Educators finding a voice in a complex global society, by Ryan Bates

In this era of standards and accountability, educators have to move themselves from the sidelines to the forefront of public education reform to meet the needs of a 21st century society. Educators need to become more responsive to navigating in and outside the confines of the standards and accountability movement (Singh, 2007). While working within the constraints of the current structural education reform agenda (e.g., No Child Left Behind, Common Core Standards, state and district level standards and mandates), educators need to seek ways to transform education at the classroom level through curriculum, pedagogy, and teaching practice.

If teachers are ever to be seen as professionals in American society, they need to find their voice by engaging as developers of curriculum and pedagogy, and reformers of the public education infrastructure. The bureaucratic role of the standards and accountability movement in public education has removed autonomy and professionalism from teachers (Bushnell, 2003; Day, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Educators need to be vocal and advocate for themselves and their students in this engagement. Educators can do this collaboratively with one another in meaningful ways, such as crafting critical education practices that places the student at the center of learning (Bushnell, 2003; Kuzmic, 2006). For example, educators can join teacher inquiry groups to critically examine their own teaching practices and how that affects student learning (Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, and Kennedy, 2010). A belief in educator agency and critical examination is at the center of my working group, focusing on progressive democratic education practices within the standardization movement. We base our conversations on the themes and values of the Mission Hill School in Boston; educators can create cracks in the education system to implement democratic education practices, including building community and assessing students authentically (Mission Hill School, n.d.). Developing collaborative practices provides the space to break out from the narrow focus of standards-based curriculum in pursuit of a more responsive and critically based approach to education.

Enacting collaborative practices that break through the confines of the present reform agenda is easier said than done, but educators can no longer close their doors and be “isolated islands” of teaching and learning. The current national and global society we live in is too complex and constantly changing to navigate on our own. Educators need to counter the hegemonic forces (e.g., politicians, lobbyists, education management organizations, the private business sector) that dictate public education, its purpose, reform,  and overall place in society. In addition, educators need to counter the “narrowly defined hegemonic constructions of what it means to be a professional” (Kuzmic, 2006, p. 6). As educators are on the front lines every school day, we need to take the lead in reforming public education and ensuring our voice and experience is included in the larger conversations on reform.

As educators are on the front lines every school day, we need to take the lead in reforming public education and ensuring our voice and experience is included in the larger conversations on reform.

Educators can begin this process by becoming more involved with the education reform movement instead of simply complying with policies implemented by “others” (i.e., non-education professionals, politicians, and corporate interests). “The teaching and learning process is intimately connected to the research act” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 3). Teacher research furnishes opportunities to question the increasing presence of top-down control over the teaching profession (Kuzmic, 2006). Educators need to be vocal and willing to share their research, strategies, methodologies, and practice with other like-minded professionals and more importantly with policymakers to exhibit the kinds of transformative, critically based approaches that educators are using on a day-to-day basis. As previously mentioned, dissemination of this knowledge and experience can occur through teacher inquiry groups. Formal research studies, action research projects, self-study research, professional development sessions, and collaborative teams on a department, school, or district level provide additional avenues to share research and practices with the objective of informing policy and its’ implementation. With any of these approaches, educators need to be provided with the space for this to occur, which means education policymakers need to allocate more time and resources for teachers to become stakeholders in their profession and the education of their students. As seen in nations like Finland, South Korea, and Singapore (Darling-Hammond, 2010), American school districts should champion for this space so teacher-driven research can pinpoint what obstacles face students, education professionals, and the community-at-large in creating an effective public education system.

If American society is ever going to take the task of creating and sustaining real reform to improve the quality of education in the U.S. seriously, educators have to take charge of their profession by becoming invested and finding their voice. Until the voice of experience permeates the hegemonic control over public education reform—whether teachers buy solely into current reforms, overturn the existing system, or a combination of the two—no sustainable transformation will ever take place in American schools.

References

Bushnell, M. (2003). Teachers in the schoolhouse panopticon: Complicity and resistance. Education and Urban Society, 35, 3, 251-272.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.

Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 677-692.

Kincheloe, J.L. (2008a). Critical constructivism primer. NY: Peter Lang.

Kuzmic, J. (2006). Resisting teacher-research: Professionalism, power, surveillance, and the practice of teacher education. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston, & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Collaboration and Community: Pushing Boundaries Through Self-Study (pp. 165-175). Cedar Falls, IA: Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices.

Mission Hill K-8 School. (n.d.). Mission Hill K8 School. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.missionhillschool.org

Nelson, T.H., A. Deuel, D. Slavit, & A. Kennedy. (2010). Leading deep conversations in collaborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House, 83, 5, 175-179.

Singh, M. (2007). Responsive education: Enabling transformative engagements with transitions in global/national imperatives. In M. W. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing Education: Policies, Pedagogies, and Politics (pp. 115-136). New York: Peter Lang.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 2, 217-247.