have found that at times it is important to be flexible and willing to explore how we might help address the additional needs of the district beyond the initial problem of practice. This flexibility has helped to support the longevity of the partnership and has resulted in new areas of work that supports the needs of the district while providing ample opportunity for university faculty to engage in scholarship.

AERA’s theme also calls upon us to think about the historical contexts of education. It is easy to fall into a pattern of focusing on the present problem of practice without situating it historically. As a scholar, I identify with post-critical approaches (see Anders & Noblit, 2024). This means that, as I apply my scholarship to educational leadership and policy, I try to think about the specific context that has shaped a current problem of practice. In practice, this can involve infusing historiographic works into my literature reviews, using the history of education to inform the context of my current scholarship. For example, in one of my current studies, I am examining the discursive practices of state policy actors as they debate anti-LGBTQ policy in North Carolina. My co-author and I situate this within an historical framing to understand how these attacks against LGBTQ individuals aren’t necessarily “new” or “unprecedented” but are a form of retrenchment. Retrenchment refers to a process through which, after progress has been made with regards to “rights,” a countermovement brings in more oppressive policies that move that progress back (see Crenshaw, 1988). We argue that by situating work historically, we can identify patterns in which communities resisted these oppressive policies (Osworth & Edlin, in progress).

“Attacks against LGBTQ individuals aren’t necessarily ‘new’ or ‘unprecedented’ but are a form of retrenchment.”

LtC: Your work has explored the policy implications of methods of continuous improvement, such as improvement science, that have been spreading in recent years. What are some of the major lessons that practitioners and scholars of Educational Change can learn from your work?

DO: Policymakers often think about improvement in terms of identifying what works in general, based upon randomized control trials (RCT), often seen as a gold standard in certain fields. This prototypical approach to research, however, may not always be possible and/or ethical in educational settings. Improvement science offers a different approach as a type of continuous improvement that aims to systematically solve complex problems of practice. The promise of improvement science lay in how it involves looking at the context of problems of practice and utilizing iterative approaches to address problems involving a feedback loop that allows interventions to be tested and adjusted (Bryk et al., 2015; Hinnant-Crawford, 2020). While traditional thoughts about improvement may assume that a “proven” intervention will be applied and if improvement does not occur it is because the intervention wasn’t done with fidelity. By contrast, improvement science recognizes the particularities of a problem within that specific context that must be considered to know how to solve it.

I have studied improvement science primarily in relation to its connection with the federal policy, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA, passed during the second Obama administration to replace No Child Left Behind, provides guidance to state education agencies about criteria are required to be included in their state accountability policies to be eligible for certain federal funding packages. In Cunningham and Osworth (2023), we classified 52 state accountability plans—this includes 50 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico— based on their presence of improvement science language. We found that many state ESSA plans included language about “continuous improvement,” but this appeared more like a buzzword. Only a few highlighted specific improvement science approaches (e.g., Hawaii or Washington), and hence the true commitment to improvement science approaches within state education agencies was unclear (Cunningham & Osworth, 2023, 2024a).

We argue that district leaders can leverage improvement science while aligning with many states’ expectations of continuous improvement. Improvement science recognizes the need for a context-specific approach to improvement (Cunningham & Osworth, 2024b). Because not all districts within a state are the same, district leaders can use improvement science to identify and address context-specific problems while meeting the requirements of state-level ESSA plans (Cunningham & Osworth, 2024a).

LtC: Your research has examined leadership preparation in the context of research-practice partnerships. What might practitioners and scholars take from this work to foster better school systems for all students?

DO: Future school leaders need strong foundational preparation to develop confidence to be change agents to make schooling better for all children. In the RPP mentioned above, researchers at an R1 university collaborated with a large school district to intentionally design a leadership preparation program for a district-specific M.Ed. cohort at the university. As part of that RPP, in Osworth et al. (2023), I studied this leadership preparation effort using a powerful learning experiences (PLE) framework (see Cunningham et al., 2019; VanGronigen et al., 2019; Young et al., 2021). The PLE framework provides 10 characteristics that help to drive adult learning in leadership preparation programs. In this interview-based study, we found that the partnership specifically brought to the forefront certain PLEs—including providing authentic learning, building confidence, engaging in critical reflection, and sense making (Osworth et al., 2023). These results suggest that long-term and trusting partnerships like this may provide intentional access to practical experiences and supportive spaces that help to develop strong aspiring leaders.

“Future school leaders need strong foundational preparation to make schooling better for all children.”

I think that one of the most salient takeaways is that a collaborative partnership like this can strengthen graduate programs’ relevance and fit to the specific needs of districts. Through our partnership, the M.Ed. program underwent a redesign in response to district feedback, involving revamped coursework that included changes to required readings and key assessments (Osworth et al., under review). While leadership curriculum stayed relevant to national standards, the cohort could make real-time connections to their district context collectively, drawing on similar frames of reference and allowing for greater confidence in how the course content related to the practice of school leadership. Furthermore, because the partnership is characterized by a high level of communication, faculty could incorporate district-specific examples using district data (Osworth et al., under review).

Leadership matters in the context of student success and wellbeing (Grissom et al., 2021), and such partnerships provide opportunities for leaders to be prepared in a way that meets the needs of students. However, it is important to note that, to be effective, partnerships like this are time-intensive and require resources to be committed by both partnered organizations. For instance, attention to the needs of both organizations requires attention to multiple voices, which often involves a high level of planning and a time commitment by liaisons from both organizations (Osworth et al., under review).

LtC: Educational Change expects those engaged in and with schools, schooling, and school systems to spearhead deep and often difficult transformation. How might those in the field of Educational Change best support these individuals and groups through these processes?

DO: The current policy landscape is quite hostile towards educators engaging in meaningful change, especially regarding work surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In the current times, many educators are understandably worried about anti-DEI policies and their repercussions. These policies are often under the guise of attacking the teaching of critical race theory, that ultimately make it difficult to engage in DEI work. The law school at the University of California, Los Angeles has a center that is tracking these current policies (CRT Forward, 2025). While many of these policies are challenging for states to enforce, they often include threats to funding as recourse (Martínez et al., 2023). Whether real or imagined, such policies create a sense of surveillance, which can control individuals’ behavior and becomes coercive in nature (Foucault, 1995).

To support educators committed to educational change, I think that scholars in the field of Educational Change need to be strategic in how we engage in work that centers equity. We need to continue to leverage tools from “controversial” theories (e.g., critical race theory, culturally responsive pedagogy, historical materialism, or humanizing pedagogies), but rethink about how we package them. We can help educators continue to center equity and justice without using the buzzwords so that they can navigate the current political landscape which has attacked allegedly controversial topics in school (CRT Forward, 2025).

By avoiding triggering buzz words, however, the goal is not to give into, but guard against, the chilling effect that can come from such policies. There are individuals who would like to opt out of the work of meaningful educational change, who will find it easy to cite these policies as the reason to do so. We should ensure that educators continue to engage with data that shows the persistence of racial disparity in our public schools to be at the crux of the change that is needed in education.

LtC: Where do you perceive the field of Educational Change is going? What excites you about Educational Change now and in the future?

DO: I think the field of Educational Change, now more than ever, needs to double down on efforts to center equity at the heart of our work. Equity poses what social scientists have called “wicked problems,” describing societal problems that tend to be both complex and heavily contested (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rittel and Webber (1973) argue that traditional science tends to be insufficient to figure out how to solve wicked problems. Such problems, rather, require a commitment from the field to engage with and shape the debates around them.

