The WERA Educational Journal Contents

The WERA Educational Journal
Volume 6, Number 2
October, 2014
Contents
About this Issue:............................................................................................................................... 2
Call for Papers for the WERA Educational Journal ................................................................... 2
Teacher Perceptions of the Washington State Teacher Evaluation System ............................... 3
by Jessica L. Beaver and Brian F. French
What I Read This Summer: Book Reviews in Brief .................................................................. 12
by Andrea Meld
How Does a Small Private University on the Yakama Sovereign Indian Nation Implement
Online Education? ..................................................................................................................... 15
by Charles E. Wheaton
Totally Online Public Schools: Experience and Insights of a Teacher ..................................... 22
by Thomas E. Hancock
Salish School of Spokane: A Model for Saving and Revitalizing Endangered Languages ..... 29
by Dorothy E. Munson, LaRae Wiley, and Christopher Parkin
About this Issue:
Along with our regular book review feature, this issue of WEJ contains four additional articles. As noted
in the lead article, Washington is among a large number of states implementing a new teacher evaluation
system. New research by Jessica Beaver and Brian French suggests that policymakers need to work closely
in partnership with teachers, administrators, and union officials for such evaluation systems to be successful
and yield accurate decisions about individuals. For example, teacher perceptions and beliefs about
evaluation systems can inform both policy and practice of teacher evaluation implementation.
Two articles in this issue address online learning in Washington. One looks at the life of a K-12, online
teacher who had previously served as an administrator in a brick and mortar school, as well as working as a
university professor. Learn why he considers online teaching to be the best job of his career thus far. The
second article focuses on implementing online programs at a small university. The growing area of online
learning is not just for the large, well-funded universities—it's a good fit for smaller institutions.
Finally, if you are interested in indigenous cultures, language immersion programs, or endangered
languages, the article on the Salish School of Spokane may interest you. It contains an Appendix with
additional resources and an expanded reference list that will be of interest, as well.
Call for Papers for the WERA Educational Journal (WEJ)
We are currently seeking papers and other submissions for the 2015 issues of the WERA Educational
Journal. The WEJ is a collection of peer-reviewed academic papers, professional reports, research reviews,
book reviews, essays, and commentaries of general significance and interest to the Northwest education
research and practitioner community. The WEJ is issued twice a year (Fall and Spring). Papers for the
Spring 2015 issue are due by January 10 and papers for the Fall 2015 are due July 1.
Topics in the WEJ cover a wide range of areas of educational research and related disciplines. These
include but are not limited to issues related to





early childhood education
curriculum and instruction
state and national standards
professional development
special populations (e.g., gifted, ELLs,
students with disabilities)
 assessment results covering various
content areas







early warning indicators
social and emotional issues
school and district effectiveness
teacher and principal evaluation
education finance and policy
educational technology
educational leadership
The papers should be of interest to a wide range of educators in the Northwest. Condensed versions of
dissertations and theses that are reader-friendly are encouraged.
For more information about the WEJ and its submissions, see the Submission Guidelines posted on the
WERA website at http://www.wera-web.org/links/Journal/WEJpubguidelines2011.pdf. If you have
questions about the process or about possible submissions, please email Pete Bylsma, the WEJ co-editor,
at [email protected]
2
Teacher Perceptions of the Washington State Teacher Evaluation System
by Jessica L. Beaver and Brian F. French
In an attempt to increase teacher effectiveness, government initiatives have encouraged states to create and
implement new teacher evaluation systems. However, there is a lack of empirical investigations devoted to
understanding teachers’ perspectives of the new systems. Washington State is implementing an evaluation
system after a pilot year which provides an opportunity to examine teacher perceptions of the system. This
study aimed to (a) examine teachers’ level of agreement and self-efficacy to the evaluation criteria, (b)
determine the consistency of agreement and self-efficacy factors to the implemented evaluation frameworks,
and (c) examine if teachers differ on self-efficacy and agreement based on certain teacher level
characteristics (e.g., pilot year participation, training).
