In this conceptual essay, the authors explain that, despite well-respected bilingual education policy, Illinois, like most of the U.S. has an inequitable distribution of dual immersion bilingual education programs. Such programs appear mostly in white, middle-class communities rather than in predominantly Latino ones. The authors argue that this inequity is driven by ideological and cultural capital differences among communities. They contend that these inequities must be addressed if more effective additive bilingual education models are to serve emergent bilingual students in the U.S.
This is a proposal to teach classroom-based mindfulness techniques to teacher education candidates as part of their teacher education programs. While mindfulness, including yoga and meditation, is growing more popular in a range of educational settings, the majority of K-12 programs are delivered to schools through external personnel from yoga or mindfulness service organizations. In many cases, these programs are provided at low or no cost to schools, or individual teachers might take trainings ranging from about $600-$2500. A more sustainable, affordable and ethical scenario would be to develop the capacities of teachers to employ mindfulness techniques for their own wellbeing, and that of their students, during their teacher education programs.
David Sackett, a physician who died in May, 2015 at age 80, helped usher a paradigm shift in medicine toward embracing evidence-based medicine and applying principles of improvement science to health care reform. A parallel paradigm shift is afoot in educational research.
This commentary examines recent controversies surrounding edTPA, a high-stakes, standardized teacher performance assessment (TPA), focusing on the complex relationships among TPA policy, scholarship, and profit. We argue that TPA mandates have outpaced the research base, thus illustrating the influence of an intensely lucrative educational marketplace. We conclude this essay with a call for independent, peer-reviewed scholarship regarding the validity, reliability, and impact of high-stakes, privatized, teacher performance assessment.
This is a response essay to an interview with George E. Lewis, the Edwin H. Case Professor of American Music at Columbia University, conducted by Cara Furman of Teachers College. The essay explores Lewis's thoughts on quotidian creativity and the ubiquity of improvisation, their necessity in academic institutions, and their potentially life-transforming effects for all people.
Many technological artifacts (e.g., humanoid robots, computer agents) consist of biologically inspired features of human-like appearance and behaviors that elicit a social response. The strong social components of technology permit people to share information and ideas with these artifacts. As robots cross the boundaries between humans and machines, the features of human interactions can be replicated to reveal new insights into the role of social relationships in learning and creativity. Peer robots can be designed to create ideal circumstances that enable new ways for students to reflect, reason, and learn. This, in turn, has increased expectations that robots and computer agents will enhance human learning and complement people’s physical, social, and cognitive capabilities. This paper explores how peer-like robots and robotic systems may help students learn and engage in creative ways of thinking.
This commentary details the creative process of New York City teachers and students coming together as players to remix Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in the summer of 2014.
This article argues that rankings and decontextualized criticisms, when applied to HBCUs, are especially damaging and it is worth rethinking our standards for teacher education quality and accountability.
This commentary is contextualized in America’s gilded age of corporate education characterized by millionaire CEO university presidents and a growing chasm of wealth inequality in our educational class system. America’s deepening educational stratification mirrors and magnifies wider social, economic, racial, and political inequality and injustice. The author calls for a praxis of refusal among all educators as active public intellectuals to re-politicize education and reframe it as a way of being and becoming in the world and a force for justice and democracy.
Excerpts form a conversation on creativity with Olga Hubard, conducted prior to a symposium on the same topic at Teachers College, are interwoven with artworks by Hubard's students and professional artists.
This commentary notes the oppositional traditions that inform polarized perspectives on disability and schooling, and raises the question of the significance of such divisions for schools and for preparing teachers. Drawing on an international collaborative experience involving competing knowledge traditions the creative possibilities of uncertainty and ambiguity for reforming schools are explored.
This commentary argues that creativity is best viewed in terms of significant achievement and that such achievement is best developed through promoting critical inquiry.
In this Introduction, the contextual background, organization, and contents of the issue are provided.
This piece identifies cultural bias in the word gap debate and offers recommendations.
Do you know what the most common electronic device that college student’s possess? According to Joshua Bolkan, a multimedia editor for Campus Technology and The Journal, “85% of college students own laptops while smartphones come in second at 65%”. If technology is becoming a common practice among our students, what are we doing as professors to incorporate it into our classrooms? How can students use technology to reflect on their work? How can instructors use technology as a supplement in reading and writing courses? How can technology be used to deepen our student’s critical thinking skills? These are questions we should be asking ourselves in a world where technology is paving the way to learning.
