WARNING, this is a rabbit hole we may not get out of in this blog entry.
Regularly. Most of the time. Infrequent. Sometimes. Consistently. As Insight continues to work across different districts, time and time again educators and practitioners have expressed caution and pause about using these words in teaching and learning frameworks. As the world of schooling continues to trend towards reaching agreements and sound definitions about effectiveness, our work has uncovered a considerable amount of angst about the practice of teaching becoming victimm to subjectivity.
How does one measure effectiveness? And, is there a standard tipping point that can shift a behavior or action from ‘sometimes’ to ‘consistently’? When this question is the lever that can move a rating from ‘Not effective’ to 'meets expectations', there can be lack of trust in an observer’s ability to rate teaching in a way that is both fair and just to the practitioner.
Accountability is a dual-edged sword. The age of accountability has inflicted pain and cut through controversial issues like tenure and compensation. But, accountability has also given us an opportunity to sharpen our focus on what good teaching looks like. Teaching is not a technical exercise that follows a ‘checklist’. Good teaching is a practice that is grounded in sound research and is demonstrated by patterns that are intentional, purposeful, and disciplined.
Intentional. Purposeful. Disciplined. Grounded. These descriptors of powerful practice should be the goal of every teacher looking to achieve mastery in their classrooms. It is highly likely that one will progress from 'sometimes' to 'regular' to 'consistent' in order to get to a disciplined, deep practice that leads to student achievement. Given that, these proposed words still come with a bit of subjectivity; however, when they lead to strong practice - its less questionable. We're still in the rabbit hole but, maybe, a little less deep.