Introduction: Teacher Perceptions of the Washington State Teacher Evaluation System
United States government initiatives such as the Race to the Top (RTT) program and the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) are examples of policy changes that target teacher quality, student
achievement, and teacher evaluations (Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 2014). The drive behind many
of the policies is to ensure there are quality teachers working with students and, in turn, students are high
achieving and developing appropriately. The NCLB Act, for example, requires teachers to be certified in
the state they teach, be competent in the core area they teach, and have a Bachelor’s degree (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). However, meeting these standards does not guarantee that quality teachers
populate the classrooms or that the teachers are effective at assisting students in the learning process
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 2004). Nevertheless, the RTT initiative was appropriated approximately $5.05 billion
to encourage states to implement teacher evaluations in the process of increasing teacher effectiveness.
To receive funding from the RTT initiative, many states are creating and implementing new teacher
evaluation systems. Teacher evaluations are intended to indicate how well teachers and students perform
within schools, districts, and communities. Teachers may be evaluated on their qualifications (e.g.,
certifications), classroom instructional design (e.g., lesson plans, student interactions), classroom
environment, emotional support, and / or students’ academic achievement (e.g., growth over the year).
These evaluations are then tied to state and federal funding for school resources (Hill & Herlihy, 2011).
Teachers may be concerned with evaluations because their employment, in part, depends on their
effectiveness judged by the evaluation. However, little is known about the extent to which teachers (a) are
involved in the evaluation system, (b) agree with the system, (c) are aware of the expectations to which they
are held, and (d) are efficient and effective in the tasks on which they are evaluated. There simply is a lack
of empirical investigations with sufficient attention devoted to understanding the teachers perceptive of
these new systems and policies.
To address these teacher-level perspectives, teachers can provide their direct responses about evaluation
systems. The teachers’ perspective is essential, as it can provide valuable information from teachers who
are directly involved with increasing student achievement (Lee, 2011), and can explicate the intricacies
involved with teaching and learning and associated teacher characteristics. An important characteristic and
a focus in this study is teacher self-efficacy. We know, for example, that there is a positive relationship
between teacher behaviors (completing tasks) and teacher self-efficacy, the belief about one’s ability to
teach (e.g., Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Pajares, 1996). Generally, teacher self-efficacy is high when a teacher
has had training, practice, feedback, and mentoring (i.e., sources of efficacy) and knows how appropriate
3
teacher behaviors are manifested in the classroom. From these sources, teachers gain important information
that influences their competency beliefs, but also influences their evaluation of the tasks to be completed
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Moreover, better trained teachers with high levels of teacher
self-efficacy are consistently related to several positive teacher work (e.g., working harder, higher
satisfaction) and student success outcomes (Klassen &Chiu; Pajares).
Data from the teachers’ perspective can inform the extent to which evaluation criteria and associated
characteristics are practical in evaluating teacher effectiveness. Teachers, for example, should have the
opportunity to indicate how well they believe they can complete certain criteria tasks and if they agree with
evaluation criteria on which their effectiveness is evaluated. We are specifically interested in how these
perspectives differ across teacher training on the evaluation criteria and length of exposure to the criteria.
Washington State (WA) is implementing a new teacher evaluation system in the 2013-2014 school year
after a pilot year in the 2012-2013 school year. This provides an opportunity to assess teacher perceptions
of the system. Teacher performance is evaluated on eight criteria born from three frameworks (e.g.,
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, OSPI, 2012), which provide a common language and vision of
effective teaching shared by school personnel (OSPI). Pilot year data indicated approximately 90% of
teachers agreed with the district selected framework. However, only 28% understood the framework, and
only 16% thought the system would hold teachers accountable for their performance (Brown-Sims et al.,
2013). Given these discrepancies and a lack of information about teacher’s agreement and self-efficacy
concerning evaluation criteria, the purposes of this study were to (a) examine the level of agreement and
self-efficacy teachers have for the evaluation criteria, (b) determine the consistency of agreement and selfefficacy factors to the evaluation frameworks, and (c) examine if teachers differ on self-efficacy and
agreement with respect to certain characteristics (e.g., pilot year participation, training on the criteria).
Beyond descriptive information, we employ factor analysis and latent mean group comparisons on key
demographic variables to assess the extent to which teachers do differ on agreement and self-efficacy based
on training on the framework, pilot participation, and agreement with the district selected frameworks.
Method
Participants
A web-based survey was administered to a representative sample of WA elementary teachers. The survey
link was sent to 5,000 randomly sampled elementary teachers via email. Of that 5,000, 18.3% of cases were
undeliverable emails leaving 81.7% of teachers available for contact. Of this, 19.6% responded to the
survey and 82.7% of those responses were complete cases used for analyses. Completely missing cases
were deleted as were cases missing demographic information as there was not enough information to place
the teacher in comparison categories. The sample demographics closely matched elementary teacher
demographics across WA, as seen in Table 1.