I am excited about the potential for collaborative and community-engaged work to tackle “wicked” problems in education. The backlash against DEI has become a key wicked problem that requires sustained engagement. The backlash targets all non-dominant identity groups; this includes ability, class, gender, language, race, and sexuality (to name a few). This period of retrenchment, as described above, can make it challenging to support all students in creating a more socially just schooling environment. I see a major purpose of my work, and the work of the field, to be to serve as resistance this retrenchment and continue to advance a justice-oriented agenda that serves our children and fulfills the democratic promise of our schools.

I’m also excited for the opportunities in Educational Change to engage in theoretically rich work that is also relevant to practice. An often-expressed concern is that theory and practice don’t align or that theory-heavy research cannot be applied practically. In contrast, I think many critical theories offer valuable analytic insights for navigating the current moment. Indeed, educational change is entering an exciting moment to engage in praxis— to reflect upon action to connect theory to practice. What excites me most is the opportunity to engage in praxis through conducting research that is theoretically deep and involves critical reflection on how we engage in action related to that theory.

References

Anders, A. D. & Noblit, G.W. (2024). Postcritical ethnography. In A.D. Anders & G.W. Noblit (Eds.) Evolutions in critical and postcritical ethnography: Crafting approaches (pp. 1-20). Springer.

Bryk, A.S. (2020). Improvement in action: Advancing quality in America’s schools. Harvard Education Press.

Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P.G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331-1387.

CRT Forward. (2025). CRT Forward. Retrieved from https://crtforward.law.ucla.edu/

Cunningham, K.M.W., VanGonigen, B.A., Tucker, P.D. & Young, M.D. (2019). Using powerful learning experiences to prepared school leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 14(1), 74-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118819672

Cunningham, K.M.W. & Osworth, D. (2023). A proposed typology of states’ improvement science focus in their state ESSA plans. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 31(37), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7262

Cunningham, K.M.W. & Osworth, D. (2024a). Improvement science and the Every Student Succeeds Act: An analysis of the consolidated state plans. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 23(4), 955-972. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2023.2264924

Cunningham, K.M.W. & Osworth, D. (2024b). Policy considerations for continuous improvement. In Anderson, E., Cunningham, K. M. W. & Eddy-Spicer, D. H. Leading continuous improvement in schools: Enacting leadership standards to advance educational quality and equity. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003389279-13

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

Grissom, J.A., Egalite, A.J. & Lindsay, C.A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. [White Paper] The Wallace Foundation, New York.

Hinnant-Crawford, B. (2020). Improvement science in education: A Primer. Myers Education Press.

Martínez, D.G., Osworth, D., Knight, D. & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2023). Southern hospitality: Democracy and school finance policy praxis in racist America. Peabody Journal of Education, 98(5), 482-499.

Osworth, D. & Cunningham, K.M.W. (2022). Improvement science and the Every Student Succeeds Act: An analysis of state guidance documents. Planning and Changing, 51(1/2), 3-19.

Osworth, D., Cunningham, K.M.W, Hardie, S., Moyi, P., Osborne Smith, N. & Gaskins, M. (2023). Leadership preparation in progress: Evidence from a district-university partnership. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(6), 682-697. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2023-0009

Osworth, D., Cunningham, K.M.W., Hardie, S., Moyi, P., Osborne Smith, N. & Gaskins, M. (Under Review). Boundary spanning, partnerships, and educational leadership: How a district-university partnership fostered organizational learning.

Osworth, D. & Edlin, M. (In Progress). The political construction of “don’t say gay”: A critical discourse analysis of North Carolina state legislators.

Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

VanGronigen, B.A., Cunningham, K.M.W., & Young, M.D. (2019). How exemplary educational leadership preparation programs hone the interpersonal-intrapersonal (i2) skills of future leaders. Journal of Transformative Leadership and Policy Studies, 7(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.36851/jtlps.v7i2.503

Young, M.D., Cunningham, K.M.W., VanGronigen, B.A., & O’Doherty, A. (2021). Transformational leadership preparation in a post-COVID world: U.S. perspectives. eJournal of Educational Policy, 21(1), 1-15.

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News

Tagged education, leadership, Learning, Teachers, Teaching

Taking learning and teaching seriously: Reflections on the life and work of Lee Shulman

Posted on January 29, 2025 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

IEN celebrates the life of Lee Shulman, renowned scholar and mentor, who passed away on December 30^th, 2024. Shulman was a Professor of Education at Michigan State University and Stanford University, before becoming the 8^th President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1996. He also served terms as President of the National Academy of Education and the American Education Research Association where he helped establish the division of Teaching and Teacher Education. Shulman received numerous awards over the course of his career, including the American Psychological Association’s E.L. Thorndike Award for Career Achievement in Educational Psychology in 1995 and the Grawemeyer Award in Education in 2006. Thomas Hatch, who worked with Shulman at the Carnegie Foundation, shares some of his reflections.

Lee Shulman was an exuberant friend and scholar. Always positive and supportive, whether in his professional advice or as a host as he and his wife Judy welcomed me, my wife (and his graduate student) Karen Hammerness and our young children into his home. Lee’s work and impact cannot be summed up in any one idea or publication, but Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, his 1986 AERA Presidential Address, made clear that teaching involves substantial knowledge and expertise. In the process, he demonstrated that teaching is not just a difficult job, but a demanding profession, worthy of the same kinds of recognition and reward as any other. That work helped to launch a whole new era of research on teaching. Far more than an academic exercise, that work and Lee’s insights were central to the establishment of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, as well as to the advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and to the creation of a host of centers and institutions dedicated to studying and improving the quality of teaching in K-12 as well as higher education.

Lee worked out his ideas over time in conversations, at meals as well as in seminars, and his ideas often launched new initiatives and new lines of work. In her remembrance, Jill Perry, Executive Director of the Carnegie Project on the Doctorate – one of several projects spawned while Lee was President of the Carnegie Foundation – explained this as “classic Lee:”

“offering a casually delivered suggestion that was, in reality, a deeply considered and insightful idea. He was known for these moments, where his offhanded guidance would leave young scholars or practitioners inspired yet responsible for sorting out the details on their own.”

I had that experience, sitting in Lee’s office in 1996, in the heart of Silicon Valley with the internet developing all around us. He declared that he wanted to bring the power of the three great resources of the university – the laboratory, the library, and the museum – and put them online to support faculty in K-12 and higher education who were creating the scholarship of teaching and learning. And then he asked me to do it. Inspired, I returned to my office to stare for hours at the cursor blinking on my computer screen. But, eventually, we established the Carnegie Knowledge Media Lab to support the Carnegie Academy of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL K-12 and CASTL Higher Education) and began a long line of work that included two books, Into the Classroom and Going Public with Our Teaching, and the development of a whole series of multimedia websites and images of practice that documented the work of exceptional teachers.

Beyond his ability to tell a story and make a powerful point, Lee’s brilliance was in his humanity. Lee was as likely to draw on his experience working at the counter at his parents’ deli on the south side of Chicago as he was to quote Benjamin Bloom or Joseph Schwab, two of his mentors at the University of Chicago. That deli experience, in particular, was evident in a segment he did for NPR’s This I Believe series. What did Lee believe in? He believed in pastrami:

“I believe that pastrami is a metaphor for a well-lived life, for a well-designed institution and even for healthy relationships. Pastrami is marbled rather than layered. Its parts, the lean and the fat, are mixed together rather than neatly separated.… Separate layers are much easier to build, to schedule and to design. But I believe that marbling demands that we work with the messy world of people, relationships and obligations in their full, rich complexity. The diet mavens inform us that marbling can be dangerous for our health, but as an educator I’m willing — even obligated — to take the risk. I want to marble habits of mind, habits of practice and habits of the heart with my students — just like pastrami.”

