University of Cincinnati Educator Preparation Unit

1

University of Cincinnati Educator Preparation Unit

Transforming Lives, Schools, and Communities

Conceptual Framework

“Education is a human right with immense power to transform. On its foundation rest the cornerstones of freedom, democracy, and sustainable human development.”

- Kofi Annan

A core principle of the mission of the University of Cincinnati is: Transforming lives through the education of our students, preparing emerging generations for lives of ongoing discovery and full engagement as they shape an evolving world. Consistent with this principle, we are committed to the audacious aspiration to transform lives, schools, and communities. As educators, faculty members work with candidates to be culturally responsive practitioners, recognizing their moral imperative to meet the needs of each and every student, transforming their lives. These candidates, in turn, transform the lives of the students they teach through improving their academic performance, increasing their opportunities, and persistently expecting high achievement. We work collaboratively with our candidates and partner schools to transform schools and classrooms into safe learning environments that contribute to all students and teachers’ cognitive, academic, social-emotional, and ethical development. As schools change, communities change. Our efforts are to prepare educators grounded in student-driven teaching, learning, and services.Through these efforts, our candidates will have a positive impact on students, schools, and communities.

Our Unit standards for performance expectations have become: Candidates of the University of Cincinnati are committed to transforming the lives of P-12 students, their schools, and their communities, and

• Demonstrating foundation knowledge, including knowledge of how each individual learns and develops within a unique developmental context.
• Articulating the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and the structures of their discipline.
• Collaborating, leading, and engaging in positive systems change.
• Demonstrating the moral imperative to teach all students and address the responsibility to teach all students with tenacity.
• Addressing issues of diversity with equity and using skills unique to culturally and individually responsive practice.
• Using technology to support their practice.
• Using assessment and research to inform their efforts and improve outcomes.
• Demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge, grounded in evidence- based practices, committed to improving the academic and social outcomes of students.

How the conceptual framework has evolved and been refined. In 1987, as amemberof the Holmes Group, educator preparation programs at the University of Cincinnati initiated redesign.The knowledge base was articulated in “A Pattern Language for Teaching” (University of Cincinnati, 1997, 3rd Edition). In 1992, that pattern language wasused to collect and document expertise across the university and the professional community and became our NCATE approved conceptual framework and knowledge base. As our knowledge base grew and expectations became more explicitly articulated nationally, the complex Pattern Language became less useful in the daily implementation and evaluation of programs. Recognizing that the “Unit” goes beyond the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, we broadened our perspective and the members of our professional community. However, we continue to attest that there are Professional Ways of Knowing (content knowledge), Professional Ways of Being (dispositions), and Professional Ways of Doing (pedagogical knowledge), organizing structures of the pattern language.

The conceptual framework that evolved from these efforts, Preparing committed, caring, competent educators, was initially proposed during the summer of 2001. Members of the unit participated in reflective dialogue in which existing practices and proposed changes were reviewed, critiqued, and questioned in the context of developing a vision for improving preparation of professional educators. During the 2001-2002 academic year, each program responded with a written commitment to the conceptual framework. The Unit continued to revisit the conceptual framework every three years, documenting the evolution of our theory and practice. The most recent draft prior to this submission was completed in 2007 and approved by the University Council for Educator Preparation, the managing body for educator preparation programs.

In 2009, the University of Cincinnati responded to NCATE’s redesign to become a Transformation Initiative institution. As such, we reaffirmed our commitment to prepared committed, caring, and competent educators, while shifting the context of our work to high-needs schools and the imperative to prepare candidates to support students in those schools. Johnson (2009) indicated that the focus of this effort is to ensure that teacher candidates are full participants within the professional community of practice in high needs urban schools.” Our transformation efforts are not only related to our own candidates, but target the transformation of education for students who are underserved as well as the transformation of our own practices. In order to increase positive outcomes for our candidates, students, and the communities we serve, we must utilize evidence-based practice and document effective practices in student-driven teaching, learning, and services; and in providing a permeable curriculum (Dyson, 1993). Through shifting the focus of candidate preparation to the schoolswe aim to increase candidates’ skills and engage them in a system of accountability.

We adopted the Council for Exceptional Children’s inclusive definition of diversity:

“CEC believes diversity means understanding and valuing the characteristics and beliefs of those who demonstrate a wide range of characteristics. This includes ethnic and racial backgrounds, age, physical and cognitive abilities, family status, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious and spiritual values, and geographic location. While recognizing the different groups to which individuals may belong, CEC also understands that each group is composed of persons who exhibit a broad range in values and characteristics. We must refrain from making group stereotypes. Rather, in each of our roles, as educators and as association members and staff, each person must be treated with respect and valued as an individual.”