The authors build on previous scholarship describing signs that appropriate validity evidence for education achievement measures is either not gathered, not reported, or not accessible for independent review. The consequences are troubling for valid interpretation of test scores for evaluation of individuals, groups, or programs. Six potential sources of influence on the validity evidence gap for valid interpretation and use of test scores are explored: (a) the influence of demands on the test user for interpretation of test scores; (b) the challenges of professional standards in assigning responsibility for providing validity evidence and argument; (c) law and regulatory practices constraining validity evidence gathering; (d) technology constraints and opportunities on kinds of validity evidence gathered and accessible; and (e) effects of the new education industry on testing. The paper concludes with suggestions for developing case studies in responsible gathering of test validity evidence in the problematic contexts outlined, with the intent to promote dialogue on responding to the challenges of the influences on the validity evidence gap.
This commentary is an actual email letter from an education faculty professor to an educational textbook sales representative. In it, the Professor explains why he will not use a textbook that is based on the popular, but unexamined assumption that learning is about individual brains acquiring information. Instead, he uses numerous practical examples, sarcasm, and a strong dose of idealism to argue for a view of learning that engages with the realities of embodiment, individual subjectivity, social participation, cultural context, and biological diversity. To bolster his argument, the professor draws upon Piaget, Vygotsky constructivist theory, and a relational view of epistemology that transcends both objectivism and subjectivism.
This commentary rebuts several questionable claims asserted by the Dover et al. (2015) commentary
regarding the development and implementation of edTPA. Based on our deep and long-term involvement with the initiative, we counter their assertions drawing on a range of scholarly and experiential evidence that suggests their analysis is partial at best.
Bankruptcy judges are increasingly willing to rely on compassion and common sense when they decide cases involving honest but unfortunate student-loan debtors who took on mountains of student-loan debt hoping to improve their lives but did not find jobs that paid well enough for them to reasonably make their loan payments.
With more and more states adopting edTPA as an assessment of a teacher candidate’s readiness for the classroom, it is important to ask: will edTPA result in increasing a teacher’s classroom reasoning and decision making ability? Or could edTPA, like some reforms from No Child Left Behind, lead to a deskilling of America’s teachers? The purpose of this article is to explore these questions in the context of implementation scenarios and cases that can only be described as the worst of times and the best of times with regard to teacher preparation. This article portrays several different ways in which the tensions between state mandates and local contexts create conditions for a narrowing of visions for teacher preparation. On the other hand, edTPA poses some alluring possibilities for teacher preparation programs and teacher candidates to engage in self-study and improvement. The authors describe ways in which programs can maximize the potential for edTPA to complement and improve assessment and teacher preparation, as opposed to de-skilling teachers.
In this commentary, the philosophic and policy origins of educational instrumentalism are explored, its learning myths revealed, and a positive alternative is suggested.
This commentary reflects on the need to establish a national policy on education so that there is a clear understanding of our national priority and appropriate roles for states and the federal government.
Despite the overwhelming and research-based concerns regarding value-added models (VAMs), VAM advocates, policymakers, and supporters continue to hold strong to VAMs’ purported, yet still largely theoretical strengths and potentials. Those advancing VAMs have, more or less, adopted and promoted a set of agreed-upon, albeit “heroic” set of assumptions, without independent, peer-reviewed research in support. These “heroic” assumptions transcend promotional, policy, media, and research-based pieces, but they have never been fully investigated, explicated, or made explicit as a set or whole. These assumptions, though often violated, are often ignored in order to promote VAM adoption and use, and also to sell for-profits’ and sometimes non-profits’ VAM-based systems to states and districts. The purpose of this study was to make obvious the assumptions that have been made within the VAM narrative and that, accordingly, have often been accepted without challenge. Ultimately, sources for this study included 470 distinctly different written pieces, from both traditional and non-traditional sources. The results of this analysis suggest that the preponderance of sources propagating unfounded assertions are fostering a sort of VAM echo chamber that seems impenetrable by even the most rigorous and trustworthy empirical evidence.
This commentary describes the promises and pitfalls of writing institutional history.