Read e-book A New Vision for Teaching and Leading

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online A New Vision for Teaching and Leading file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with A New Vision for Teaching and Leading book. Happy reading A New Vision for Teaching and Leading Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF A New Vision for Teaching and Leading at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF A New Vision for Teaching and Leading Pocket Guide.
taken on a multi-year initiative, New Vision for. Education, to New Vision for Education 2. To thrive in South Korea and Japan are among the top performers​.
Table of contents

• Instructional Leadership in Action
• Related News and Views
• A New Vision for Teaching Tools | Society for Cultural Anthropology

Qty : Please note there is a week delivery period for this title. Former Secretary of State for Education Kenneth Baker claims that secondary education has become a five-year programme with a single, narrow aim: to prepare pupils for high-stakes GCSE exams at From , all young people will be legally required to stay in education or training until they are Kenneth Baker sees this as a historic opportunity to re-think the aims and structure of English education.

He argues that the National Curriculum should extend only to the age of 14 and that there should be four distinct pathways from to take account of young people's emerging interests talents and ambitions: Liberal Arts; Technical; Sports and Creative Arts; and Career. All pathways will provide a broad education, but each will have a distinctive character matched to the talents and ambitions of individual students. In - A New Vision for Secondary Education , Kenneth Baker builds a compelling case for reform, with contributions from a range of educationalists who draw on the history of English education, practice elsewhere in the world, and their experiences.

An essential read for anyone interested in the future of secondary education. Preface Kenneth Baker 1. Transforming Education, Kenneth Baker 2. The Pathways, Kenneth Baker 4. The Qualifications, Mike Tomlinson 5. Making Education a Reality, Alan Smithers 6. Schwartz 7. He would like primary school to end at nine, followed by middle school to the age of 14, at which point the national curriculum would end and every pupil would choose one of four "pathways". This is not a sentence I would have imagined myself writing back at the height of Thatcherism, when Baker was most lefty teenagers' idea of the devil, but I think he has probably come up with an excellent plan Perhaps even more importantly, his proposals attempt to remedy the impending anomaly of our preoccupation with exams at 16, which will make very little sense once the school-leaving age goes up to 18 in Given the new leaving age of 18, Baker's ideas make a great deal of sense.

The case is made for practical, technical and vocational options to be available to young people of all abilities. Read it and engage in the debate. It is full of serious, sensible proposals for ways of making education better for everyone. After half a century of obsessive tinkering with our schools, I'm convinced that it's time for the last, best reform… Kenneth Baker and his allies show how it could work brilliantly for everyone. As participation in education beyond compulsory schooling has increased, our existing system of assessments has become unfit for purpose, with examinations at 16 in particular being an increasingly irrelevant punctuation mark in young people's education.

In addition to these state-specific functions, states must identify and respond to low capacity and performance at the district level. While it is important that states pay attention to all district practices for teaching and learning, ESSA speaks to some very specific district-level capacities that states must monitor.

1. Sleep Seekers.
2. ESSA’s requirements for school accountability systems!
3. Teachers As Scholars.
4. SCA Website;
5. Academies online resource.

In particular, these include the capacity of districts to implement evidence-based reforms in schools identified as low performing, as well as their capacity to monitor the distribution of resources when districts have a preponderance of these schools within their districts. In many ways, district-level processes can have the greatest impact on student outputs and outcomes.

For example, among all in-school factors, research has shown teachers to have the greatest impact on student achievement. Therefore, accountability systems should measure district-level outputs such as equitable distribution of effective teachers and mastery of instructional practice. In addition, since decisions about the distribution of resources to schools occurs primarily, though not entirely, at the district level, accountability systems should include measures of district-level resource distribution and how well-aligned resources are to student needs.

Districts must also monitor school-level capacity to carry out school functions. Although this monitoring should be broad in scope when capturing matters of teaching and learning, districts must pay special attention to schools identified as low performing to ensure that they carry out implementation of school improvement efforts effectively.

Additionally, districts may also want to closely monitor schools not identified for improvement but whose performance indicates that the school is struggling. Paying sufficient attention to schools that are doing well overall is another important function of districts and part of the system of continuous improvement. Understanding the strategies for continuous improvement of schools not identified for improvement is a less understood topic; as a result, CAP is considering developing a resource that describes state and district approaches to supporting these schools.

Many of the conditions governing school decision-making are beyond the control of school teachers and leaders. However, there are critical areas in which principals and teachers have significant authority to make important changes that positively affect students. For example, there is significant evidence demonstrating that both lowering the rate of expulsion among students of color and establishing a culture of high expectations signaling that all children can and should excel often lead to higher student achievement and graduation rates.

Related News and Views

Unlike districts or states, schools are best positioned to establish a positive, inclusive, safe, and nurturing culture and climate. How well school leaders assess personnel and student needs around safety, inclusivity, and high expectations is an important set of metrics to include in an accountability system. Figure 3 shows a flow chart of inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes in an accountability system. If both inputs and the processes through which they are used are high quality, states can expect to see positive student outcomes.

Without high-quality inputs and processes, any positive short- and long-term outcomes will happen sporadically and in spite of the accountability system—not because of it. Including specific metrics that assess the inputs and outputs of state, district, and school actions is critical to understanding the reasons for short- and long-term outcomes.

As states consider how to design their processes, they should keep the following considerations in mind. College and career readiness is one desired outcome of the K education system. Defining college and career readiness with a level of specificity makes it easier to identify which inputs and processes at the state, district, and school levels contribute to achieving this goal. The state should also consider articulating additional goals for the system, such as preparing graduates to be effective participants in our democratic government.

In addition, an explicit and agreed-upon definition of college and career readiness is a powerful tool to create cohesion not just within the K education system but also between the other systems that support long-term student success. For example, a state definition of college and career readiness also makes it easier for the state K system to engage with the labor and higher education systems to create a more efficient network of college and career pathways. In addition to student outcomes, there may be other critical goals for a school accountability system to achieve, such as fair and effective distribution of inputs.

States could also set goals for the delivery and distribution of resources to districts and schools. Clearly stating the goals for the system and aligning accountability metrics to those goals creates an important north star for which all actors within the system should aim. Tracking inputs and processes can provide states with essential contextual information. This information can give states critical intelligence that can help them anticipate or diagnose problems and facilitate problem-solving. States may wish to understand how well-aligned inputs are to student needs and how inputs are used by districts and schools to address student needs.

This type of data can also be critical to collect and review at the district and school levels. However, in order for educators and policymakers to be candid about how well a system of inputs and processes is working, states ought to think carefully about what, if any, stakes are attached to the results. How that information is acted upon should foster a spirit of continuous improvement.

Low-quality inputs will likely result in low-quality outcomes. Therefore, states ought to spend time defining what high-quality inputs look like. For example, states may define a high-quality data system as one that tracks K, postsecondary, and workforce outcomes for all students. Likewise, low-quality processes will likely lead to low-quality outcomes.

It may be useful for states to describe the elements, listed below, of a high-quality process according to the literature on general process design: Developing this level of clarity ought to be a collaborative effort among states, districts, and schools, as the latter two can provide critical local, contextual information not readily available to states about the types of inputs and processes that meet local needs. When inputs or processes fail to meet standards of high quality, states, districts, and schools can course correct.

Each of these considerations applies equally to the horizontal and vertical relationships between the inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes. Another factor critical in the design of an accountability system is how state-level indicators identify schools most needing support, as well as drive behavior at the district and school levels.

Regular measurement and reporting keeps schools and districts focused on what actions to take to improve performance. As described in the overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act, classifying school performance carries specific and enhanced consequences for schools identified as low performing. These schools must implement evidence-based interventions and must exit low-performing status within state-set timelines. Given this reality, states should take special care when selecting indicators that they will use to classify schools. ESSA requires indicators to be valid—or measure what they purport to measure; reliable—measure a specific result consistently over time; and comparable—measure the same element of performance across different schools.

When selecting indicators to classify schools into categories, states should also examine three additional characteristics for each indicator: differentiation between schools, relationship to key student outcomes, and ability to drive behavior. Based on these characteristics, states can then determine the most appropriate way to use them in the system—for example, in classification of schools, public reporting, or needs assessment and improvement planning—as well as the appropriate level—state, district, or school—at which to use them.

States could consider indicators that do not meet these three characteristics or that are otherwise not technically valid, reliable, and comparable across schools for other purposes in their accountability system but should not use them to classify schools. Generally, indicators used to classify schools for intervention purposes should distinguish performance between schools. As a result, states should analyze whether similar types of indicators differentiate more effectively than others.

For example, if schools cluster around a value or range of values on a particular indicator, this indicator may not provide useful information to distinguish school performance. Meaningful differentiation would likely show performance across a range of values, showing performance at the bottom, middle, and top of the performance spectrum. Historically, indicators including academic proficiency rates and graduation rates have widely varying performance from school to school, while indicators such as attendance rates typically have the same performance across all schools.

In contrast, looking at chronic absenteeism would likely identify outliers in terms of performance. Also, while states are required to measure academic proficiency indicators—which are static, point-in-time indicators within their school classification systems—there may be an opportunity to measure specific aspects of proficiency data, such as growth or scale scores, which are further described below.

There are three different ways to report scores on standardized tests. The first is through a raw score, which is a sum total of points based on correct answers. The second is through a percentage-correct score.

• About the Group.
• Butterfly of Hunter;
• Systematic Change in Education Begins with a New Vision for Professional Development.

The third is a scale score. Scale scores transform raw scores into a different set of values and are necessary because states often develop different editions of the same standardized test. Different test editions help prevent cheating but can make comparing scores challenging. Scaled scores ensure that scores on different editions of the same test mean the same thing and can be compared.

While differentiating between school performance is important, indicators that do not differentiate well might still be useful for school classification if they send critical signals about what is important and what schools should focus on. For example, nearly every school has high attendance rates, so this indicator does not differentiate among school performance. However, states may still be interested in attendance data and may wish to measure rates of chronic absenteeism, or the number of students who miss 10 or more days of school in a year.

Schools would perform well on this measure if they reduce rates of chronic absenteeism, and states could focus their attention on schools not reducing these rates. For indicators used to inform decision-making at the district or school level, and not used to classify schools at the state level, differentiation of schools is less important.

What matters more to districts and schools is that teachers and school leaders can act on the data. Actionable data may not meet the technical standards required by ESSA but are useful in informing practice. Examples of this type of data include measures of social and emotional learning, or SEL, which are the skills and abilities that provide a foundation for lifelong learning and development. These are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making.

Time Matters: Teacher Collaboration for Learning and Leading

For example, states should include indicators that have a strong correlation with particular outcomes—including proficiency or graduation rates—but including too many of these can be redundant. On the other hand, another indicator might be so weakly correlated that it may have little or no relationship to critical student outcomes. As a result, states would not want schools to focus on this indicator. Ideally, indicators used for classification purposes would have a moderate to strong relationship with key student outcome measures, particularly long-term outcome measures such as college completion rates.

However, some indicators have weaker relationships with long-term outcomes but still provide useful information at the district and school levels that local educators can act upon. Indicators are particularly actionable when they can inform real-time decision-making for district or school resource allocation or another aspect of educational practice.