Instrument
We developed a measure based on the three WA evaluation frameworks (Danielson’s Framework for
Teaching, Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model, and CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric) and the eight
teaching criteria [Expectations (12 items), Instruction (14 items), Differentiation (5 items), Content
Knowledge (4 items), Learning Environment (7 items), Assessment (4 items), Families and Communities (2
items), and Professional Practice (5 items)]. Questions assessed each criterion across frameworks. Fiftythree agreement questions asked teachers about their level of agreement with the importance of the
components to overall teacher effectiveness. Another 53 parallel teacher self-efficacy questions asked about
4
teachers’ beliefs to perform criteria tasks. Table 2 contains an example. Agreement items were rated on a
Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree and self-efficacy items were rated on
a scale from 1 = not at all well to 7 = very well, respectively. Basic demographic data were also collected.
Table 1. Sample and State Demographic Percentage Comparisons
Demographic
Gender
Race/ethnicity
Average years of
teaching experience
Master’s degree
Identifier
Male
Female
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
Asian
Black/ African American
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander
White/ Caucasian
Two or more races
Yes
No
Sample %
13.8%
86.3%
0.9%
2.0%
0.6%
2.7%
0.6%
90.0%
3.2%
WA Elementary
Teachers %
17.1%
82.9%
0.7%
2.4%
1.3%
3.8%
0.1%
88.4%
3.4%
17.0
12.6
72.3%
27.7%
67.0%
33.0%
Table 2. Example of a Survey Item by Criteria
Evaluation
Criteria
Families and
Communities
Agreement Item
Parallel Self-efficacy Item
Thinking about your classroom
work, to what extent do you agree
that the following tasks are
important to being a quality teacher:
Communicating regularly with
students’ families and caregivers?
Thinking about your work in the classroom,
how well do you believe you can:
Communicate regularly with students’
families and caregivers?
Procedure
The survey was completed with a six-week time frame using a three email contact strategy survey
methodology (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). As an incentive participants were offered the chance to
enter to receive 1 of 12 $25 gift cards. The initial email included a link to the survey to allow participants to
respond immediately (Dillman, et al., 2009). Email delivery failures and teacher responses were tracked.
Analyses
Frequencies of Agreement and Self-efficacy Ratings. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize
basic demographic information. Frequency counts were obtained across individual item responses to
examine the frequency of agreement with an item’s importance to overall teacher effectiveness and to
examine teacher’s self-efficacy to perform tasks based on the criteria.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Model Specification, and Fit. The factor structure of the two scales was
examined with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006) with
5
maximum likelihood estimation and item level covariance matrices. Data met normality assumptions. Four
models for agreement were tested including a one-factor model (i.e., Model 1; General Teaching Criteria), a
four-factor model inferred from the domain structures of the evaluation frameworks (i.e., Model 4; General
Teaching, Instruction, Learning Environment, Expectations factors), a two-factor model (i.e., Model 2;
General Teaching, Expectations) and a three-factor model (i.e., Model 3; General Teaching, Learning
Environment, Expectations). Models 1, 2, and 4 were tested for self-efficacy.
Model fit was evaluated using a combination of fit indices (Brown, 2006). The χ2 statistic and the
standardized root mean square residual index (SRMR) are used to assess absolute fit, with SRMR values <
0.08 suggesting good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The comparative fit index (CFI) was used to indicate
differences in fit between the null and target models using a criterion of CFI > 0.95 to indicate good fit.
Once model fit for both scales was established, latent mean group differences (e.g. Hancock, 2004) on three
independent variables of interest (e.g., pilot year participation, training on the frameworks, and agreeing
with the district selected framework) were examined. These independent variables were dichotomous so
that each comparison involved two groups. Successive constraints were placed on pattern coefficients and
intercepts across groups to allow for latent mean comparisons. Measurement invariance was assessed to
inform mean comparisons and judged by the chi-square difference test and the change in CFI (e.g., French
& Finch, 2006). However, we had no a priori hypothesis that the models would differ across groups. We
acknowledge that there is concern when intercepts lack invariance for latent mean testing, for example, as
this could reflect that groups differ in ability or a lack of measurement invariance.
