Dr. Fetterman has developed the most comprehensive and feasible (research-based) professional development strategy available. He has taught at the junior and senior high school levels, established vocational/technical education curriculums in a juvenile justice facility, and served as an instructor of Mechanical Engineering Technologies at several community colleges. In addition to these experiences, the author of works which are relevant to educational reform, teacher education and educational administration has served as an instructor (i.e. Field-based Teacher Educator) and faculty consultant at Temple University in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. His works are a must read for anyone that is passionate about initiating systemic educational reform in the United States and abroad. Learn more @ http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman
Category Archives: School Reform Initiatives & Professional Development Strategies
About Kenneth Fetterman Ed.D. Author of A Definitive White Paper: Systemic Educational Reform (The Recommended Course of Action for Practitioners of Teaching and Learning)
A Definitive White Paper: Systemic Educational Reform (The Recommended Course of Action for Practitioners of Teaching and Learning)
This (free) manuscript addresses the need to bring about more effective teacher training and propagate innovative schools in the United States (and abroad). It is intended to serve as a policy statement and position paper which will enable political forces to rally behind a comprehensive strategy that will rectify the shortcomings of our educational system. The constructs described may also be utilized by training and development professionals employed by corporations, governmental agencies, and social service providers to advance educational initiatives in these contexts.
A report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) authenticates the reality of “massive teacher shortages … in sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab States and South Asia …” that may impede goals “to provide every child” in these regions “with a good quality primary education”…. Even in countries such as China, Brazil and India which will need “fewer teachers” … because of “declining school age populations”, UNESCO recognizes the potential to improve education quality by investing more resources to train teachers and improve working conditions in target regions (UNESCO, Institute for Statistics, 2006, p.3). UNESCO identifies only 33 of the 194 sovereign nations that are recognized by the U.S. State Department. Their report lists 32 countries outside of the U.S. with a current or expected teaching force that exceeds 50,000 teachers (Teachers and Educational Quality: Monitoring Global Needs for 2015, UNESCO, Institute for Statistics, 2006, p.44). Excluding primary educators in the United States, the UNESCO study reveals a need for more than six million teachers in these (32) nations. Imagine the potential numbers of secondary practitioners that must be trained across the globe in the coming decades (as many nations have yet to systematize these levels of formal schooling). Honestly, given the need for teacher training at all levels in the U.S. and remaining 160 or more nations not considered by UNESCO; the potential to sustain political, economic, and social development initiatives in target regions via “our” straightforward “research-based professional development tutorials” is pragmatic.
The content of this publication includes: information regarding the problems which must be addressed to reform our educational system, the change parameters which are relevant, the reflection and instructional design components (i.e. tutorials) that are so essential to perpetuate innovation in our schools, and concluding remarks that describe the promise of fulfilling goals outlined in the Every Student Succeeds Act. For more information regarding the subject matter described and/or the products and services that shall be provided to …, please visit the link below to read the entire (free) manuscript @
Recent reactions to “Common Core” principles indicate that many parents, teachers, and visionary scholars are not in support of these mandates. I have no desire to waste my time critic…
Well, our discussion regarding this topic is dependent upon your subject matter -AND- the nature of the needs being considered! Given the topic (i.e. Adapting … to Accommodate … Special…
Want to learn how to teach “more effectively”–Develop Lesson Plans– and Initiate (organize) Student-centered Learning?
Interested in Educational Reform?
You “ought to” visit/follow my blog @ http://www.kennethfetterman.wordpress.com
Also, sample/purchase “Professional Development” resources @ http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman
Promising legislation (The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015–ESSA) brings much anticipation that our educational system(s) will improve “dramatically”. I am pleased that states have been given more autonomy in deciding the parameters (i.e. framework) for initiating educational reforms in our classrooms, school districts and (hopefully) university teacher-preparation programs. A word of caution: “We” must have accountability measures in place or “failure is certain”!