As Ladson-Billings suggests (2001) “multiethnic” and “multicultural” fails to describe the wide range of diversity our candidates meet. Consistent with CEC’s definition, she suggests that we prepare candidates to engage with students of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, socioeconomic groups, and family constellations.

Though each program varies in implementation of this framework, we are consistent in our belief system and standards.Our candidates critically examinea range of perspectives in what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. described as a “great world house in which we must learn to live with each other in peace” (Where do we go from here: Chaos or Community, 1968). Our model of teaching appreciates that students contribute to the construction of knowledge. Teachers learn from the students and release power that enables what Gutiërrez (2008) referred to as dialogic pedagogy where students discover voice with the teachers assistance and cooperation incorporate their own scripts in the learning process.

Knowledge Base - Knowing, being, and doing within the context of diverse schools and positive student outcomes, grounded inrecognizing the uniqueness of each individual student. President Gregory Williams, in the 2019 strategic plan, has committed the University of Cincinnati to transform the institution, and articulates thatallefforts toward student success must include instructional strategies scientifically documented to close achievement gaps and increase success. While continuing to rely on ways of knowing, being, and doing, we recognize that educators have a moral imperative to student-driven, evidence-based teaching, learning, and educational services. In addition, as we prepare new professionals, we recognize that we are co-learners.

Recognizing the Uniqueness of Each Student. Many of our candidates have attended schools with students who looked like them, in their own community.[1] With limited experiences come limited conceptual repertoires of diversity (Milner, 2011). Our candidates may have experienced “color blind” attitudes in home and school. Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, and Hart (2008) describe these attitudes as “unawareness of racial privilege, institutional discrimination, and blatant racial issues” (p. 8). In their study,conducted at a primarily white university, being “color-blind”appeared to reduce sensitivity to issues of equity, and produced individuals who based their judgments of climate on “seems okay to me.” Just as we tell our candidates to meet their students where they are, we must meet our candidates where they are and help them develop into culturally responsive teachers (Gay, 2010).Stating that “our students are color-blind” or “don’t recognize their own privilege” isn’t helpful, and fails to recognize the amount of impact preparation may have on their practice. Our programs serve as an intervention in challenging candidates’ways of thinking and acting. Our dispositions are serious; candidates are pushed to shift consciousness from racism as a people of color problem to racism as a white people problem; from racial harmony to racial equity; and from focus on their intent to the focus on the impact of their behavior on others (Gorski, 2010). We must all transform our consciousness as we strive to transform the lives of students and communities.

As we prepare educators, we are preparing professionals who are able to think critically. This goes beyond telling candidates what we think should take place, and evaluating their abilities to do as we say. We are learning how to recognize our candidates’ developmental contexts, generate a third space in which we can talk openly and reflectively, and scaffold learning new ways of thinking about culture, race, ethnicity, ability, and learning.Grossman and associates (2009) identify three patterns for understanding pedagogies of practice: (a) representations, (b) decomposition, and (c) approximations of practice. As professionals we need to provide candidates with observations that support them in their attempts to see and understand what they see. In response to this need, as part of our transformation initiative, we increased our early field experiences so that our candidates are participant observers in classrooms, agencies, and sessions much earlier in their preparation.Many methods courses are embedded in public schools and better integrated with the candidates’ accompanying field experiences. Faculty members are more readily available for first-hand support and interpretation. With the implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment, our teaching candidates demonstrate their teaching competence through artifacts documenting teaching and learning. They develop commentaries explaining, analyzing, and reflecting on those artifacts. In responding to the Teacher Performance Assessment tasks, our candidates apply what they have learned about research, theory, and strategies related to teaching and learning from four years of coursework and field experiences.

The second practice, decomposition, breaking down complex practice into its parts for the purposes of teaching and learning, has particular importance for education. Schooling is a common experience for our candidates. However, teacher education programs cannot effectively prepare tomorrow's teachers by using faulty models of teaching and learning. It is essential that our candidates critically examine their beliefs and concepts about "good teaching." Decomposition makes various components of practice available. These components are viewed through the individual lenses of our candidates. In journaling, candidates frequently report that they want to model their favorite teachers. These model teachers, for the most part, were teaching predominantly white, middle class students. Our teacher candidates experienced success in these classes. Candidates’ experiences of success contribute to their “folkways of teaching” (Buchmann, 1987) in which candidates believe they know good teaching and fall back on the familiar. Lortie (1975) goes as far as suggesting that candidates revert to teaching as they were taught, challenging changes in practices. So, when one of our candidates reports in a discussion that her favorite teacher, facing a group of multiracial students stated, “As far as I’m concerned, everyone in this room is green. Math is the same no matter what” the issue of differentiation for students with consideration of culture, ethnicity, race, or language is brushed aside.