Results
Frequencies of Agreement and Self-efficacy Ratings. The agreement item means ranged from 4.27 to
4.89 and the self-efficacy item means ranged from 5.64 to 6.65. Across all criteria, items were rated highly
on agreement and self-efficacy with most responses in the top two categories for agreement and top three
categories for self-efficacy. On most criteria, the item with the highest agreement and highest self-efficacy
ratings were parallel, with the exception of the Expectations and Professional Practice criteria.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The fit indices for all models appear in Table 3. For agreement, although
each of the models fit well based on fit criteria, Models 1, 2, and 3 all had significant chi-square values.
Thus, Model 4 had the best fit. Inter-factor correlations for the 4-factor model appear in Table 4 and
indicate related yet distinct factors.
For self-efficacy, Model 4, the four factor model, had the best fit. However, inter-factor correlations were
high (range 0.75 – 0.92, four above 0.80), indicating that factors were closely related and not distinct. Thus,
based on the high inter-factor correlations, difficulty in determining differences among factors both
empirically and in content based on item loadings, and previous work indicating unidimensionality based
on these items (Beaver, 2013), Model 1 was deemed best fit for self-efficacy. Internal consistency reliability
(coefficient alpha) was computed for the agreement (α = 0.96) scores and its factor scores: General
Teaching (α = 0.95), Instruction (α = 0.89), Learning Environment (α = 0.88), and Expectations (α = 0.95)
and for the self-efficacy scores (α = 0.97).
6
Table 3. Model Fit Indices for Agreement and Self-Efficacy Models
Model
χ2
df
p
SRMR
CFI
Agreement
Model 1
2,467.09
1,325
< 0.01
0.048
0.98
Model 2
1,765.05
1,324 < 0.01
0.039
0.99
Model 3
1,461.44
1,322
< 0.01
0.036
1.00
Model 4
1,298.87
1,319
0.65
0.034
1.00
Self-efficacy
Model 1
16,084.25
1,325
< 0.01
0.069
0.94
Model 2
15,190.58
1,324
< 0.01
0.067
0.94
Model 4
13,334.96
1,319
< 0.01
0.067
0.95
*Note: Model 1 is a one-factor model, Model 2 is a two-factor model, Model 3 is a three-factor model, and
Model 4 is a four-factor model.
Table 4. Inter-factor Correlations for Agreement Model 4
General
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
1.00
0.87
0.77
0.48
Inter-Factor Correlations
Instruction
Learning
Environment
1.00
0.70
0.39
1.00
0.53
Expectations
1.00
Latent Mean Comparisons. As seen in Table 5, fit of the factor models for agreement and self-efficacy,
respectively, in general form (i.e., no constraints) across groups was acceptable. The pattern coefficients
and intercepts were constrained equal across groups to examine measurement invariance of the factor model
before comparing means. For self-efficacy and agreement factor models across all group comparisons, there
was a statistically significant (p < .01) decline in model fit as judged by the change in chi-square when
pattern coefficients and intercepts were constrained equal between groups. However, the change in CFI was
only greater than .01 when intercepts were constrained, indicating a lack of invariance within the matrix of
the 53 item intercepts. Given that we had no a priori hypotheses about why these groups would differ in
terms of intercepts, we proceeded with mean difference testing knowing that the differences must be
interpreted with caution. Effect sizes (d , Cohen, 1988) for the mean comparisons were computed for
examining the magnitude of the differences in standard deviation units (Hancock, 2004), where values of
0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively. These guidelines were employed
in the absence of literature based values.
Pilot Participation Group Differences across Agreement and Self-Efficacy. Teachers who participated
in the evaluation pilot year had statistically significant higher means on the following factors: General
Teaching, (z = 21.14, p < 0.01, d = 1.64), Instruction, (z = 27.28, p < 0.01, d = 2.43), and Expectations, (z =
21.35, p < 0.01, d = 1.39) compared to teachers not participating in the pilot year. In contrast, the pilot year
group had a statistically significant lower mean on the Learning Environment factor, (z = -7.06, p < 0.01, d
= 0.13) compared to teachers not in the pilot year. However, this effect was small. Teachers in the pilot
group had higher levels of self-efficacy compared to the no pilot group (z = 21.43, p < 0.01, d = 2.18).
