Conceptual Framework: Full Version

Conceptual Framework: Full Version
College of Education

Democratic Participation In Learning Communities

conceptual framework arch

History and Background

The first iteration of this conceptual framework was written in 1991, and a variation of the Arch (see graphic above) was adopted by faculty. That document was revised in 1996, and more significantly revised in 1999, when the Arch was reduced to three main elements resting on a foundation. Again from 2003 through 2006, in committees and as a whole, the faculty revised the conceptual framework in collaboration with various colleagues and community partners.

The decision to review the conceptual framework was influenced by several factors:

the desire to address Roosevelt University’s revised mission and strategic plan, adopted in 2003;
a desire to re-structure the framework so that it communicates as directly as possible the defining purposes and goals of units responsible for the preparation of professional educators;
a need to expand on outcomes, purposes, and processes identified in the conceptual framework;
a commitment to critical inquiry and reflexivity;
the changing membership of the College of Education faculty, and the larger professional unit, with the attendant need to integrate the perspectives of new members into the framework;
the need to reflect current scholarship and its influence on the framework.

This conceptual framework explicates the goals, philosophic understandings, dispositions, skills, and practices that the entire unit seeks to promote through the cultivation of democratic learning communities. The relationship among goals, philosophic understandings, dispositions, skills, and practices is conceived as complex and mutually developing; within the educational experiences that the unit provides, initial and advanced school personnel candidates are invited to engage in what Paulo Freire (1992) termed "praxis," a dynamic but coherent and conscious effort to continually analyze, deliberate on, and reconstruct goals, philosophies, dispositions, skills, and practices in light of experience. Consistent with the mission of Roosevelt University, a commitment to social justice circumscribes all classroom practices and contexts.

Programs of study in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education, Music Education, Language and Literacy, Teacher Leadership, Educational Leadership, and Counseling and Human Services strive to realize this conceptual framework. Because multiple identities and perspectives intersect and grapple with one another within any unit or educational experience (Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish, 1998), this framework was not as a blueprint for the College, but as an evolving statement of convictions, operational understandings, skills, practices, and ideal understandings to which faculty and students in the College of Education aspire. The cultivation of democratic learning communities is a shared responsibility, and the purposes and dispositions included in this framework are common to all, whether in the role of learner, teacher, administrator, counselor, or agent of reform.

Given the complexities of the democratic and learner-centered education that this unit advocates, assessment informs program improvement and provides accountability. Assessment of programs, faculty, and students is conducted through diverse instruments, products, and performances, providing information on success in meeting desired results. Programs make extensive use of professional portfolios and direct observation of the performance of faculty and students to evaluate the extent to which the unit and its members are realizing their stated vision. Indications of assessment activities employed by the unit to evaluate its programs are cited in program responses to the conceptual framework.

This conceptual framework, like its predecessors, was developed out of faculty discussions and informed by consultation with staff, alumni, school personnel, advisory groups, and faculty in other colleges of the University. Faculty members consulted the public documents of unit programs, conceptual frameworks developed by other NCATE accredited institutions, and integrated scholarship in educational theory and practice that are consistent with the convictions, purposes and practices of the College of Education. The mission and objectives of Roosevelt University also were reviewed and analyzed to ensure the framework extends the vision of the larger academic community.

Members of each department in the College of Education served to coordinate the development and redaction of the conceptual framework to ensure that the revision reflects: (1) new ideas emerging in scholarly research, critical theory, and the lived experience of students, schools, and communities; (2) changes in pre-service teacher, school administrator, and counselor preparation reflected in standards as set forth by such groups as NCATE, national learned societies, , and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE, 2000); and, (3) certification licensure policies that impact unit programs. This process replicated the drafting of the conceptual framework in its two earlier editions.

Key to understanding this conceptual framework is the University’s vision statement, with which it correlates.

Roosevelt University: Vision Statement

Roosevelt University will recruit, retain and graduate a diverse population of students who are academically prepared to benefit from the University experience and to become responsible citizens in a global society.

Roosevelt University will attract, develop, and retain dedicated, excellent teachers, scholars, artists and professionals from diverse backgrounds whose work gives them visibility beyond the classroom and who are committed to making a significant difference in the lives of their students and the community.

Roosevelt University will earn national recognition for its distinctive metropolitan focus and its rigorous, innovative curricula in the liberal arts and sciences, the performing arts, and select professional degree programs.

Roosevelt University will foster and support a visible network of action-oriented learning experiences for students and alumni as part of its historic commitment to social justice.

Roosevelt University will be a vibrant living and learning community both during the day and in the evening, and will link the academic and service resources of its multiple locations through the effective use of personnel, facilities and state-of-the-art technology.

Roosevelt University will act as a catalyst in the community through strategic alliances.

The Conceptual Framework

Democratic Learning Communities

Roosevelt University was founded in 1945 with the mission to provide equal educational opportunity to students of all backgrounds. The university grew out of a dispute concerning minority admissions at a small private Chicago college. The goal of those founders—both students and faculty—was to found an institution based on social justice and equal opportunity for all people.

This goal is still very much a part of the University. Approved in 2003, the mission statement of Roosevelt University affirms the university’s commitment to educating socially just citizens:

Roosevelt University aspires to be a national leader in educating socially conscious citizens for active and dedicated lives as leaders in their professions and their communities. The University’s student-centered faculty and staff inspire academically qualified students from diverse backgrounds and all ages to benefit from rigorous higher education and professional development opportunities in the dynamic Chicago metropolitan environment.

Deeply rooted in practical scholarship and principles of social justice expressed as ethical awareness, leadership development, economic progress and civic engagement, Roosevelt University encourages community partnerships and prepares its diverse graduates for responsible citizenship in a global society.

The College of Education of Roosevelt University takes as its foundational philosophy the recognition that reality is fluid and dynamic and that multiple ways of knowing and methods of inquiry contribute to an understanding of the myriad representations of existence and to addressing urgent social problems. The many different ways in which phenomena can be perceived and interpreted call us to participate in learning communities (Gablenick, MacGregor, Matthews, & Smith, 1990), places where we can share what we have learned about this world, listen attentively as others tell us what they see and know, and engage in cooperative consideration of interesting problems, relationships, and mysteries.

