Just got this email from NBPTS about the newly revised Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards. I had the chance to look at the early draft and put in some initial comments. Here’s another chance to submit some input.
Dear Committee Member:
As a standards committee member, you know all too well how important public comment is to the standards revision process, and this is why we call upon you at this time to support our colleagues at Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) as their revised standards are available for public review.
On July 17th, 2010, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) unveiled new model core teaching standards (http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Model_Core_Teaching_Standards.html) for public comment. The original teacher standards, created in 1992, focused on the assessment and support of beginning teachers, and were incorporated into state regulation in at least 38 states, providing the basis for teacher education, initial certification, and tenure decisions.
A major change to the new core teaching standards is they now are standards of professional practice for all teachers. They also represent a new vision of teaching that imagines increased focus on 21st century knowledge and skills, personalized learning, a collaborative professional culture, improved assessment literacy, and new roles for teachers and administrators. The new standards are not broken down by content area, grade level, or grade span.
The draft core teaching standards are open for public comment between now and October 15, 2010. We encourage high school improvement-oriented leaders, including teachers, to review the standards and submit your comments before the October 15th deadline by visiting http://ccsso.teaching-standards.sgizmo.com/s3/. In doing so, please consider the following questions: What is your impression of how the standards might support high school improvement? Do you think the model core teaching standards successfully capture a comprehensive and complex view of teaching and learning at the high school level?
Many thanks for supporting a key stakeholder as they move forward with their own public review process. Should you have any questions please contact Lisa at lstooksberry@nbpts.org<mailto:lstooksberry@nbpts.org>.
Best,
Emma
2 Comments
“Standards” are little more than architecture, teachers need precise engineering solutions; i.e., teaching methods. The substantive of courses with the identical titles can be entirely different from one professor to another. This void makes most attempts to hold teachers accountable for student progress illogical since there is no agreement on what should be known or done. We also cannot know what would be possible with proper teaching. There is no other profession with this void, not surgery or hairdressing. A class action against Schools of Education probably is too far away to raise hope. Meanwhile the entire Education industry can never be taken seriously until we design systems for identifying and promulgating Best Instructional Practices and only then examining teacher candidates for knowledge and skill in delivering these. This is a bottom-up process with no natural constituency. Every segment of Education from Schools of Education to “Learned Societies” and publishers has learned how to profit from this systemic dysfunction. You might wish to look in on our efforts to jump start such an effort to advance Instructional Science and Teacher Preparation, we have been at it for many years: http://teacherprofessoraccountability.ning.com/main/invitation/new?xg_source=msg_wel_network. And… http://www.bestmethodsofinstruction.com/ and, http://anthony-manzo.blogspot.com/2010/05/race-to-top-accountability-leaves.html
Our newest site invites students to get on board: Student Crusade Rational Educational Reform http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bye-Bye-Senseless-Homework/166057496746368?ref=ts&v=page_getting_started#!/pages/Bye-Bye-Senseless-Homework/166057496746368?v=page_getting_started
Thanks for the provocative post. I hear what you mean about the need for systematizing (in some kind of cohesive, realistic manner) the way in which standards are created and interpreted. The same with the opportunity (or urgency, even) for consolidating methods re: effective teacher training and support. I do have to note that the relational aspect of teaching, with both students and staff in schools, is not something to be ignored either– and I’d be hard-pressed to say that is something that lends itself to ‘engineering solutions.’
A recent article that might interest you from the NEA website: http://neatoday.org/2010/11/16/blue-ribbon-panel-urges-overhaul-of-teacher-education-programs/