His writings and his talks drew from all his experiences, and, somehow, after a well-known tendency to wait until the last minute, they would burst forth, fully-formed. On one occasion, I remember flying from San Francisco to Washington D.C. for the annual conference of the American Association of Higher Education, where Lee was scheduled to give the keynote address the following day. I happened to be seated in front of him, and as we settled into our seats, I asked him what he would be talking about. He held up a pack of index cards and told me he was going to work on it on the plane. Some six hours later, after the plane pulled into the gate, when we unbuckled our seat belts and stood up, Lee spilled all the cards onto the floor. As I stooped to help him collect his notes, I realized every single card was blank.

The next morning, seemingly without reference to a script or a single card, Lee delivered a talk, Taking Learning Seriously, that ended in a standing ovation. In that talk, Lee addressed the first question “What does it mean to take anything seriously?” by declaring that “when we take something seriously, we often talk about professing it:”

“The deepest, oldest meaning of the word “profess” is to take religious orders in a public and visible way. When one professes faith, it means taking on a set of obligations that will serve as the first principles for controlling one’s life, no questions asked. Professing one’s faith, behaviorally and emotionally, is an impressive example of taking something seriously.

Another sense of the word is that we profess our love–for our spouses and partners, our parents, our children, our dearest friends. We profess a kind of commitment that has within it a willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the other. Also in a public manner, we declare our devotion to another. Here is yet another example of taking something quite seriously.

A more contemporary meaning of the word, a meaning more closely associated with the work of those who read this magazine, is to profess one’s understanding, one’s expertise: to be professional, or to be a “professor.” Members of professions take on the burden of their understanding by making public commitments to serve their fellow beings in a skilled and responsible manner. “Professors” take on a special set of roles and obligations. They profess their understanding in the interests of nurturing the knowledge, understanding, and development of others. They take learning so seriously that they profess it.“

Throughout the talk, and especially in the conclusion, Lee’s remarks deftly weaved together the insights of a scholar of science and a man of faith:

“To be deeply educated, I believe, is to understand both when skepticism and evidence are appropriate, and when faith and suspension of disbelief are appropriate. There are no rules or principles for knowing this distinction. Only through studying the examples in both scientific and humanistic sources -through wrestling with that inherent contradiction between faith and reason–can we and our students come to terms with the essential uncertainties that define our roles as professionals and as human beings.

As professors, we are asked to be rational and empirical, to demand evidence. On the other hand, as teaching professionals, we expect ourselves to believe what much empirical evidence says we shouldn’t: that all our students can learn. We express our faith in our students’ potential and in our ability to teach them. As professors, we do not choose between the skepticism of reason and the hope grounded in faith. Our students demand both. And we must learn, as professional educators, to do both.”

***********

Donations can be made in Lee Shulman’s honor to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the Camp Ramah Tikvah Program in Ojai, California

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News

Tagged education, Learning, school, Teachers, Teaching

Reimagining Coaching and Teachers’ Time: Scanning the News for Innovations in Teachers’ Professional Learning (Part 2)

Posted on July 31, 2024 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

This week, IEN’s managing editor Sarah Etzel continues a scan of recent news articles and research on post-pandemic developments in the teaching profession. In part two of the post, Etzel describes some of the initiatives to use technology to help to free-up time for teachers by reorganizing staffing and scheduling. Part one explored innovations in blended and remote teacher professional development models and the use of AI to provide feedback to teachers.

What’s happened to teachers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? On the one hand, in the US teacher vacancies appear to have grown substantially. One report released in the fall of 2023 showed 55,000 vacant teaching positions, an increase from 36,000 the previous year. On top of that, the report found that 270,000 teachers – almost 9% of the entire teaching force – are “underqualified,” either lacking full certification or teaching in a subject in which they are not certified. The National Center for Education Statistics also revealed that 86% of K-12 schools reported problems hiring new teachers in advance of the 2023-24 school year, and almost half of all public schools describing themselves as “understaffed.” On the other hand, the pandemic helped to stimulate experiments with new models for staffing and with virtual teachers that might help to address teacher shortages.

Staffing Changes: Unconventional Teaching Roles

Whether in-person or virtual, a small set of schools and organizations around the US are exploring what alternative teaching and staffing models for schools could look like. A report from FutureEd focusing on pandemic-inspired staffing strategies, for example, highlights the benefits of some co-teaching, team teaching, and mentor teaching models. Public Impact, working with a network of over 300 schools, has pioneered models designed to use teacher teams to enable teachers who have shown their effectiveness to reach more students. These “multi-classroom” leaders teach part-time and also lead small, collaborative teams of other teachers, paraprofessionals, and intern teachers in the same grade or subject. Cadence extends the reach of effective teachers by developing a national team of mentor teachers who deliver online lessons for a group of partner schools across the US. The teachers in the partner schools both learn from the mentor models and they can incorporate the lessons into the work with their own students. As Steven Wilson, a co-founder of Cadence, puts it: “It’s like being able to sit in the back of the room of the best teacher in the building for weeks at a time and see his or her moves and adapt them and make them your own.”

The FutureED report also emphasizes the potential of flexible class sizes, time blocks, and instructional cycles that allow for teachers to work with smaller groups of students outside of traditional grade-level and schedule constraints. As an example, the report highlights a particularly unusual approach from Kairos Academies in St. Louis that developed a seven-week schedule in which students attend school for five weeks, followed by two weeks off; staff have one week off, but use the other week to review data and plan for the next cycle. The report quotes, Gavin Schiffres, Kairos founder and CEO, describing what he sees as the advantages of the cycles; “With the cycle model, we operate in sprints, much like the technology industry. In a traditional calendar, you have kids in the building for such long stretches that as soon as there’s a break, everyone just wants to crash.”

“We operate in sprints, much like the technology industry. In a traditional calendar, you have kids in the building for such long stretches that as soon as there’s a break, everyone just wants to crash.”

Drawing on interviews with a small group of leaders from six districts involved in staffing experiments, the Center on Reinventing Public Education issued a report on how unconventional teaching roles could help to make the profession more sustainable and increase teacher satisfaction in the process. Some of these roles include:

Lead teacher: An individual who mentors a team of teachers (across content areas or grade levels) by developing curricula and co-teaching as necessary
Empowered teacher: An individual who supports with school-level policies and sets learning targets
Team teacher: An individual who teaches a large group of students (50-80) in collaboration with two to four other teachers
Community learning guide: An individual who works with a group of educators and their students to create experiences grounded in students’ wider environment, community, or culture.
Solo learning guide: An individual who independently teaches a small group students (5-15) in school or home contexts
Technical guide: An individual who leverages subject area expertise (e.g. robotics, architecture) to provide curriculum support and work with small groups of students

According to the report, teachers in these roles shared that they experienced less stress and felt more motivated; working in diverse or team settings, teachers were able to share responsibilities, learn from each other, and feel connected to the purpose of teaching. Despite the potential, a review of the CRPE report from the National Education Policy Center cautions that it is too early to tell whether these kinds of staffing changes could be scaled effectively or whether they would have the desired impact.