For communities of learning to be authentic to this purpose, it is necessary that participants embrace democracy as a lived process of knowing and acting. A meaningful education upholds the social standard of democracy and shared decision making, understood not merely as allegiance to representative government but as a method of social deliberation on problems of significance (Dewey, 1916). A useful starting point is to view democratic education as a principled approach to the sharing of social practices and goals founded on the requirements that all education be non-repressive and nondiscriminatory (Gutman, 1987). Democratic practice, however, also requires that communities take their deliberation into action and then evaluate whether the action is effective in solving the social problem (Dewey, 1927).

Democracy requires that all members of a learning community be active participants in the dimensions of the learning experience, whether in developing curriculum, facilitating instruction, or participating in self- or community assessment of the value of educational action (Apple and Beane, 1999; Beyer, 1996; Goodman, 1991). Democracy is a learned process of collaborative deliberation at all levels of educational institutions; the College of Education is responsible for constructively practicing and teaching this process (Novak, 1994). Democratic deliberation is both an integral part of the knowledge base and the ethic of the College of Education; it is a willingness to consider together those personal and social questions which evoke deeper understandings and to act on consensually determined decisions. This means that the educator’s role is far more complex than that of a knowledge dispenser. The authentic educator invites students to access prior knowledge, research new perspectives, and reconstruct concepts to accommodate new understandings that can contribute to the act of learning.

To develop and implement democratic learning communities, candidates and faculty of the College of Education at Roosevelt University are committed to developing and expanding:

Devotion to social justice and global responsibility
Respect for knowledge and learning
Passion for the educator’s craft.

I. Devotion to social justice and global responsibility

This we know.

The earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth.

This we know.

All things are connected like the blood which unites one family.

All things are connected.

-- inspired by Chief Seattle

This goal is still very much a part of the University. Approved in 2003, the mission statement of Roosevelt University affirms the university’s commitment to educating socially just citizens:

Roosevelt University aspires to be a national leader in educating socially conscious citizens for active and dedicated lives as leaders in their professions and their communities.

The University’s student-centered faculty and staff inspire academically qualified students from diverse backgrounds and all ages to benefit from rigorous higher education and professional development opportunities in the dynamic Chicago metropolitan environment.

Today, as in 1945, a heterogeneous student population, diverse in ethnicity, in income, age, and background continues to be a distinctive characteristic of Roosevelt University. The faculty and administration of the University, influenced by our history and distinctive environment, recognize a responsibility to serve as a major educational and cultural resource to the metropolitan society

Social Justice has always been a critical element of American democracy, and it is an essential element of Democratic Learning Communities. Our definition of social justice is derived from Griffiths’ (1998) notion that social justice is a not the “end” but the “way” by which individuals are empowered and resources are made available to communities and individuals. Griffiths further defines social justice as embodying three principles: 1) there is no one solution; 2) each individual is valuable and recognized as an important valued part of the community as a whole; and 3) just as we create ourselves in and against community, we create ourselves in and against sections of that community, as persons with gender, social class, race, sexuality and (dis)abilities (p.13). Global Responsibility is a more modern construct, but one which we consider essential to our forward movement. Our definition of global responsibility is consistent with the principles and practices advocated in Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world (Bigelow & Peterson, 2002). It begins with consciousness of the impact of colonialism, neo-colonialism, transnational and multinational corporate economies and the resulting practices that adversely affect the cultures and environments of peoples around the world and result in educational action that affects authentic ecological progress. Devotion to these two goals requires us to commit to three actions.

A. Exercising an Ethic of Care

Education is a worthy human activity that is integral to the betterment of the world. To be so, education must be based on an ethic of care, a positive regard for the learner that strives for his or her welfare, acknowledging that both learner and teacher are inevitably participating in a larger web of existence. We are educators who attend carefully to our students, our colleagues, and their families; to the wider society; and to the shared, global environment. Recognizing that education inevitably conveys a value commitment (when we decide on what to teach, we are saying it is more worthwhile or valuable than alternative uses of time and resources), it is important for an educator to discern what s/he understands as the purpose of education. The act of teaching is a moral endeavor (Goodlad, Sirotnik, & Soder, 1993) and schools are places of ethical dilemma, conflict, and decision-making (Jackson, Boostrom & Hansen, 1993). Teacher preparation must provide opportunities for reflection, discussion, and problem solving in the ethical dimensions of education (Sockett, 1993). Building on the progressive approach to moral deliberation advocated by John Dewey (1916) and informed by research into feminine conceptualizing of the moral (Gilligan, 1982), Nel Noddings has suggested that schools should be reconstructed as “… centers of care – places where they (students) are cared for and will be encouraged to care deeply themselves” (Noddings, 1992, p. 65).

Learning to care and fostering care in the classroom, the school or at the counseling site extends to all dimension of human living. It means learning to care for the self, intimate relations, strangers in the school, civic, or global community. It extends to care for animals, plants, and the Earth, caring for the tools and constructions of the human community, and caring for ideas. (Goldstein, 2002; Noddings, 1984; 1992).

Noddings’ model of care is a moral theory that shares elements with alternative conceptions of moral life and education (e.g., Bowers, 1995; Spring, 1999). What is held in common is the awareness that educating is a moral craft (Tom, 1984) that should be clearly articulated, indicating the ways that the actions of the learning and teaching community serve to benefit its members.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator evidences empathy and positive regard for all learners in personal and group communication.

The educator develops curriculum and designs instruction with attention to the larger social and global problems that impact on the lives of learners.

The educator advances participative learning communities, encouraging democratic deliberation on issues of social significance to the classroom, the school, the community, the society, or globally.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standard

25.15.b.5.A. The candidate has an understanding of integrity and fairness in the educational context.

B. Inviting and Engaging Human Diversity

In embracing human diversity, an educator perceives individual and social differences as sources of insight rather than alienation; differences provide opportunities to discuss and demonstrate the many kinds of understanding that are essential to full deliberation. It is our responsibility to recognize and share the different voices that live inside and outside the dominant learning community. We are educators who invite and empower diverse voices, ensuring that curriculum, instruction, assessment, and social climate are responsive to all learners in the community (Trifones, 2002). This concept of multicultural engagement and the social construction of diversity categories is not limited to place or color, but also includes gender, sexual orientation, religious practices, (dis)ability, and economic capital.