We need a comprehensive framework which will permit all stakeholders to develop reform measures that align with “our” collective vision for initiating change. Without a collective vision, I fear that yet another round of piecemeal (let’s try this) reform strategies will burden hardworking practitioners. “Mandates” are ineffective regardless of their origin (i.e. Federal or State). Therefore, we must initiate school reforms via an interconnected (Democratic) framework of “local” and “regional” advisory (i.e. steering) committees that can inform policy makers employed by the Department of Education in each state. Learn more about this concept; sample/purchase: “Becoming A Reflective Practitioner” @ http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/312599
Furthermore, initiating a greater variety of student-centered learning while ensuring that students acquire the competencies required to “succeed” in a 21st century village compels stakeholders to move beyond the use of standardized assessments as the sole measure of accountability for student learning. In addition to employing “traditional” assessment devices to verify the acquisition of fundamental competencies, practitioners and policy advocates must give adequate consideration to evaluating higher-order thought processes via portfolio assessments. Prior to implementing such reforms, “we” must examine “our” established curriculum to bring about a “collective vision” regarding how each component within the curriculum ought to be implemented.
The evaluation process is relatively simple! Is the nature of this curriculum (regardless of the subject matter) technical or non-technical? When the curriculum is technical in nature; teacher-centered instructional paradigms ought to be initiated. However, non-technical curriculums are conducive to the implementation of student-centered learning. Evaluation (i.e. accountability) mechanisms including the standardized measures and/or projects that were employed to verify specific competencies may be included in the portfolio of each student. The variety of materials that may be exhibited within the unique portfolio that is created by each individual can only be imagined by those with vision. Learn more about initiating student-centered and teacher-centered curriculum; sample/purchase: “The Dichotomy of Instructional Design” @ http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/314098
Much work has yet to be accomplished! Practitioners must be nurtured in communities where action research is being conducted to perpetuate innovations in teaching and learning. They must be provided with opportunities to examine their use of instructional practices and they must be continuously provoked to induce philosophical perspectives that result in innovative outcomes. The manuscripts suggested above will provide practitioners with the means to bring about the promise that our recent legislation offers. Cease the Day!
While quantitative measures may be applied to assess competency-based outcomes via “standardized” instrumentation (i.e. testing, performance checklists, etc.); qualitative outcomes (which vary among individuals) can only be assessed via documentation mechanisms that are indicative of the unique characteristics (and higher-order thinking abilities) exhibited by each pupil. Higher-order reasoning occurs when humans engage in learning experiences that compel them to conduct research, complete “personal” works, communicate via written and oral presentations, and evaluate the works of their peers. Thus, practitioners (and society) must move beyond our reliance upon standardized assessments as the primary means of evaluating what (and how) students are learning. Accordingly, portfolio assessments ought to be employed to exhibit the higher-order outcomes (i.e. products and processes) that are acquired by practitioners and their students.
The following criteria may be applied when assessing the specified requirements for (your/student) portfolios:
- Evidence of Reflective Analysis (Excellent; Average; Needs Improvement).
- Professional Appearance (Excellent; Average; Needs Improvement).
- Adherence to Content Requirements (Excellent; Average; Needs Improvement).
Criteria of Excellent: (Maximum points available may be awarded)
- A well organized and useable portfolio;
- Work is neat, indicative of mindful thinking, and well written;
- Creativity and unique perspectives/constructs are exhibited.
Criteria of Average: (Maximum points will not exceed 90 percent of the potential)
- A well organized and useable portfolio;
- Work is neat, indicative of mindful thinking, and well written;
- Creativity is kept to a minimum and examples (samples) address only the minimum requirement(s) associated with each section (i.e. component) exhibited in the portfolio.
Criteria of Needs Improvement: (Maximum points will not exceed 80 percent of the potential)
- Portfolio contains examples of work but lacks adequate organizational structure, it requires additional effort to become useable (i.e. functional);
- The documentation (i.e. examples) included in the portfolio appears inconsistent and/or not aligned with the requirements specified;
- The portfolio shows that the practitioner (or student) has demonstrated little creativity and mindfulness when considering the overall appearance of the compilation.
Portfolio Requirements: (Additional components may be determined by participants)
- Title Page;
- Table of Contents;
- Presentation of Materials (via distinct sections with a description of contents that follow);
- Reflective Analysis (i.e. descriptive information including the significance of each component);
- Concluding Remarks (i.e. identify at least 3 components that are most significant);
- An Appendix Section (containing selected articles and/or relevant information).
Learn more about “The Dichotomy of Instructional Design” @ http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman