Case+3+-+TEAC+and+San+Francisco,+Carlsbad,+&+Sitka



Policy Document:

Artifacts:

Class Findings: 1.3 in the TEAC document: Teachers have an effective & caring way//act in a knowledgeable way
 * Does ‘caring’ mean the same thing to everybody? Who gets to define ‘caring’?
 * The definition of ‘knowledge’ is guided by the assumptions in 1.1 and 1.2
 * Without a clear definition, almost anything from the artifact can fit the above…some members of the group were choosing anything that referenced taking students into account in some way.
 * Does context matter when taking these things into account?
 * Does TEAC have the space to define their terms?
 * TEAC presumes competency…
 * How do you measure caring? Can you establish what behaviors embody caring?
 * The way a teacher’s behavior is interpreted by students is beyond their control…
 * Could a teacher do all of the things on the checklist and actually not care?
 * This is hopelessly complex and impossible to design a metric to measure it.
 * Is it possible to focus on passing muster on a measurement tool and still be a bad teacher?

1.4 in the TEAC document: Learning how to learn (have acquired dispositions & skills of critical reflection)
 * Dispositions are acquirable…but this is a contentious point.
 * If someone has underlying values that run contrary to disposition, it will be difficult for them to acquire the disposition.
 * Difference between values & attitudes which impact dispositions

Concluding Thoughts/Recommendations
 * 1) For any metric that may be created to effectively measure dispositions, someone could ‘game the system’ and do what is necessary to appear caring, loving, etc.
 * 2) A checkbox system seems extremely limiting but without such a system it is too subjective.
 * 3) Some dispositions can be observed, so that method of measurement can work.
 * 4) Counter-example of the California Highway Patrol: extensive, intense screening process which include psychological testing, ethics/morality screening, etc. Even then, they have people that get through this process that do not align with the dispositions they would desire.
 * 5) This is so problematic that it, perhaps, has to be left up to the specific contexts. Definition & measurement is maybe best left to the local.
 * 6) In a perfect world, perhaps there could be dedicated teachers/administrators that could oversee the observation process and have the ability to do multiple observations for each teacher.

Summary The group decided that the way TEAC frames their references to dispositions leaves much to the imaginations of those reading and interpreting the document. This subjectivity felt problematic in the sense that, with little direction and no clear definitions provided, the assessment of dispositions by districts is uneven. Though the districts examined in this case study all reference dispositions in some form or fashion, their various approaches are all different. While it is clear that the districts are interested in assessing their teachers' dispositions, it is not clear what sort of relationship exists between district measures and statements by national professional organizations. The group decided that it would be helpful to have more explicit definitions of dispositions provided but conceded that developing a system that was extremely structured would be too limiting. As many dispositions are observable, we concluded that this method of measurement holds the most promise for assessing dispositions in teachers. However, we felt that it is necessary to conduct multiple observations in order to collect enough data. Ideally, there would be some system of observation that allowed a teacher on special assignment or an administrator to get an adequate view of the teacher over time and in a variety of instructional settings.

Considering how this information impacts teacher education was somewhat confounding. With the lack of clarity in the TEAC document coupled with the inconsistency among school districts, there is no clear message that teacher educators can take into the classroom. It is clear that national organizations and school districts alike expect that teachers will be certain 'kinds' of people. And though this provides little in terms of actionable curriculum for TE programs, it does provide fodder for inquiry and conversation with preservice teachers.