For education to be truly engaging and liberating, teachers and other school personnel need to understand the social contingencies that shape knowledge, the inevitable relationships of knowledge and power, and how ways of speaking and writing about these phenomena influence meaning (Lankshear & McLaren, 1993). Of course, all education involves individuals, and educators need to be aware of the historical, psychoanalytical, and structural dimensions of their practice; to expand upon these conventional understandings, and construct richer meanings, however, educators must see educational experiences through the critical lenses of political-economic power relationships (Apple, 1999), race and ethnic differences (Fine, Powell, Weis, & Mun Wong, 1996; LaBelle and Ward, 1994), cognitive or emotional-processing differences (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999), physical differences, and gender differences (Gaskell & Willinsky, 1995; Lather, 1991). We believe that the ability to manipulate and use these diverse critical lenses is essential to attaining the dispositions and skills necessary to teach and learn in a diverse society.

Global responsibility, understood as responding to and actively participating in the world has special meaning historically and geographically for Roosevelt University. The charter of Roosevelt University was predicated on providing educational opportunity for culturally diverse urban populations who were subject to social apartheid. The University is located in a metropolitan setting where, even today, diversity is often a cause for differentiation and division rather than being embraced as a resource for expanding human understanding.

Authentic democratic communities seek out and thrive on difference (Giroux, 1994; Torres, 1999) and demand that the community recognize, affirm, and empower the knowledge and skills created by difference (Delpit, 1995; Nieto, 1996; 1999). We recognize that this process begins with acknowledgement of our own attitudes and biases; awareness of all learners’ worldviews, and competent, culturally appropriate instructional and/or intervention strategies (Banks, 2002). Using the various definitions for multicultural education provided by Christine Sleeter and Carl Grant (1996), we believe that approaches to diversity in race, gender, or culture must go beyond relegating student differences to non-school or extra-curricular expression and beyond stressing tolerance for difference; diversity must be approached by providing opportunities for cultural expression in the context of the everyday life of the institution in order to celebrate difference as a context for learning. The advance of technological communication through broadcast media and the Internet has further expanded access to cultural perspectives that are represented in the Roosevelt community and are different from the cultural mix found in our classrooms

Graduates of the College of Education are proficient related to diversity in the following ways:

Understands personal cultural perspectives and biases and their effects on teaching and

learning in the classroom and therefore strives to foster an appropriate classroom climate

that consistently promotes feelings of belonging, care, acceptance and appreciation for

every learner.

Understands how students’ learning is influenced by individual experiences, talents, and

prior learning, as well as language, culture, family, and community values and therefore

demonstrates highly effective and consistent respect and caring for the dignity and worth of every individual in order to establish an environment of mutual respect and learning.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator invites and empowers diverse voices, ensuring that curriculum, instruction, assessment, and social climate are responsive to all learners in the community.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standards

25.15.a.2.B. The candidate knows how to provide learning opportunities that support the intellectual, social, and personal development of all students, including how to use cultural diversity and individual students experiences to enrich instruction.

25.15.a.2.C. The candidate understands how students may differ in their approaches to learning, including differences based upon culture or gender.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standard

25.15.b.4.B. The candidate knows how to respond effectively to diverse community interests and needs.

C. Advocating Social Change

To be genuine to Roosevelt University’s charter and the College of Education’s commitment to caring and diversity in democratic learning communities, we advocate for social equality with special attention to equity in provision of educational resources. We integrate justice concerns into the dynamics of educating and act on behalf of socially, economically, and politically marginalized peoples. This begins with the structure of our own classrooms and school.

Leaving aside the crises, disputes, and struggles of the contemporary world in order to train future teachers disembodied techniques in a cell of comparative tranquility is a disservice to learners. Global responsibility carries an ecological imperative that must be considered by the learning and teaching community (e.g., Bowers, 1995). It also recognizes the need for educators to model and promote active citizenship (Banks, 1997), a role that inevitably demands social awareness and confrontations with ideas and policies (de los Reyes & Gozemba, 2001). The agency to learn about the positions of policy makers and communicate with these leaders has been advanced in the past decade by technological connectivity.

For candidates and students to develop the ability to see through a variety of critical lenses, they must be challenged to question social assumptions and conduct relevant social inquiry (e.g. Leistyna, Woodrum, & Sherblom, 1996; McLaren, 1998), and to act practically for meaningful reform (Evans, 2000). Questioning social assumptions requires that faculty and candidates address questions such as those posed by Furman and Shields’ (2003) to understand how educational leaders support and promote social justice and democratic community in schools raises these issues: What are the stated values of the community? [And] who is included and who is excluded by these conceptualizations? What are the patterns of interaction of various groups (e.g., among teachers, between teachers and students, between and among different ethnic or social groups?) How are the outcomes of decision making and dialogue assessed for outcomes that are socially just and deeply democratic? (i.e., who benefits? who is disadvantaged?) Are there some topics that are “taboo?” What formal curriculum is in place and what perspectives does it represent? Who selected it? [In the informal curriculum], what are the assumed norms, beliefs, or values taught throughout the school? Who is represented and who is excluded by this conception of curriculum? What are the dominant images of success and how are they assessed and legitimated? (Furman & Shields, 2003, p. 35-36).

We involve learners in the continuous generation and application of complex ideas, theories, and judgments. These efforts are situated within the context of a critical consideration of the social, economic, and political dimensions of education and schooling. Through a variety of assessment methods, both quantitative and qualitative, we assist learners in critical evaluation of their knowledge and skills through their products and processes.

With Delpit (1995) and Edelman (1992), we believe that the socially just educator stands as advocate for all children and is eager to support public policies that will benefit young people and all who aspire to expand their education. Contemporary public funding, policies, and practices are scrutinized to determine who is benefiting and who is not being served in public education (e.g., Anyon, 1997, Apple, 1995).

Progress in advocating social change is assessed in determining the extent that learning environments are: 1) grounded in the lives of the students, 2) critical, 3) multicultural, antiracist, pro-justice, 4) participatory and experiential, 5) hopeful, joyful, kind and visionary, 6) activist, 7) academically rigorous, and 8) culturally sensitive (Bigelow, et al., 1994).

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator has a critical awareness of the inequities in institutional and governmental policies and practices which affect the well-being of learners.

The educator values knowledge as a key for the advancement of social progress.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standards

25.15.b.1.A. The candidate knows how to articulate a school’s mission and goals and to convey a consistent message about the importance of learning.