In order to address the shortage of teachers and support those that are in place, some schools in the US have also introduced models to support paraprofessionals to gain teaching credentials and become licensed teachers, while others have created pipelines for substitute teachers to gain teacher certifications. Beyond the US, organizations such as GPE KIX and UNICEF have been pioneering child-to-child teaching models, in which older students support the education of pre-primary learners, in areas where there are not enough teachers available (for past IEN coverage of peer-to-peer tutoring approaches, see: Education reform in Mexico, An interview with Dr. Santiago Rincón-Gallardo, and Bringing Effective Instructional Innovation to Scale through Social Movement in Mexico and Colombia).

Virtual teachers for in-person students

Along with developing new virtual and hybrid approaches for students to learn, during and after the pandemic, reports also note that some districts are spending millions of dollars on virtual teachers to fill-in when they can’t find the personnel they need in their local area. Among these, districts in Little Rock, Arkansas, Charleston County, South Carolina, San Jose, California, and Milwaukee Wisconsin have contracted with companies such as Elevate K-12, Coursemojo, and Proximity Learning to address their teacher vacancies and to provide virtual instructors who zoom into their classes. These companies employ fully certified virtual teachers who provide “synchronized learning services” in a range of subjects. The virtual teachers interact with students completely through the online platforms, with, in some cases, in-person supervision provided by paraprofessionals or long-term substitute teachers.

Elevate-K12’s model of “live teaching”, The 74

The benefits and drawbacks of these approaches are also being debated in the press. For some, these virtual options provide an alternative to other “quick fix” solutions that have been used to fill empty classrooms in the past, including hiring uncertified teachers, incentivizing military veterans to join the teaching force, or removing some degree requirements. According to the CEO of a San Jose charter school network that contracts with Coursemojo, this situation is not ideal, “but until we really, radically change the education profession here in the United States, we’re going to be looking at solutions like this.” Catherine Schumacher, Executive Director of Public Education Partners stated the importance of not shaming “districts for doing the absolute best they can do to get qualified teachers,” especially in a climate where “we have systematically underpaid…educators for years.”

Other advocates argue that the subjects virtual teachers are teaching have historically been hard to fill, meaning many students did not have access to these educational opportunities, particularly in low-resource school districts. As the Milwaukee Public Schools talent management director put it: “when we talk equity and access, I want to ensure that if my students want to take pre-calc, if they want chemistry, if they want physics, that they have the opportunity to do so.”

The cost-effectiveness of the virtual models also remains in question. For one school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a contract with Elevate-K12 helped them fill 55 open positions at a cost of about $3.9 million, a savings from the $5 million it would have cost to hire that many in-person teachers. A district representative reported that they were able to save the $1.1 million because they did not have to provide benefits for Elevate K-12 teachers. In contrast, a school district in Charleston County, South Carolina that has used the virtual learning platform, Proximity found that these models were more expensive, as the schools needed to hire paraprofessionals to watch the students during the virtual classes.

Critics point to the fact that there is not yet enough evidence to show that students are achieving positive learning outcomes under these models, but proponents such as Elevate K-12 founder Shaily Baranwal, argue that virtual teaching during Covid-19 took place under emergency circumstances and, with more time to prepare and focus on delivery methods, post-pandemic virtual teaching could be particularly effective. Critics also question whether students’ social experiences and sense of belonging will suffer when they have virtual teachers, and some wonder who will be held accountable for student learning under blended learning models (i.e. the paraprofessionals who are in class every day with the students, or the virtual teachers?). With all these uncertainties, many parents remain skeptical of this virtual solution and question whether virtual teaching will be the best fit for their children.

The bottom line? Freeing up time to teach?

At the end of the day, the success of any of these “innovations” in professional learning depends on whether they can be put in place without adding to teachers already overloaded schedules and extensive set of responsibilities. Post-pandemic articles continue to highlight challenges like a lack of planning time for teachers and excessive time spent in staff meetings as well as hopes that AI may help address these issues by freeing up teachers’ teachers time from administrative tasks and helping teachers create differentiated assignments. Through a survey of 368 school-based employees across the U.S., AI-Equity found that 84% of those who used AI in the Daily/Weekly category reported they were “more excited about continuing education sector work because of AI,” compared to 52% of all respondents, while 94% of Daily/Weekly AI users shared that it made them more productive. According to research from MIT, AI can improve the performance of skilled workers in fields such as consulting by approximately 40%. A report from McKinsey and Co. estimates that teachers could free up 20-30% of their time by using AI and other technologies to support activities such as preparation, conducting evaluations and giving feedback, administrative duties, and professional development. The Christensen Institute argues that teachers may not use their reallocated time for increased student engagement without proper incentives, but freeing up teachers’ time could help to alleviate burnout and increase the attractiveness of the profession.

How artificial intelligence will impact K-12 teachers, McKinsey

However, sources also caution that AI should not be viewed as a panacea for solving these issues, and in fact, may exacerbate some of the challenges that teachers face. As one teacher explained, the expectations developing lessons incorporating AI and other forms of technology “takes extreme planning, and that, we don’t have time for anymore.” Moreover, the increasing use of AI raises numerous questions about the potential impact on students’ learning and development. In particular, as Julia Freeland Fisher cautions, the education market doesn’t prioritize relationship building within its attainment metrics and so may fail to take into account AI’s impact on those relationships. Under those conditions, as Freeland Fisher put it, “the more commonplace that AI companions, coaches, and anthropomorphized bots in learning and support models are, the more fragile students’ social connectedness may become.”

Leave a comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News, artificial intelligence, educational technology, Professional Learning, Teachers

Tagged artificial intelligence, educational technology, Professional Learning, Staffing, Teachers

Lead the Change Interview with Patricia Virella, Tayeon Kim, Lauren Bailes, and Elizabeth Zumpe

Posted on July 4, 2024 by T Hatch | Leave a comment

This month’s Lead the Change (LtC) interview features the new leaders of the Educational Change Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association, Patricia Virella, Tayeon Kim, Lauren Bailes, and Elizabeth Zumpe. This week IEN shares excerpts from those interviews focusing on the connections between their work and the work of the SIG and the wider field of educational change. The LtC series is produced by Elizabeth Zumpe and sponsored by the Educational Change SIG. A pdf of the full interview will be available on the LtC website.

Lead the Change Interview with Patricia Virella

Lead the Change (LtC): What are some of the ideas that you hope the field of Educational Change can learn from your work to inform practice, policy, and scholarship?

Patricia Virella (PV): Over the past year, I prioritized immersing myself in school environments, spending approximately 30 days actively engaging with students, teachers, and staff. This hands-on experience allowed me to gain profound insights into the unique challenges that students are facing in today’s educational landscape, including mental health issues, ongoing crises, and persistent inequities. Witnessing the resilience and joy demonstrated by students in the face of these challenges was incredibly inspiring. It reinforced the importance of understanding the realities of schooling in the present moment. All of us must pause and truly comprehend the current state of education before forging ahead with our plans and initiatives. This firsthand exposure has deepened my commitment to advocating for comprehensive support systems that address the multifaceted needs of students and educators alike. It has also fueled my passion for promoting holistic approaches to education that prioritize well-being and equity. I am driven to leverage these insights to inform my work and to champion initiatives that empower schools to create environments where every student can thrive.

LtC: What excites you about the field of Educational Change, and how might we further those ideas through the work of the Educational Change SIG?

PV: The idea of change is inherently exhilarating. While change often implies embracing entirely new approaches, I also ponder whether it involves a return to foundational concepts and theories that have yet to manifest their full potential, such as liberation, transformation, and experiential learning. This dual perspective prompts me to consider how we, as a collective of academics, can effectively support change that embodies the spirit of equity. I recognize that achieving equity can sometimes feel elusive, but it does not have to remain this way. My commitment to exploring the multifaceted nature of change and equity has deepened my resolve to advocate for inclusive and transformative practices within academic and institutional settings. By critically examining the intersections of change and equity, I am dedicated to fostering environments where all individuals have equal opportunities to thrive and contribute meaningfully. I am driven to channel these reflections into actionable strategies that promote systemic change and advance the realization of equity within educational and academic spheres.

Dr. Patricia M. Virella is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Montclair State University. Dr. Virella’s research focuses on implementing equity-oriented leadership through leader responses, organizational transformation and preparation. Dr. Virella also studies equity-oriented crisis leadership examining how school leaders can respond to crises without further harming marginalized communities.

Lead the Change Interview with Taeyeon Kim

LtC: What are some of the ideas that you hope the field of Educational Change can learn from your work to inform practice, policy, and scholarship?

TK: My research offers several contributions to the field of Educational Change, focusing on three main areas: revisiting policy through the voices of equity leaders, critically examining policies and systems by centering racially and linguistically marginalized communities, and promoting cross-cultural dialogue using transnational and decolonial perspectives. Given that my work was previously featured in the Lead the Change series (See the Lead the ChangeOctober issue of 2023), I would like to highlight some insights from my recent publication on leadership learning.

As a leadership educator, I view learning as a core tenet of leading educational change. My scholarship on educational leadership and policy has led me to explore how to guide meaningful learning for aspiring leaders who pursue equity and social justice. My recent work, published in the Journal of School Leadership (Kim & Wright, 2024), presents a conceptual-pedagogical framework that on guides students through emotional discomfort when learning about inequities and injustice. This research underscores the importance of emotion in learning, which can drive change at both individual and social levels. When negative emotions are not properly addressed and processed, meaningful learning cannot occur, undermining leaders’ efforts to redress inequities, injustice, and harm. However, with appropriate guidance, emotional discomfort can be a valuable source for transformative learning and changes (see Mezirow 1997). Traditional scholarship on educational change often relies on rationalistic approaches; however, my recent study emphasizes the role of emotions and the holistic aspects of learning in effecting change. It also highlights the crucial role of facilitators and educators in developing equity leaders.

Thus, my work reveals that effective leadership learning involves addressing the emotional dimensions of learning about social justice issues. By integrating these emotional and holistic aspects, educational leaders can foster more profound and lasting changes in their practice, policy, and scholarship. This approach can help prepare leaders, better equipping them to navigate and address the complex challenges of inequity and injustice in education.

LtC: What excites you about the field of Educational Change, and how might we further those ideas through the work of the Educational Change SIG?

TK: The field of Educational Change is particularly exciting due to its emphasis on partnerships and interdisciplinary approaches, and its appreciation for international perspectives. As a transnational scholar, I often notice that AERA’s discourse tends to be US-centric and predominantly features scholarly thoughts and contexts published in English. This observation underscores the importance of the Educational Change SIG’s foundations and history, as it can potentially extend the boundaries of our educational scholarship.

To advance the field, I urge educational change scholars to critically engage with issues of geopolitics, coloniality, and global whiteness (e.g., Chen, 2010; Mignolo, 2008; Leonardo, 2002) that influence knowledge creation and dissemination. When we embrace “interdisciplinary” and “international” perspectives, it is crucial to interrogate whose knowledge is being prioritized and how it is being represented.

“To advance the field, I urge educational change scholars to critically engage with issues of geopolitics, coloniality, and global whiteness.”

With our new leadership team, I aim to extend the field of Educational Change through several focuses. First, I urge the field to integrate diverse onto-epistemological understandings. The field can benefit significantly from including non-Western, indigenous, and other marginalized ways of being and thinking. By incorporating these perspectives, we can challenge the dominance of Eurocentric paradigms and enrich our understanding of educational practices and policies. Second, educational change scholars need to consider the power dynamics involved in knowledge production and dissemination. This means questioning who has access to academic platforms, whose voices are amplified, and whose are marginalized. Future activities organized by the Educational Change SIG could better support multilingual scholarship and inclusive platforms that are accessible to scholars from various regions and backgrounds, ensuring that a variety of voices are heard and valued. This will eventually promote cross-cultural and transnational collaborations. Finally, integrating critical theories such as postcolonial theory, critical race theory, and feminist theory can provide valuable lenses through which to examine and address systemic inequities in education. These theories can help scholars and practitioners understand the historical and structural factors that perpetuate educational inequalities and identify pathways to more just and equitable educational systems.

By taking these steps, the Educational Change SIG can play a pivotal role in promoting a more inclusive and globally informed approach to educational change, ensuring that the field continues to evolve and respond to the complex needs of educational communities worldwide.

Taeyeon Kim is an assistant professor in the department of Educational Administration at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Her scholarship explores intersections of policy and leadership, with a particular focus on how educational leadership can challenge unjust systems and humanize educational practices to empower marginalized students and communities.The Educational Change SIG would like to acknowledge and congratulate Taeyeon Kim as the recipient of the 2024 Educational Change SIG Emerging Scholar Award. Her work was featured in the Lead the Change in October, 2023.

Lead the Change Interview Lauren Bailes

LtC: What are some of the ideas that you hope the field of Educational Change can learn from your work to inform practice, policy, and scholarship?

LB: I aim to share with the field a clear emphasis on systems change for equity, especially in the ways we think about who leaders are. My research focuses on identifying the systems, practices, and mindsets that perpetuate inequities in the careers of educational leaders. Most of my work problematizes the notion of ‘pipelines,’ especially in educational leadership and how career experiences like preparation, promotion, and evaluation are differentially distributed by race and gender (e.g., Bailes & Guthery, 2020; Bailes et al., 2023). When we consider careers to be pipelines, we might wrongly believe those pipelines are neutral, and that everyone has an equal chance of entering or flowing through the pipeline. That is fundamentally untrue: Women and People of Color, as well as people with intersectional identities, experience sorting at every career juncture, even when they are equivalently qualified relative to white or male peers. Further, these career inequities often result in adverse outcomes for faculty and students—especially faculty and students of color.

“Most of my work problematizes the notion of ‘pipelines,’ especially in educational leadership and how career experiences like preparation, promotion, and evaluation are differentially distributed by race and gender.”

A second thing I hope to share is the critical importance of partnering with current practitioners and myriad ways of incorporating their perspectives to deepen, clarify, and implement approaches to and findings of research. The profound systems changes required to shift unjust organizational practices are unlikely to come only from the academy. While research like mine can and does inform practice, I value, seek, and incorporate the perspectives of folks who have experienced injustice in their career trajectories. They are uniquely capable of showing me what I might be missing and how to better capture and learn from what they have experienced or what they know might work to change the system. I also want to be clear that there is much I am still learning from colleagues in this SIG and throughout our field. I’m looking forward to deepening those connections and bringing my own learning to bear on my research and partnership efforts to shift systems in service of equity.

LtC: What excites you about the field of Educational Change, and how might we further those ideas through the work of the Educational Change SIG?