We have recognized decomposition as one of our greatest challenges. Our first step is to disassembleour candidates’ beliefs about good teaching. We demand that they “start with the student and the learning context.” In the Teacher Performance Assessment, this is the “context for learning” information that candidates provide relevant information about their instructional context. Filling out forms of this sort is easy; candidates count the number of souls of each culture, race, ethnicity, culture, ability, language, and gender. They identify the name of the course, the grade level, textbooks, instructional program, and other resources. They note the number of students on IEPs and 504 plans and the number of English Language Learners and gifted and talented students in their class. In their early teacher preparation courses, they learn about culturally responsive instruction.

We must provide, as Milner (2010a) argues, an intervention that helps our students move beyond these labels and through various perceptions of diversity. We not only need to ask our students to disassembletheir beliefs about teaching, but that we may also have to disassembletheir beliefs about culture, race, ethnicity, and language. As Watson suggests, our candidates may want to teach urban students, as long as they are not “too urban” and for all practical purposes act like white, middle class students. If we ask candidates to disassembletheirbeliefs about teaching, university faculty must also reflect on pedagogical practices in educator preparation courses. If we don’t want our candidates to lecture, then we have to reducing our own lecturing. We are engaged in several pilots designed to change what we model. Special educators and general educators are co-teaching methods courses. Some of these are embedded in public schools where their candidates are completing accompanying field experiences. We are pairing up special education and general education candidates in field experiences. University-based and school-based faculty members are engaging candidates in conversations about planning, management, instruction, and assessment in theseembedded courses.We work with our partner schools as collaborators in transforming the education of their students.

Grossman and associates (2009) identify a third practice in professional preparation, approximations of practice.As candidates engage in practices that increase in their proximity to real practice, two additional facets of Milner’s (2011) cultural repertoires of diversity come into play.In practice, candidates may fall back into what they experienced, demonstrating what Milner describes as “cultural conflicts.” Teaching as they were taught, candidates try to “control” the classroom, rather than engaging with students. Students who do not learn what the candidate has “taught” are perceived to be“poorly prepared,” “misbehaving,” or “not ready,” to learn the content. Candidates may also demonstrate deficit conceptions, viewing their students as lacking experiences, and emphasizing remediation rather than focusing on the contribution of each student’s culture,the “funds of knowledge,”linguistic and cultural resources that students bring to the classroom(Moll, Amanti, Neff& González, 1992). Students’ funds of knowledge serve as a bridge from home and community to school (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). Fitts (2009) found that while school-based discourse, structures, texts, ways of knowing, and communicating were consistently privileged, that students’ funds of knowledge have potential for academic learning. However, these funds of knowledge are often overlooked in schools. In order to support our candidates’ approximations of practice and help them recognize and use students’ unique funds of knowledge, university faculty membershave to be in the schools in which they are completing field and clinical experiences.

Our commitment is to prepare candidates to address diversity in the classroom in ways that reduce educational inequities (Gorski, 2009). Though much of the focus of this discussion has been cultural and racial, our commitment is to support students in teaching all students, with all indeed meaning all. Our goal is that out candidates recognize that there is an opportunity gap for many students rather than an achievement gap (Milner, 2010). The teacher’s many roles include (a) advocating equity so that each student has the opportunity to fully achieve regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic language, ability or disability; (b) fighting for the rights of disenfranchised students and families, pushing for high expectations for all students; and (c) committing to an equitable learning environment, moving beyond “celebrating diversity” to reducing bias toward groups of students and supporting social justice (Gorski, 2010).

We recognize, as Darling-Hammond (2002) states, thatsocial justice and teaching are inseparable. Our beliefs are consistent and support NCTEs (2010) resolution on social justice and education, which indicates that educators should:

• support efforts by educators to teach about social injustice and discrimination in all its forms with regard to differences in race, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender expression, age, appearance, ability, national origin, language, spiritual belief, sexual orientation, socioeconomic circumstance, and environment;
• acknowledge the vital role that teacher education programs play in preparing teachers to enact and value a pedagogy that is socially just;
• advocate for equitable schooling practices that reinforce student dignity and success; andoppose policies that reinforce inequitable learning opportunities or outcomes for students .

Ways of knowing. Feiman-Nemser (1991) describes ways of knowing as an “academic orientation.” Consistent with her recommendation, we are committed to maintaining and further developing coordinated opportunities for our candidates to gain both disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge. As we moved to semesters, we were required to reflect on what our candidates needed in addition to content knowledge to increase positive student outcomes. This includes pedagogical content knowledge, which Feiman-Nemser describes as useful ways to conceptualize and represent commonly taught topics and an understanding of why learning those topics is difficult or easy for students of different ages and backgrounds