25.15.b.6.B. The candidate knows how to respond to and influence the school’s political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

II. Respect for knowledge and learning

We must keep the perspective that people are experts on their own lives. There are certainly aspects of the outside world of which they may not be aware, but they can be the only authentic chroniclers of their own experience. We must not be too quick to deny their interpretation, or accuse them of “false consciousness.”

We must believe that people are rational beings, and therefore always act rationally. We may not understand their rationales, but that in no way militates against the existence of these rationales or reduces our responsibility to attempt to apprehend them.

And finally, we must learn to be vulnerable enough to allow our world to turn upside down in order to allow the realities of others to edge themselves into our consciousness.

Lisa Delpit (1995)

The Roosevelt University College of Education, and the larger professional unit involved in the preparation of educators, emphasizes respect for diverse forms of knowledge and learning. In particular, three forms of knowledge and learning are considered core to the preparation of highly qualified educators: 1) specialized knowledge and learning, or content area knowledge; 2) educational foundations, including the ability to integrate such knowledge with content area knowledge for the benefit of all learners; and 3) adaptive decision making.

This emphasis on respect for diverse forms of knowledge and learning is consistent with Roosevelt University’s commitment to academic excellence and social justice. Just as Roosevelt University welcomes and supports diverse learners in pursuit of truth and socio-economic prosperity, so too our professional unit embraces a diversity of learners, literacies (here meaning ways of speaking, writing, listening and reading about their worlds), and learning styles, and invites initial and advanced candidates to use multiple critical lenses and practices to advance the quality of life of all learners and communities (Unsworth, 2001). From our perspective, knowledge and learning is never fixed, singular, and unmediated. Rather, it entails dialogue, a willingness to explore and try out new ways of thinking, and a healthy skepticism about the status quo. All members of the professional unit are expected to interact with one another in ways that capitalize on the social, cultural, and linguistic diversity embodied in contemporary society and reflected in school populations in the twenty-first century (Vasquez, 2004). In other words, everyone involved in the professional unit aspires, in Lisa Delpit’s words (1995), “to turn upside down [the world] in order to allow the realities of others to edge themselves into…consciousness.”

This abiding respect for diversity and diverse forms of knowledge and learning leads the professional unit to embrace a broad understanding of language, literacy, and learning. For us, literacy entails the conscious manipulation of language within a given social milieu for a specific purpose; consequently, we believe that numerous kinds of languages and literacies can and should be employed and developed in pursuit of knowledge and the cultivation of democratic learning communities (Lankshear, 1997). Traditional academic disciplines (e.g., history, math, literature, etc…) are but one means of making sense of a complex, dynamic, awe-inspiring, and challenging world; the languages and literacies of professional educators (e.g., Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences) provide additional resources and insight. Non-academic languages and literacies, connected to individuals and communities outside of universities or colleges of education, are equally significant and also require attention (Farr, 2004). For education to occur, school personnel must actively engage with and adapt these complex and diverse contexts, languages, and literacies (what the theorist M.M. Bakhtin terms “heteroglossia”), such that they develop richer understandings and frameworks for their own preferred and consciously selected approaches to the cultivation of democratic learning communities.

The College of Education conceives of knowledge as a powerful agent for creating a better world. In all of our programs, knowledge and learning are valued as the heart of our academic enterprise. Consistent with constructivism, all members of the unit assume responsibility as seekers, recipients, and creators of new knowledge, and work to inspire others to shoulder the challenges and satisfactions of learning. We affirm the overarching power and value of an approach to learning that is challenging and destabilizing, and advocate its influence and appreciation throughout contemporary American society.

A. Specialized Knowledge and Learning

Clearly, expertise in one or more specialized ways of learning and knowing is important for educators who wish to facilitate learning and coach learners toward the acquisition of their own knowledge bases and expertise within the plethora of choices and options that exist for making meaning in the contemporary world. The possession of such specialized ways of knowing and learning is useful for defining and solving personal, institutional, social, and environmental problems, as well as for engaging others in rich discussions about the limits, strengths, and vulnerabilities of their own perspectives.

Learning in schools is most often the result of interactions among an expert(s) in discourse(s), novices who are gaining literacy in the discourse(s), and the knowledge and skills promoted in the discourse(s). From this perspective, both school personnel and learners employ discourse to develop knowledge that is meaningful, imaginative, and useful (Piaget, 1973). Critical inquiry—asking provocative questions within the discourse or going outside of the vocabulary and language forms of the discourse by introducing perspectives from other discourses, seeking creative responses—must be valued and demanded by both school personnel and learners. This shifts the learning community's focus from the management of students and delivery of packaged information to facilitating complex intellectual activities shared by all members of the learning community (Fosnot, 1996). The educator, whether as counselor, administrator, or teacher, must command a level of expertise that enables critical inquiry. This expertise is a level of personal comfort with the discourse, facility in conducting inquiry within this discourse, and awareness of how the discourse can be critically engaged by employing other discourses. The expert assists learners in connecting their prior knowledge with new information and ideas, places knowledge in a disciplinary context, and provides a scaffold based on the integrity of a discipline to support learners engagement in the discipline. Expertise is most often accomplished by contributing to the discourse, either by expanding knowledge, refining understanding, or enhancing the ability of others to become literate in the discourse (Kennedy, 1990; Welker, 1992). When all members of the learning community are novices, the need to attend to vocabulary and to language forms can be so demanding that criticism cannot be effectively integrated into learning.

The need to have attained both broad and specialized ways of knowing in the academic or professional disciplines that are the responsibilities of the educator is emphasized by learned societies in their profiles of the competencies needed for an educator in their content areas (e.g., National Council of Teachers of English, 1996; National Association for Business Teacher Education,1997; National Council of Teachers of English, 1997; National Science Teachers Association, 1998), and by state and national teacher certification standards (e.g. Illinois State Board of Education, 1996; 2000; Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1995). There have been calls for increased emphasis on the demonstration of subject matter expertise prior to certification, demonstrated in teacher licensing tests (e.g., Mitchell and Barth, 1999), and the College of Education requires that candidates pass the state subject matter test prior to student teaching. While the College of Education is supportive of efforts to establish disciplinary expertise, it also retains its call for candidates to develop multiple viewpoints as a balance against a myopic approach to curriculum development.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator creates opportunities for learners to generate and test their own hypotheses (e.g. applying process of inquiry, experimentation, research, observation and brainstorming).

The educator invites curiosity, skepticism and mutual respect for differing viewpoints, theories, "ways of knowing," and methods of inquiry in considering subject matter concepts.