LB: I think there is a broad appetite—among researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and families—for change in education. That appetite often results in misguided and harmful movements toward neoliberalism, isolationism, or the erosion of schooling as a public good, but there may be opportunity for broad and supportive coalitions for some of the interventions, innovations, and structures that do preserve and enhance equitable and accessible education for every student.

Lauren P. Bailes is an associate professor of education leadership in the School of Education at the University of Delaware, where she is the coordinator of UD’s EdD in Educational Leadership. After teaching middle school language arts in New York City, she earned her doctorate at The Ohio State University. Now, she researches school leadership preparation, promotion, and evaluation; school organizational characteristics; and the intersection of school leadership and policy. Lauren’s favorite days are still the ones spent in schools alongside teachers and leaders.

Lead the Change Interview with Elizabeth Zumpe

LtC: What are some of the ideas that you hope the field of Educational Change can learn from your work to inform practice, policy, and scholarship?

EZ: Prevailing ideas about Educational Change tend to come from scholars and policymakers who work far from the realities of schools. Too often, these ideas rest upon wildly false assumptions about existing capacities in schools, overlooking how many operate amid chronic adversity. Chronic adversity occurs when schools regularly face inadequate resources to meet their community’s needs, unproductive pressures to improve, and a lack of support for the profession. When designed from afar, educational reforms tend to presume that school challenges stem from educators’ ‘lack’ of motivation or competence and that improvement thus depends upon intensive intervention from the outside.

My research offers a different perspective: school improvement amid adversity as a struggle to develop collective agency (Zumpe, 2024). Agency is an inherent driver of human motivation and of educational improvement. But agency can become constrained when people are regularly subjected to demands for which they do not have adequate resources and experience inevitable failure.

As part of one RPP described above, I collaborated closely with a school facing challenging circumstances (Zumpe, 2024). At the start of our collaboration, we realized that our partnership’s theory of action had not considered this school’s needs and context. Across years of being labeled as ‘failing’ and facing daily struggles to ‘reach’ students and cover classrooms, the school’s leaders had tried various initiatives to improve. However, most of their efforts faltered and sputtered out, leaving conflict and cynicism behind. By their own account, the faculty struggled with the “basics” to get along well enough to launch and sustain improvement.

When the school’s leadership team invited me to help, I tried to capture their efforts to develop a foundational capability to work together to solve problems, which I called collective agency. Through participant observation with several work groups, I traced how their collective agency became enabled and what shut it down. I also launched and studied a new group using action research.

Comparing groups, I found that efforts to develop collective agency collapsed when educators faced overwhelming and complex problems for which they could see no solutions within reach. In these situations, they avoided their problems, pointed fingers at each other, and expressed a sense of helplessness that nothing could be done. On the flip side, efforts to develop collective agency surged when someone charged the group to ‘do something,’ and when this initiative was combined with a simple solution that the group felt they had the capacity to enact. In these situations, members affirmed each other, perceived the group’s potential for success, and pulled together to make progress towards addressing a problem.

These findings suggest a need for policies and reforms aimed at enabling school improvement in the ‘next level of work’ (City et al., 2010). To do this, we need to partner with educators in challenging circumstances to define and frame goals for improvement within reach and incrementally build organizational problem-solving capacity. Policymakers and scholars need to recognize educators as partners in research and development, without whom our educational system cannot remedy or repair.

LtC: What excites you about the field of Educational Change, and how might we further those ideas through the work of the Educational Change SIG?

EZ: I find hope in the growing number of education researchers seeking answers to existential questions about the role of research in education. Many educators and scholars are deeply concerned about the future of our planet and our democratic values. Looking around at the pernicious grip of racism, the fracturing of civic values, and the erosion of our public education system, many scholars are asking, how does our research relate to this? What are we – as scholars– doing about it? Out of our collective angst comes a growing willingness to expand how we think about academic research and to innovate.

I am excited by the growing number of scholars, especially early career scholars, working to build a more humanistic and justice-forward academic culture. Within our Educational Change SIG and scholarly communities working in RPPs and continuous improvement in education, I am inspired by efforts to actively build a culture in which academics care about each other as people, carry our status with humility, open ourselves to be vulnerable as learners, and treat social impact as a core value.

To further those ideas, I think the Educational Change SIG should reimagine how we organize and schedule AERA sessions with the intention involving more PK-12 practitioners. One way the SIG can do this is to develop a conference call and session formats that encourage and elevate practitioners’ voices and expertise. The SIG might consider offering sponsored conference registration awards for presenting practitioners. The SIG executive committee can also advocate with AERA to schedule specially designated conference sessions for practitioners that are held during after work hours.

I think the Educational Change SIG should support the diversification of our membership and international learning as a facilitator of cross-national and trans-global exchange. One way to do this is by furthering our existing partnerships with the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (https://www.icsei.net/about-icsei/) and journals that explicitly seek scholarship with an international perspective, including the Journal for Educational Change. I would also like to see our SIG do more to promote and support international participation in AERA and other remote events for scholarly exchange throughout the year.

Elizabeth Zumpe is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Oklahoma. A former K-12 public school teacher for over a decade with National Board Certification, Elizabeth holds a Ph.D. in Education from the University of California, Berkeley.

References

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Virella, P., & Liera, R. (2024). Nice for what? The contradictions and tensions of an urban district’s racial equity transformation. Education Sciences, 14(4), 420.

Chen, K. H. (2010). Asia as method: Toward deimperialization. Duke University Press.

del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121-148.

Kim, T., & Mauldin, C. (2022). Troubling unintended harm of heroic discourses in social justice leadership. Frontiers in Education, https://doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.796200

Kim, T., & Wright, J. (2024). Navigating emotional discomfort in developing equity-driven school leaders: A conceptual-pedagogical framework. Journal of School Leadership, 10526846241254050.

Leonardo, Z. (2002). The souls of white folk: Critical pedagogy, whiteness studies, and globalization discourse. Race Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 29–50. doi:10.1080/13613320120117180

Mezirow J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.

Mignolo, W. D. (2008). The geopolitics of knowledge and the colonial difference. In M. Moraña, E. Dussel & C. Jáuregui (Ed.), Coloniality at large: Latin America and the postcolonial debate

Bailes, L. P., Ahmad, S., Saylor, M., & Vitale, M. N. (2023). Quality or control: High-needs principals’ perceptions of a PSEL-based evaluation system. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 18(4), 622-648.

Bailes, L. P., & Guthery, S. (2020). Held down and held back: Systematically delayed principal promotions by race and gender. Aera Open, 6(2), 2332858420929298.

City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education (Vol. 30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation.

Mintrop, R., & Zumpe, E. (2019). Solving real life problems of practice and education leaders’ school improvement mind-set. American Journal of Education, 125(3), 295-344.

Mintrop, R., Zumpe, E., Jackson, K., Nucci, D.,& Norman, J. (2022). Designing for deeper learning: Challenges in schools and school districts serving

Leave a comment

Posted in education reform, Educational change, Educational Leadership, Educational Policy, equity, Interviews, Lead the Change

Tagged education, leadership, Learning, Teachers, Teaching

Practices, Programs and Policies for Instructional Coaching: Lead the Change Interviews with Lynsey Gibbons, Abby Reisman, Jacy Ippolito, Rita M. Bean, and Sarah L. Woulfin

Posted on February 21, 2024 by T Hatch | 1 comment

This week, IEN explores what instructional coaching with teachers look like from “micro-“ and “macro-perspectives.” This post is the first in a series featuring excerpts of interviews with presenters participating in the Educational Change Special Interest Group sessions at the upcoming Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association in Philadelphia in April. This post includes presenters from the session titled: “A Roundtable Discussion to Examine a Synthesis of Micro- to Macro-level Coaching Research.” These interviews are part of the Lead the Change series produced by AERA’s Educational Change Special Interest Group. The full interviews can be found on the LtC website. The LtC series is produced by Alex Lamb.

The Micro-level Work of Coaching: Examining the Content and Purpose of Coach-Teacher Interactions — Lynsey Gibbons, University of Delaware, Abby Reisman, University of Pennsylvania

LtC: The 2024 AERA theme is Dismantling Racial Injustice and Constructing Educational Possibilities: A Call to Action. How does your research respond to this call?

Lyndsey Gibbons & Abby Reisman (LG & AR): Instructional coaching has been widely utilized as a strategy both for school reform and improving learning opportunities for students by providing teachers with ongoing, job-embedded professional learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Instructional coaches are uniquely positioned to assist teachers to develop justice-oriented teaching that works toward transforming personal and power relationships in classrooms, as well as support them to interrogate the larger policies and practices of schooling (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). One way coaches do this is through supporting teachers to understand and respond to the roles of language, identity, culture, and power in learning (Baldinger, 2017; Marshall & Buenrostro, 2021). Coaches can also support teachers to interrogate policies and practices and make changes when they produce inequities or cause harm.

Lyndsey Gibbons (left) & Abby Reisman (right)

The larger theory of action of instructional coaching rests on resources that are made available to teachers through social interactions with coaches (Coburn & Russell, 2008). Coaching is job-embedded in nature, and coaches can take an active role in the work of teaching. As such, coaches can orchestrate professional interactions that make visible the complex reasoning work in justice-oriented teaching (Saclarides & Munson, 2021), such as considering when to ask a student to revoice another student’s contribution and the implications of such a choice. Professional discourse is central to how teachers learn and shapes what they have an opportunity to learn (Lefstein et al., 2020). Professional discourse is essential for productive discussions about justice-oriented teaching and learning because it allows teachers and coaches to name critical aspects of instructional practice and student learning. Coaches can help establish professional discourse to name aspects of teaching and help make it visible to teachers.

Professional discourse is essential for productive discussions about justice-oriented teaching and learning.

Particular features of social interactions can be more or less conducive to accessing appropriate resources and creating a normative environment that supports and enables change in teachers’ instructional practices. In our session, we will explore the features of coach-teacher interactions that provide productive learning opportunities to teachers. For example, we found that history teachers whose coaches focused on posing open-ended questions and anticipating students’ responses grew more in their discussion facilitation than teachers whose coaches focused on historical thinking skills. Identifying features of coach-teacher interactions is critical to supporting the professional learning of coaches, as well as researching the effectiveness of coaching. Guiding questions for our roundtable discussion include: How can coach-teacher interactions be shaped to consider how to dismantle racial injustice in the classroom and beyond? How do coaches’ orientations toward teacher learning and toward justice influence their interactions with teachers? We then will consider how we might craft a research agenda moving forward that attends to examining coaching interactions that support teacher learning.

LtC: What are some of the ideas you hope the field of Educational Change and the audience at AERA can learn from your work related to practice, policy, and scholarship?

In this session, we are intentionally bringing together scholars who study teacher learning, instructional coaching practice, and policies that impact coaching. By design, we will be examining practice and policies around coaching, as well as consider future directions for scholarship. The workgroup will break into three smaller groups to grapple with the logics, conceptualizations, and visions that shape their work researching coaching. The smaller groups will identify research gaps and consider new approaches. For example, a gap that might be identified is how coaches can help teachers attend to students’ identities and strengths as they plan for and enact instruction, as well as how coaches can help teachers learn to navigate the social and political dimensions of teaching (Marshall & Buenrostro, 2021). We then will come back together as a whole workgroup to synthesize discussions across domains to consider future, potentially collaborative, research agendas. We hope this session will be the genesis of long-term conversations organizing scholars who study coaching. Stemming from these initial conversations could be considerations for a special issue in a journal or creating a practitioner-facing document informing policies around coaching.

Widening Our Lens to Consider Coaching Models and Programs: The Benefits and Challenges of Programmatic Thinking — Jacy Ippolito, Salem State University, Rita M. Bean, University of Pittsburgh

Lead the Change (LtC): The 2024 AERA theme is Dismantling Racial Injustice and Constructing Educational Possibilities: A Call to Action. How does your research respond to this call?

Jacy Ippolito & Rita M. Bean (JI & RMB): Our joint work has traditionally focused on the roles, responsibilities, and impact of instructional coaches (and literacy coaches specifically) across grade levels and school settings. In our latest book (Ippolito & Bean, 2024), we propose a new framework for understanding and synthesizing coaching research findings. The framework is an initial response to the Kraft et al. (2018) meta-analysis call to identify effective elements of coaching programs with simultaneous attention paid to both specific instructional practices and larger school and district contexts. Towards this end, our Content and Context Framework (CCF) for coaching reframes the notion of effective coaching. Instead of thinking of coaching success as solely the product of individual coaches’ work, we instead detail the ways in which coaching efficacy may be more accurately described as the alignment of instructional content with coaching programs and processes, all within a supportive school and district context.

Jacy Ippolito (left) & Rita M. Bean (right)

This more content- and context-dependent way of thinking about coaching success paves the way for coaches, teachers, and leaders to identify more clearly the ways in which issues of equity, diversity, and racial justice are influenced by coaching in schools. If coaching work is unable to influence the instructional core by creating more equitable opportunities and outcomes for all students, then we might be hard-pressed to say that the coaching program is successful. Likewise, if school and district contexts (i.e., leadership structures, coaching policies, systematic evaluations of coaching) are unable to fully support a coaching program that has diversity and equity as a core mission, again we might be unable to call a coaching program entirely successful.

If coaching work is unable to influence the instructional core by creating more equitable opportunities and outcomes for all students, then we might be hard-pressed to say that the coaching program is successful.

As we have begun to look across the past ten years of coaching research (Bean & Ippolito, 2023)—literacy coaching specifically, as well as research on instructional coaching more broadly—we found very few studies to date address content, coaching, and context simultaneously (e.g., Galey-Horn, 2020; Zoch, 2015). If alignment of these three domains is what we hypothesize may provide the best opportunities to address issues of equity and to dismantle racial injustice in classrooms, then we must incentivize future coaching researchers to attend carefully to content, coaching, and context together in larger-scale studies. Implications of this work are far-ranging, from influencing future research to shifting the ways that coaching programs are constructed, refined, and evaluated over time.

LtC: What are some of the ideas you hope the field of Educational Change and the audience at AERA can learn from your work related to practice, policy, and scholarship?

JI & RMB: Instructional coaching has long been heralded as a gold standard for job-embedded professional learning for educators (Kraft et al., 2018). At its best, coaching is: personalized; responsive to teachers’ needs; attentive to school and district needs; sensitive to students’ unique learning successes and challenges; and implemented over long periods of time to help teachers shift instructional practices in meaningful ways. However, coaching research suggests that many coaching programs do not quite live up to their promise of supporting broad and deep changes in teaching and learning.

Our Content and Context Framework (CCF) for coaching suggests that part of the reason that many coaching programs do not fully succeed is due to a misalignment or inattention to content, coaching, and context simultaneously. For example, when all three elements are aligned, coaches can provide content-specific guidance to teachers that furthers schools’ and districts’ goals while simultaneously supporting teachers’ own identified needs. In cases where content, coaching, and context are misaligned, coaches and teachers’ work may run counter to school and district goals, and/or school or district needs (e.g., for coaches to step in as classroom substitutes) may subvert coaching work completely. A number of implications arise from our framework’s suggestion that coaching success results from the alignment of purpose and practices across content, coaching, and context.

For researchers, the implications of this framework include conducting studies that focus equally on classroom-level teaching and learning, coaching practices, and school/district contextual factors. Smaller-scale studies of individual coaches and/or coaching programs can be mined for guidance on the direction and questions of larger-scale longitudinal studies and meta-analyses. Future coaching research, regardless of scale, may best serve the field by always including: (a) data collected from and about teachers’ and students’ work in classrooms; (b) coaching practices and collaborations with both teachers and leaders; and (c) information collected from/about school and district leaders, school/district policies, and related coaching and professional learning initiatives. Such comprehensive research on coaching work—attending equally to content, coaching, and context—is what the field most needs to support future policy and practice.

For U.S. policymakers, implications include providing better guidance to schools, districts, and states about the interdependence of content, coaching, and context. Coaching guidance can no longer be provided as if content- and context-factors were neutral or irrelevant. Based on emerging content- and context-specific coaching research (e.g., Hannan & Russell, 2020), policymakers may be better equipped to provide funding and guidance to support the success of coaching practices best suited to different disciplinary initiatives (e.g., coaching practices within literacy vs. math initiatives) and different contexts (e.g. within large urban school districts vs. smaller rural districts). Ultimately, we must move away from one-size-fits-all policies for coaching, and instead move towards more nuanced content- and context-dependent guidance.

Finally, for practicing coaches and leaders, our framework suggests that the development, refinement, and evaluation of coaching programs must consider the alignment (or misalignment) of content, coaching, and context. This suggests that teachers, coaches, and leaders must partner even more closely to define coaching roles, responsibilities, and routines. School and district leaders must work with coaches to develop role descriptions, coaching schedules, and menus of service that are content- and context-specific. Finally, coaches and teachers must develop common communication and collaboration practices that are content- and context-specific, to meet teachers’ and students’ needs most effectively.

The 30,000 Foot View: Mapping the Institutional Landscape of Coaching — Sarah L. Woulfin, University of Texas at Austin

Lead the Change (LtC): The 2024 AERA theme is Dismantling Racial Injustice and Constructing Educational Possibilities: A Call to Action. How does your research respond to this call?

Sarah L. Woulfin (SLW): My research responds to this year’s AERA theme by paying close attention to how infrastructure and leadership shape instructional reform efforts in ways that exacerbate—or disrupt—inequities in educational organizations. For instance, my research on the policies and practices of coaching has explored how district and school leaders structure and conceptualize coaching as a tool for reaching equity-oriented objectives. I’m currently co-facilitating professional development sessions for principals and coaches on equity-oriented coaching. And my research on the implementation of turnaround reform considers how school leaders promote curriculum use to improve outcomes for Black and Brown students.

The daily practices of leaders and teachers can ‘add up’ to make significant changes.

LtC: What are some of the ideas you hope the field of Educational Change and the audience at AERA can learn from your work related to practice, policy, and scholarship?

SLW: One major branch of my work addresses the role of people in the implementation of education policy. In particular, the daily practices of leaders and teachers can “add up” to make significant changes. I hope the AERA and Educational Change audiences devote more attention to the power of and possibilities for individuals to catalyze crucial change to improve schools and communities. Additionally, the field should consider how to support the policy knowledge development of educators ranging from district leaders and principals to coaches and teachers. That is, how do we ensure that all educators hold the capacity to analyze and ask needed questions about reforms they are experiencing.

LtC: What excites you about the direction of the field of Educational Change, and how might we share and develop those ideas at AERA 2024?

SLW: I am excited about the ways the Educational Change field is examining a wide array of policies and programs, including discipline, attendance, school counseling, and EdTech in addition to accountability-oriented and instructional reforms. I believe this points to the utility of an Educational Change perspective for analyzing numerous aspects of districts and schools. And I encourage featuring scholarship that expands our understanding of educational change while looking at diverse reform efforts.

References (Gibbons & Reisman):

Baldinger, E. M. (2017). Maybe it’s a status problem”: Development of mathematics teacher noticing for equity. In E. O. Schack, J. Wilhelm, & M. H. Fisher (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 231–250). Springer.

Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A. S., & Dexter, E. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7-34.

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools (Vol. 285). Peter Lang.

Ippolito, J. & Bean, R. (2024). The Power of Instructional Coaching in Context: A Systems View for Aligning Content and Coaching. The Guilford Press.

Kazemi, E., Granger, J. C., Lind, T., Lewis, R., Resnick, A. F., Gibbons, L. K. (in preparation). Children Thrive When Teachers Thrive. Harvard Education Press.

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547-588.

Lefstein, A., Louie, N., Segal, A., & Becher, A. (2020). Taking stock of research on teacher collaborative discourse: Theory and method in a nascent field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102954.

Marshall, S. A., & Buenrostro, P. M. (2021). What makes mathematics teacher coaching effective? A call for a justice-oriented perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(5), 594-606.

Robertson, D. A., Padesky, L. B., Ford Connors, E., & Paratore, J. R. (2020). What does it mean to say coaching is relational?. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(1), 55 – 78.

Saclarides, E. S., & Munson, J. (2021). Exploring the foci and depth of coach teacher interactions during modeled lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103418.

References (Ippolito & Bean):

Bean, R. M., & Ippolito, J. (2023, December). Interactions of content, coaching, and context in recent literacy coaching research. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association (LRA), Atlanta, GA.

City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education. Harvard Education Press.

Galey-Horn, S. (2020). Capacity-building for district reform: The role of instructional coach teams. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1-40.

Hannan, M. Q., & Russell, J. L. (2020). Coaching in context: Exploring conditions that shape instructional coaching practice. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–40. Ippolito, J., & Bean, R. M. (2024). The power of instructional coaching in context: A systems view

1 Comment

Posted in About K-12 International Education News

Tagged Coaching, education, leadership, Learning, Teachers

Tag Archives: Teachers

Educational Transformation in Schools and Colleges in the US and South Africa: Lead the Change Interviews (Part 3)

Responding to Local Conditions: The Evolution of Fundación Escuela Nueva’s Approach to Teaching & Learning in Rural Colombia and Beyond

Leveraging Partnerships, Networks and Teacher Collaboration for Educational Change: Lead the Change Interviews (Part 1)

Leading a school in a context of uncertainty: Indrek Lillemägi discussed the initial responses to the COVID-19 school closures in Tallinn, Estonia

Pushing the boundaries of the conventional school: Indrek Lillemägi talks about the development of a new upper secondary school in Tallinn, Estonia

Research Practice Partnerships, Improvement Science & Leadership: The Lead the Change Interview with Dave Osworth

Taking learning and teaching seriously: Reflections on the life and work of Lee Shulman

Reimagining Coaching and Teachers’ Time: Scanning the News for Innovations in Teachers’ Professional Learning (Part 2)

Lead the Change Interview with Patricia Virella, Tayeon Kim, Lauren Bailes, and Elizabeth Zumpe

Practices, Programs and Policies for Instructional Coaching: Lead the Change Interviews with Lynsey Gibbons, Abby Reisman, Jacy Ippolito, Rita M. Bean, and Sarah L. Woulfin

Recent Tweets

Recent Posts