The educator emphasizes confident use of higher-order thinking, problem solving, and personal reflection in interactions with learners.

Correlate INTASC Core Standards Principle #6

The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.

Correlate Illinois Professional Teacher Standards

The candidate understands the central concepts, methods of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) for which certification is sought.

B. Educational Foundations

While it is the professional responsibility of educators to be confident and enthusiastic contributors to their disciplinary ways of knowing and to guide others in developing critical stances, grounding in pedagogical knowledge is also essential. Members of the professional unit are expected to develop and possess a high level of understanding of the foundational discourses that impact directly on their profession and work in schools, and to participate in social and educational inquiry, especially the physiology and psychology of human growth and development (Slavin, 1997), the philosophy and history of education, the teaching and development of exceptional children, and the relationship between education and power (race, class, and gender stratification and its educational implications). They also are expected to be knowledgeable about the legal, economic, and political operations of state educational institutions, and the role that advocacy and community organizing plays in creating public policy that supports the well being of democratic learning communities (Earl & Kruse, 1999) and democratic society at large . For this knowledge to be maximally beneficial to schools and learners, members of the professional unit are expected to fuse this knowledge with specialized content and expertise to create dynamic and challenging learning opportunities.

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1993) is an example of a foundational discourse in education that all members of the College of Education and the entire unit are expected to know and embrace. Gardner emphasizes the need to develop and honor competencies in various (at least eight) intellectual endeavors. Each “intelligence” (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal, naturalist) requires knowledge of a unique yet socially coherent means of communicating, thinking, and performing. Within the area of undergraduate education, the program of courses commonly labeled “general education” constitute, in part, an effort to foster awareness and competency in these various intelligences. College of Education faculty and other unit members reinforce the development of these intelligences among candidates, and demonstrate how an awareness of multiple intelligences enhances teaching and learning and the creation of learning opportunities conducive to all learners.

Of equal importance to the pedagogical knowledge outlined above are basic skills in reading, writing, math, and communication. All unit and school personnel must be able to model effective expression through diverse media, and use of electronic technology in particular, to be a full participant in and contributor to democratic learning communities. Roosevelt University is committed to assisting prospective and practicing educators in becoming more critical and engaged readers of texts, whether they be written, oral, visual, or electronically mixed media (Goodman, 2003). In all professional preparation, the skill to construct meaning and express self-understanding is emphasized by the professional unit.

Toward this end, all members of the professional unit are expected to become proficient in technology. Technological literacy includes but is not limited to the use of the personal computer through common productivity tools, skill in interacting with the Internet, e-mail correspondence, applications to classroom curriculum (including digital, narrative research projects), instruction, and assessment to engage students in various literacies and to place these literacies in critical dialogue with one another (Reinking, et al., 1997). The use of electronic technology is particularly important as a vehicle for sharing ideas and providing coaching to novices (International Society for Technology Education, 1998). Experts are authorized to interpret and evaluate the performance of novices in relation to the normative practices of the community. In turn, novices agree to apprentice with and have their performance critiqued by the expert(s). This apprenticeship provides an environment of trust in which novices and experts co-construct knowledge and skills.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator is responsive to learners' cognitive, social, emotional, moral and physical developmental needs.

The educator addresses the multiple intelligences of the learning group and is creative in suggesting thematic connections among the disciplines informed by constructivist theory and established models of curriculum and instruction.

The educator enthusiastically incorporates the use of technology as a learning resource that facilitates and advances engagement in critical literacies.

Correlate INTASC Core Standard Principle #1

The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

Correlate INTASC Core Standards Principle #2

The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standards

25.15.a.3.F. The candidate knows how to use written, verbal, nonverbal, and visual communication techniques effectively to support active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom

25.15.a.2.A. The candidate understands how individuals grow, develop, and learn.

25.15.a.5.C. The candidate understands the legal and operational aspects of education.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standards

25.15.b.3.A.The candidate knows how to manage school resources ethically, legally, efficiently, and effectively.

25.15.b.6.A. The candidate understands the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context in which schools operate.

C. Adaptive Decision Making

When confronted with a problem, all members of a learning community, aware that there are numerous discourses, diverse approaches to framing the problem, and various ways of acquiring and working with knowledge (Eisner, 1985), will adapt thinking to engage those discourses which are likely to assist in successfully resolving the dilemma. Respect for the forms of critical thinking (e.g., inductive, deductive, and dialectical reasoning, the scientific method, comparison to a defined standard) compels their commitment to determine what discourses can inform understanding of the problem. Adaptive decision making and planning puts aside dogmatic recipes and privileges in order to collaboratively "read" the situation. It is a responsive approach to the kinds of dilemmas encountered when addressing the needs of students and other members of the learning community. This flexibility in decision-making is possible when an educator engages multiple critical literacies in addressing professional, social, and personal problems.

As adaptive decision-makers, we recognize diverse approaches to framing a problem or considering relationships and engage in various methods using diverse frames (e.g., political, human resource, structural, and symbolic) to acquire knowledge, develop understanding, and effect solutions (Bolman & Deal, 2002). In applying multiple intelligences to various learning situations, we are better able to understand and address the needs of students with different learning styles, abilities, and dispositions. This orientation enhances teaching and learning because both instructors and students reflect on the purposes and dynamics of acquiring knowledge and thereby transform professional practices.

A significant dimension of the profession of education is the ability to apply foundational knowledge of educational history, philosophy, sociology, political analysis, and psychology to particular challenges. This knowledge base extends to attending to and nurturing individual student differences with respect to diversity of cultural and life experiences they bring to a learning situation. Through dialogue, cognitive dissonance is created thusmotivating students to integrate knowledge at a higher level. As faculty and students thoughtfully integrate their content knowledge of an academic discipline with their understanding of human development, learning theory, and effective use of pedagogy, their adaptive decision-making competence is likely to increase.

Part of “reading” a given situation, too, is being able to understand and envision the multitude of alternative contexts in which learners and schools might develop and succeed. Adaptive decision-making, in other words, entails not only understanding the peculiarities embedded within a particular situation, but also the multitude of options that exist beyond the present for re-figuring situations so that they might be more productive. This knowledge of different ways of structuring social spaces and structures is essential to adaptive decision-making that truly integrates the needs of learners and schools with specialized ways of knowing and knowledge of pedagogy.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator has the flexibility and attentiveness to vary her/his role in the instructional process from instructor to facilitator to coach to audience, as appropriate.

The educator is resourceful when confronted with unanticipated situations.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standard 25.15.a.5.B.

The candidate knows how to select among a variety of strategies in responding to the needs of students, school staff, parents, and other members of the community.

Correlate Illinois Administrator Standards

25.15.b.1.B. The candidate knows about a variety of strategies for building support within the school community.

25.15.b.2.C. The candidate understands the factors that affect a school's culture and climate and knows how to address a variety of specific problems.

III. Passion for the educator’s craft

Learning to teach – like teaching itself –

Is always the process of becoming; a time of formation and transformation, of scrutiny into what one is doing, and who one can become

Deborah Britzman (1991)

The work of the educator has been variously presented as a learned set of techniques (e.g., Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005; Frieburg & Driscoll, 2005; Marzano, Pickering, and Polluck, 2001) an art form (e.g., Highet, 1952; Perrone, 1991; Rubin, 1984; Sarason, 1999 ) or a dynamic and mutually transforming set of relationships (Wink & Wink, 2004). The College of Education advocates a perspective of the educator as a personal artisan – both an artist, inviting personal response and striving to innovate to attend to the character and needs of the community, and a tradesperson familiar with the tools and skills that constitute the daily life of the classroom or school. Opportunities are provided in coursework, field experiences, and clinical experiences for the novice educator to gain comfort with the artifacts and dynamics of the work place and be challenged to engage creatively with the process of education (Eisner, 1994). The educator brings passion to various dimensions of the craft, whether refining techniques, interacting with students and colleagues, or the imagining of new possibilities (Fried, 1996). For each of the roles of the educator—as advisor and counselor, as instructor/facilitator, as colleague, as reflective practitioner, and as leader in the continual transformation of the craft—there is a consistent ardor to act professionally and to a become more capable and expressive collaborator.

As advisor and counselor

The educator is obligated to take the initiative in establishing trust between her/himself and the learner(s). This is done when the educator is accessible to students and makes the investment to personally recognize learners (Thorson, 2003). Knowing that there are preferred learning styles (Dunn & Griggs, 1995), multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1993; Silver, Strong, and Perini, 2000) and individual and social differences (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002) is an important dimension of pedagogy, as emphasized above in consideration of diversity and forms of discourse. This disposition and knowledge can only impact craft, however, if an educator is willing to discover the learning styles and other differences that exist in his or her learning community (Guild and Garger, 1999). The educator understands that being an effective communicator not only requires being an engaging public presenter, but also requires developing interpersonal communication skills (Goss and O’Hair, 1988) that invite dialogue with learners and the sharing of lives. The establishing of a personal relationship with learners is essential in fostering the “motivation to learn,” a conscious determination by the learner to engage in the discourse(s) that are being studied (Alderman, 2004; Brophy, 1998). It is a disservice to students to make assumptions about students based on ethnic identity, physical characteristics, or past academic performance. This is application of technique without consideration for the unique individuality of each learner. Instruction needs to be differentiated to the authentic identities of the individuals within the community while emphasizing the collective purposes of being together (Gregory & Chapman, 2002). To serve in the capacity of an advisor/counselor, Gibson and Mitchell (1990) have defined six aspects to the counseling role of all educators:

as a support for fostering the self esteem of learners and motivating students to engage in education;
as an advocate for the learner when personal or institutional conflicts arise;
as an active listener to the interests, issues, and dilemmas that learners bring to the learning community;
as a talent scout who identifies and encourages the intelligences of the learners in his or her community;
as an agent for referral of a learner to academic, social, and personal services;
as a resource in considering career options for learners that relate to the discourse(s) under study and in providing advice on academic planning towards professional goals.

Technology can serve to advance this dimension of the educator’s role. providing opportunity to maintain regular contact with students outside the classroom and to expediently intervene when it is recognized that a student may be facing a personal or academic challenge. To realize all dimensions as advisor/counselor, the educator, whether serving as teacher, school counselor, or school administrator, must find the passion that can only come through creative innovation in assisting with individual problem solving and forming meaningful and positive relationships with others in the learning community.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator takes personal interest in her/his students and adjusts curriculum, instruction, and assessment to meet cultural and individual differences.

The educator places priority on motivating students to succeed academically.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standard

25.15.a.1.2.d. The candidate understands individual and group motivation and behavior.

Correlate INTASC Principle #5

The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

As instructor and facilitator

identify and solve relevant educational problems and explore compelling relationships with learners,
engage learners in the continual generation and application of ideas and complex judgments,
be open to insight and imagination as it occurs in the crucible of new experiences,
collaborate with learners in critical evaluation of their knowledge and skills through their products and processes, and
respond appropriately to dilemmas that arise in a community of learners and teachers.

These responsibilities characterize much of the current understanding of the professions as expressed in the standards for professional teachers and school leaders (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1995; Illinois State Board of Education, 2000, Barone, 2002). Adapting the now-classic rational structure for curriculum, instruction, and assessment proposed by Ralph Tyler (1949), the educator is directly involved in:

determining educational purposes,
selecting educational experiences to achieve these purposes by responding to the identities of the learners and the nature of the discourse,
directing the organization of the experiences so that the investment of time and resources is effective and efficient, and
evaluating the process to determine what has transpired in engaging in this educational process.

Educational purposes are informed by national and state content standards (e.g., Illinois State Board of Education, 1997). However, when content standards direct the purposes of a community of learners (e.g., teaching to the state test), the diverse identities and democratic orientation of a community of learners are subjugated (Thomas & Schubert in Kincheloe & Weil, 2002). Teachers have a professional responsibility to question the primacy of standards in directing curriculum development. A relevant curriculum is realized through the complex interactions of the experienced educator, the various identities of the learners, the nature of the discourse(s) that are considered, as well as a complex of social demands (Henderson & Kesson, 2004; Kordalewski, 2000). To take away curriculum development as an element of the educator’s craft by mandating objectives and benchmark levels of achievement inhibits, even discourages, the educator’s passion.

To ensure that passion for the craft is sustained, the College of Education seeks to develop educators who engage in creative planning of instruction based on clearly stated curricular goals and know how to accommodate, adapt, and diversify curriculum in response to differences in student needs and learning styles (Tomlinson, 2005). This addressing of difference is of particular importance given the regional mission of Roosevelt to prepare students as educators in the Chicago metropolis (Farr, 2004). The educator’s planning must be responsive to the inclusion of students with identified special needs (Bender, 2002) and students who are acquiring proficiency in English (Baker, 1993).

A skilled educator draws from a powerful repertoire of instructional strategies (Joyce & Weil, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1999) to compel the community of learners and teachers to consider the selected texts and discourse(s). There is an emphasis on strategies that invite learners to participate directly in the construction of meaning, notably on cooperative (Jacobs, Power, & Loh Wan, 2002; Sharon, 1999) and problem-based strategies (Kain, 2003a; Kain, 2003b; Lambros, 2004; Mandel, 2003; Torp & Sage, 1998). Relevance to the contemporary world makes the instruction important and the resolutions significant (Lehrer & Schauble, 2002). Instructional strategies are consistently attentive to students with identified special needs or language support needs with the intention to provide academic challenge through engaged learning (Villa and Thousand, 1995; Kluth, Straut, & Biklen, 2003).

The use of electronic technology as a tool for the extension of educational experiences is no longer an optional avocation; it must be as integral to the construction of educational experiences as the use of textbooks, libraries, or laboratories (International Society for Technology Education, 1998). The advance of online and distance learning brings new opportunities for personalizing the curriculum and adapting instruction to the personal choices of the learner (Provenzo, Brett, & McCloskey, 2005). The use of the Internet not only as a source of information but also as a vehicle for the learner to express her or himself through electronic portfolio and personal web page construction (Coppola, 2004) is encouraged. There is also the need to recognize the inherent problems that can come from learning electronically (Maeroff, 2003) and ensure that online learning maintains the emphasis on relationship through threaded discussion and cooperative group deliberations over distance.

The organization of the educational process requires skill in facilitating the learning community, establishing a supportive environment, adopting various approaches and strategies in instruction to constitute a productive classroom where students are empowered to responsibility (Charles, 1998). Democratically directing this learning community involves planning and acting on behalf of all students (Larivee, 2005) with special attention to students with identified special needs that require additional resources for full participation in community (Hunt and Marshall, 1999). It also demands continual questioning of conventional ways of organizing discourses (e.g., traditional school subjects), knowledge within discourses (e.g., textbook scope and sequence), classrooms (e.g., division by chronological age), students (e.g., ability differentiation), teachers (e.g., autonomous performers), and schools (e.g., self-contained social institutions) (Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthy,1996).

Evaluation is too often understood as the judgment by the educator of the achievement of learners. This perspective is being replaced with understandings that assessment provides information on the effectiveness of the educational process, inquires to discover unforeseen outcomes of the experience, provides information for the improvement of the educational process in the future (Allen, 1998), and facilitates the ability of learners to evaluate their own processes, performances, and product (Wiggins, 1998). New models of assessment and complex performance assessment are employed in conjunction with the refinement of traditional instruments to address these aims (Kuhs, Johnson, Agruso, and Monrad, 2001; Luongo-Orlando, 2003). Technology can be an asset in the construction, administration, analysis and interpretation of these performance and product based assessments. The educator effectively adopts, adapts, and invents these assessment tools and derives meaningful information from their administration. (Dawson, 1995). School counselors and school administrators in particular must advocate for the active use of information that comes from product and performance based assessment and model the use of this information in school level evaluation (Holcomb, 1999) and in the advancing of their own professional development (Hauser and Koutouzos, 2006). Over reliance on standardized, commercial or state-produced, large-scale tests as sole determinant of information on educational progress, reform, or policy is myopic and potentially harmful to learners (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator is assumes leadership in curriculum development.

The educator is open to and seeks out engaging instructional methods.

The educator recognizes and makes use of information from varied assessment processes.

The educator emphasizes productive, engaged and responsible learning in the building of community.

Correlate INTASC Core Standards Principles:

#3 The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

#4 The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills

#7 The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

#8 The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and personal development of the learner.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standards:

25.15.a.1.B. The candidate knows how to create learning experiences that make the content meaningful to all students, including those with disabilities and those for whom English is not the primary language.

25.15.a.2.A. The candidate knows how to conduct instructional planning

25.15.a.3.B. The candidate knows how to design instruction based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, the community, and curricular goals.

25.15.a.3.C. The candidate knows how to create instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners, including those with disabilities and those for whom English is not the primary language.

25.15.a.3.D. The candidate knows how to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

25.15.a.3.E. The candidate knows how to use a variety of instructional strategies to encourage student’s development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills.

25.15.a.4.A. The candidate knows formal and informal assessment strategies

25.15.a.4.B. The candidate knows how to use formal and informal assessment strategies to support the students’ continuous educational development.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standards:

25.15.b.2.A. The candidate knows how to create and maintain a school culture conducive to students’ learning and the professional growth of staff.

25.15.b.2.B. The candidate knows how to implement and manage an instructional program conducive to students’ learning.

25.15.b.3.A. The candidate knows about a variety of organizational management strategies that promote a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

As colleague

Educators share ideas, innovations, practices, and theories with other counselors, teachers, school administrators, teacher educators, parents, policy-makers and all who are invested in advancing the well being of learners. To participate in this collegial relationship, whether as one who is learning the craft or as mentor to others (Cienkus, Haworth, and Kavanaugh, 1994; Scherer, 1999; Villiani, 2002), it is important that the educator be aware that collaboration has not been a traditional dimension of the profession; it is a learned activity (Clandinin, et. al., 1993; Wasserman, 2004) that demands continued exercise to enter into institutional culture (Miller, 1990). The advances in technological communication provide an opportunity for educators to find communities of support and counsel outside of the traditional parameters of a school or office and at the same time can strengthen the local circle of practitioners (Wald & Castleberry, 2000). Teacher collaboration is demonstrated to effectively promote greater success for students (Martinez, 2004) and gives vitality to the profession (Duckworth, 1997). The use of technology provides immediate and therefore timely interaction between colleagues and institutions to share information, offer advice or support, or engage as professional collaborators.

Collegiality must extend to all participants in the creation or maintenance of a learning community. Parents are an integral part of the learning process and other members of the wide community have interest in the welfare of learners. James Coleman and his associates have provided compelling research that parent investment in schooling is a critical factor in student achievement (Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982). Specific techniques in the craft, both in direct encounter and through technology (Hiatt-Michael, 2001) can invite deeper collaboration. Two of the most successful reform programs of the past decade, Success for All (Slavin & Madden, 2001) and James Comer’s community school approach (Comer, 1997; Comer, Ben-Avie, & Haynes, 1999) are predicated on the necessity of collaboration by all community members.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator values collegial interaction towards the goal of improving the craft.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standard

25.15.a.5.A.The candidate knows how to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with colleagues, parents/guardians, and the community to support students’ learning and well-being.

Correlate INTASC Core Standards Principle #10

The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well-being.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standard

25.15.b.5.A.The candidate knows how to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with colleagues, parents, guardians, and other members of the community, such as representatives of businesses and religious, political, and service-oriented organizations, for the purpose of supporting students’ learning and well-being.

D. As reflective practitioner

The passionate educator directs one’s professional development in accord with their vocational place and time (Steffy, Wolfe, Parsch, & Enz 2000) or collaborates with others in progressing as a craftsperson (Sweeney, 2003). Professional development is predicated on the ability to reflect dimensionally on one’s practice. Dimensional reflective practice means that the educator engages in inquiry on the educator’s craft from various research perspectives. Three compatible approaches to professional reflection fashioned ways of looking at practice. The focus on the “practical” by Joseph Schwab (1978), refined in the research of J. Michael Connelly and Jean Clandinin (Clandinin and Connelly, 1999) emphasizes revealing personal practical knowledge in creative problem solving in the various relationships that constitute the practice of educating. The emergence of narrative inquiry, reflection by personal sharing of story about the craft, has been valuable in revealing the nuances and particularities of educators (Ruane-Florio & deTar, 2001; Lyons & LaBoskey, 2002). A second approach to reflection has been described by Donald Schon (1987). Schon examined the ability of the reflective practitioner to think and act concurrently and has promoted this as an essential quality for educators (McEntee, et al., 2003). Knowledge in action is the intelligent exercise of craft; it is dynamic, situational, and is not easily codified or reduced to formula. Schon contends that the best approach to develop this ability to reflect on craft, to frame problems, consider solutions, act deliberately, and evaluate effect is to provide the novice with simulated and actual experiences in the profession with strong support from peers (other students) and coaches (e.g., a cooperating teacher and University supervisor). A third approach to reflection is the active engagement of educators in formal research on problems and relationships that constitute their professional practice, commonly referred to as “action research” (Brunaford, Fisher, & Hobson, 2001; Dana, Fitchman & Yendol-Silva, 2003; Reagan, Case & Brubacher, 2000).

Practical reflection encourages the consideration of the interaction of the educator with the subject matter, the students, and institutional context. To engage in informed reflection, educators must recognize the value of scholarly research relative to problems that they confront. They must be prepared to find information and understanding from different inquiry methods (e.g., statistical, ethnographic, phenomenological, autobiographical). Educators must be prepared to access research through traditional (e.g., library, professional associations) and electronic (e.g., the Internet) networks. Educators should be eager to enter into conversation with colleagues on problems and innovations (Burbules & Hansen, 1997).

In addition to a sound knowledge base for reflection on practice, there needs to be an understanding that there are various kinds of questions that need to be asked to critically engage in the educator’s craft. To adapt Kenneth Zeichner’s levels of reflection (Zeichner and Liston, 1996), in technical reflection, the practitioner examines craft to strive for improvement in effectiveness (e.g., Henderson, 1996). A second level of contextual reflection examines the situational and institutional factors that frame practice and finds problems that may arise from social assumptions, purposes, and aims that are contrary to the well being of the student or client. Critical reflection challenges all conventional assumptions about the educator’s craft and strives to determine whose power and knowledge interests are being extended and promoted through this activity (See Parker, 1997; Ritchie & Wilson, 2000).

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator thoughtfully considers the personal, relational, and political dimensions of educational practices and policies.

The educator values educational research to guide decision making and practices.

Correlate INTASC Core Standards Principle #9

The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.

As a leader engaged in the continual transformation of the craft

Educators, whether serving as counselors, classroom teachers, or school administrators, must provide leadership so that educational institutions can continually transform and expand in addressing social and individual needs with quality and equity (Bolman & Deal, 2002). Much of what constitutes artistry in the profession emerges when an educator embraces the challenge to envision new ways of being a community of learners and fashions artifacts (educational tools) which enable the educator to implement her or his idea and offers it to others in the profession. Passion for the craft results when other professionals recognize and use this procedure or artifact in their work. Other educators recognize and share innovation by observing exemplary performance of duties and responsibilities of colleagues (serving as a role model for other professionals), being encouraged to exercise practical imagination, and employing the requisite organizational literacy (Earle & Kruse, 1999) and political skills to effect change (Evans, 2000; Fullan, 2001). The process of democratic leadership and its results are well-demonstrated (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002). It is a recent realization that all teachers have the capacity to assume leadership for specific goals and purposes in the community (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001), with new educators offering insights and innovations that benefit more experienced professionals (Ladson-Billings, 2001). In the past decade, the recreation of early childhood education at Reggio Emilia (Cadwell, 2003) and the new vision of urban education offered by Central Park East (Meier, 1997) demonstrate how transformational leadership revives the craft of education.

Technology serves as a relevant example. If technology is to realize its promise, it is the responsibility of educators to imagine the roles electronic technology can play in determining educational purposes, expanding educational experiences, enhancing communication with and among learners and colleagues, and effecting meaningful reflection on practice. The educational leader exercises strategies that initiate and sustain constructive, democratic deliberation on the design and pace of integrating technology (Dede, 1998). Rather than waiting for needs to emerge, educational leaders anticipate possible futures offered by present resources and enthusiastically create, invent, and adopt artifacts that are responsive to the needs and interests of learners.

Dispositions and Outcomes:

The educator accepts the demands of leadership so as to improve the quality of and access to educational service.

The educator leads by democratic deliberation, inviting diverse voices (including those of dissent) and acting with openness to progressive change.

Correlate Illinois Teacher Standards:

25.15.a.5.D. The candidate maintains professional standards of conduct.

25.15.a.5.E The candidate knows how to provide leadership to improve students’ learning and well-being.

Correlate Illinois School Administrator Standards:

25.15.b.4.C. The candidate knows how to mobilize community resources to promote the success of all students.

25.15.b.5.B. The candidate knows and understands professional standards of conduct.

College of Education