7
Table 5. Fit Indices of Groups across Agreement and Self-Efficacy for General Form
Groups
Agreement
Pilot/No Pilot
Training/No Training
Agree/ Not Agree with
Framework
Self-Efficacy
Pilot/No Pilot
Training/No Training
Agree / Not Agree with
Framework
df
χ2
p
SRMR
CFI
2,638
2,638
2,638
1,773.94
1,659.98
1,871.61
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.042
0.055
0.040
1.00
1.00
1.00
2,650
2,650
2,650
18,350.27
15,214.24
12,469.78
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.065
0.045
0.070
0.93
0.94
0.95
Training Group Differences across Agreement and Self-efficacy. Teachers who received training on the
evaluation frameworks had statistically significant higher means on the following factors: General
Teaching, (z = 14.40, p < 0.01, d = 2.21), Instruction, (z = 26.47, p < 0.01, d = 2.93), and Expectations, (z =
29.45, p < 0.01, d = 1.70) compared to teachers with no training. No significant difference was found on the
Learning Environment factor between groups, (z = 0.53, p > 0.01, d = 0.08). Teachers who received training
had higher levels of self-efficacy compared to those with no training, (z = 17.24, p < 0.01, d = 2.42).
Agreement with Framework Group Differences across Agreement and Self-efficacy. Teachers who
agreed with the framework chosen by their school district had statistically significant higher means on the
Instruction, (z = 11.50, p < 0.01, d = 2.21) and Expectations factors, (z = 9.78, p < 0.01, d = 1.07) compared
to teachers who did not agree with the selected framework. In contrast, teachers who agreed with the chosen
framework had statistically significant lower means on the General Teaching, (z = -4.00, p < 0.01, d = 4.05)
and Learning Environment factors, (z = -9.56, p < 0.01, d = 2.08), as well as self-efficacy (z = -26.87, p <
0.01, d = -12.10) compared to teachers who did not agree.
Discussion
Our results indicate that the majority of teachers have high levels of agreement to the importance of the
evaluation criteria and believe they can perform the criteria tasks well, providing evidence that teachers
support the evaluation tasks. Although the majority of elementary teachers indicated that they strongly
agree with the specific criteria, several teachers strongly disagreed specifically with the Expectations
criteria. A possible explanation to explore is if teachers see differences between what tasks are important to
overall teacher effectiveness (e.g., instructional practices) and what the expectations of them and their
students are within their classrooms.
Results also indicated that agreement items followed a 4-factor structure matching the theoretical structure
of the WA evaluation frameworks. Group comparisons revealed that the pilot group had higher levels of
agreement and self-efficacy across three of the four agreement factors and on the self-efficacy factor.
Therefore, exposure to the system in the pilot year may likely have influenced teacher perspectives of the
evaluation criteria. Additionally, those teachers who had exposure to the criteria from training also had
higher levels of agreement across three of the four agreement factors and on the self-efficacy factor
8
compared to their counterparts without training. Teachers with greater exposure to the system are more
familiar with what behaviors they are to perform and are more efficacious. These differences in teacher
self-efficacy could be critical as this construct is consistently related to important instructional variables and
student and teacher outcomes (e.g., Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Pajares, 1996).
1) In addition, teachers who agree with the framework in their district had higher levels of
agreement across two of the four agreement factors and had lower levels of self-efficacy to
complete tasks included in the evaluation. Thus, teachers who agree with the framework their
district selected may not feel efficacious to complete criteria tasks on which they are evaluated
even though they agree with the framework. This finding is in accord with pilot year data
indicating that the majority (90%) of teachers in WA agree with the district selected framework
yet less than 30% of teachers understand the framework or believe that it leads to accountability
in teaching (Brown-Sims et al., 2013). Our findings suggest more attention can be given to training
teachers and providing more experience with the evaluation system before or at the least during
full implementation. This may be a critical aspect of implementation as systems evolve over time.
An adjustment or extended phase-in period may allow teachers to understand and agree with the
system. In turn, this exposure may lead to higher levels of self-efficacy, which should result in
better performance of these actions (Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008).
Limitations
The first limitation to our conclusions is that differences between groups were examined in the presence of
a lack of measurement invariance. This calls into question the differences observed (Hancock, 2004).
Specifically, we lack certainty as to the extent these differences are due, in part, to measurement problems
at the item level. However, such issues may not influence mean comparisons (e.g., Park & French, 2013).
That said, future work should examine this measurement issue closely.
A second limitation was that the sample consisted only of elementary teachers. Thus, generalizing the
results to secondary education teachers or principals is not warranted. A third limitation is that self-report
data can create potential biases (Ary, 2010), as participants are relied on to provide honest responses which
require the ability to provide accurate responses to items and process the items cognitively as intended.
When teachers were asked about their agreement and self-efficacy there is potential that their responses are
not an accurate response to their beliefs. Responses may be inaccurate due to misunderstandings or
misreading the questions and responses, or may be inaccurate due to not having their true response listed as
a response option. Moreover, the measurement of teacher efficacy continues to be a challenge (Duffin,
French, & Patrick, 2012). Future work should gather response process validity evidence for these items.
Conclusions
Our results provide evidence for how teachers respond to agreement and self-efficacy items based on the
evaluation criteria in WA. More importantly, clear differences were seen on important variables that are
malleable (e.g., training, exposure) in the implementation of the evaluation system. Paying careful attention
to such variables can influence teacher self-efficacy and agreement to the system. Teachers’ perspectives
are mediated through unions and school administrators; however, consideration should be given to
including teachers more in the research and policy processes (Lee, 2011). Collaboration between policy
makers and teachers may provide a mutual understanding of teachers’ experiences of what tasks and criteria
9
they perform daily and the understanding of how these influence student success. More importantly, it may
disclose that these groups need to work closely in a partnership for evaluation systems to be successful to
make accurate decisions about individuals. Indeed, the continued investigation of teacher perceptions and
beliefs about evaluation systems can inform both policy and practice of teacher evaluation implementation.
References
Ary, D. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Beaver, J.L. (2013). Washington State Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the New Teacher Evaluation
System (Master’s thesis). Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Gillford Press.
Brown-Sims, M., Clayton, T., Chen, J., & Brandt, C. (2013). Washington’s 2012 state of the state educator
survey report: Summary of key findings for teachers. American Institutes for Research, 1-49.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design
method. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). A confirmatory factor analysis
of pre-service teacher scores from the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28, 827-834.
French, B.F. & Finch, W.H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 378-402.
Hancock, G. R. (2004). Experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental design and analysis with
latent variables. Models for Latent Variables, 317-333.
Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (2004). How to improve the supply of high-quality teachers. Brookings Papers
on Education Policy, 1-25.
Hill, H. & Herlihy, C. (2011). Prioritizing teaching quality in a new system of teacher evaluation. American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 9, 1-6.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2014).
NCEE Evaluation Brief: State requirements for teacher evaluation policies promoted by Race to the
Top.
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Klassen, R. & Chiu, M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender,
years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756.
Lee, L. (2011). What did the teachers think? Teachers' responses to the use of value-added modeling as a
tool for evaluating teacher effectiveness. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 7, 97103.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
10
Park, G-P., & French, B. F., (2013). Gender differences in the foreign language classroom anxiety scale.
System, 41, 462-471.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C., http://www2.ed.gov
Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project (2012). Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Olympia, WA. http:\\tpep-wa.org
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence
on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology,
61, 793-825.
Author
Jessica L. Beaver is a graduate research assistant at the Learning and Performance Research Center at
Washington State University. Contact her at [email protected] or Cleveland Hall Room 80,
Learning and Performance Research Center, Pullman, WA 99164-2136. Brian F. French is a Professor at
Washington State University and Director of the Learning and Performance Research Center in Pullman,
WA. Contact him at [email protected].
11
What I Read This Summer: Book Reviews in Brief
by Andrea Meld
When school is out, I love to grab my sunglasses and a straw hat with a wide brim. Then I pour myself my
favorite drink that will not make me drowsy. (It's an “Arnold Palmer,” half lemonade, half iced tea.) I go
outside on the deck or relax under a shady tree, trying to forget, for at least fifteen minutes, that I ever heard
of the Common Core State Standards or the word “alignment.” Remember when you were a child and you
liked to read just for the fun of it, or because there were questions you wanted answers to? Remember
adventure stories and trips to imaginary places with fabulous beings? Books without questions at the end of
every chapter? What happened?
Here are some books I read this summer that are related to early childhood education and the human
condition. If you know of any other books that have captured your attention and that you recommend to
other readers of the WERA Educational Journal, (WEJ) please send my way. I hope you had a great
summer, especially if your favorite vacation place is home. Perhaps some of these books will be good
reading for you, as you curl up under a blanket this fall!
~ Andrea Meld, Ph.D. works for the Kent School District and is the Book Editor for the WEJ.
[email protected]
The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation, 3rd Edition,
edited by Carolyn Edwards, Lella Gandini, and George Forman. Forward by Howard Gardner, and
Preface by Jerome Bruner (Praeger, 2013).
In the spirit of the studio learning from the Atelier of Reggio Emilia, edited by Lella Gandini, Lynn Hill,
Louise Cadwell, and Charles Schwall (Teachers College Press, 2005).
Reggio Emilia is the capitol city of Emilia Romana, a province in Northern Italy famous for parmesan
cheese and lambrusco, a fizzy red wine. Reggio Emilia was central in the Italian Resistance in WWII, so
when the German armies retreated, they leveled just about everything they could in their wake. Out of the
ashes of WWII, the people of Reggio Emilia, farmers, factory workers, ordinary people, with the help of
Loris Malaguzzi, a young principal who biked back and forth between the town and the countryside, built a
12
system of preschool education that would become not only fashionable, but often cited as the best approach
to early learning anywhere on the planet. What was most important to the parents and families of Reggio
Emilia was to raise children who would grow up to be civic-minded, courteous citizens, who would not
repeat the mistakes that led to the devastation of world war. Children who could work together, be
empathic, and negotiate their differences.
The Reggio Emilia approach, grounded in the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, is truly child-centered in a
way that is hard to imagine from the perspective of top-down curriculum planning. Teachers are carefully
trained to create workshop space for the children, fostering the mastery of artistic expression. In the Spirit
of the Studio is an excellent guide to implementing this approach. The teacher starts with asking the
children, even as young as two or three years of age, what they are interested in, what questions they have,
what they would like to know, and then builds lessons and learning around this inquiry. Children work
together on projects and in working spaces conducive to creativity and productivity. A famous example is
the class of children who wanted to build an amusement park for birds and mastered all the tools needed to
carry this out.
The Hundred Languages of Children is a series of essays exploring the Reggio Emilia approach which
accompanied a world-wide exhibit of this educational philosophy. The “hundred languages” refers to the
role of discovery and imagination – much of this approach is geared toward “protecting children from
becoming subjected too early to institutionalized doctrines which often make learning a chore rather than an
extension of natural curiosity.”
Of particular note for district assessment coordinators, other specialists, and teachers are chapters
addressing inclusive education, and the important relationship between documentation, observation,
listening, and assessment in the Reggio Emilia experience.
Theories of Childhood: An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget and Vygotsky, 2nd
Edition, by Carol Garhart Mooney (Redleaf Press, 2013).
If you would like to brush up on the educational theories that were covered in graduate school, or are new
to the field of child development, this is a clear and concise guide that avoids a good deal of jargon. When
people speak about what is “developmentally appropriate” for children, it is usually these stage theories that
set the boundaries. This book is intended for practitioners who would like to know more about children and
how they acquire language, math, and other cognitive skills.
Dewey, the only American theorist among this group, was very influential in the early part of the twentieth
century in the American Public School System. Montessori, who began her work among young children in
the slums of Italy, is currently more familiar, perhaps because of the schools and preschools who have
adopted her approach, which focuses more on the individual child and his/her initiative, than the Reggio
13
Emilia approach, which is more social and group-centered. Erikson, who was Danish, theorized about the
“essential question” at each stage of life, which needs to be addressed before successfully moving on the
next stage. Piaget, who was Swiss, was the first to scientifically observe infants and children at younger
ages as scientists in the making. Vygotsky, a Russian and less well known to American audiences, studied
the relationship between language and social development in children.
Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, by Paul Bloom, (Crown Publishers, 2013).
Descartes' Baby How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human, by Paul
Bloom (Basic Books, 2004).
Although each book features the word, “baby,” in its title, the scope of both books covers the human
lifespan. Are humans born selfish or is morality a hard-wired human trait? What are the roles of parents and
society in transforming children into civilized beings? In light of historic and recent events, this is not just
an “academic” question. Cognitive psychologist Bloom explores the research supporting or contrary to
conventional wisdom, Western philosophy, child development theory, and evolution-based explanations in
an engaging and straightforward manner. Topics in Just Babies include the nature of empathy and
compassion, the concepts of fairness and punishment, and what it means to be “good.”
The mind-body dichotomy, also known as dualism, and its influence on Western thought is the subject of
Descartes’ Baby. There is a tangent about Descartes’ fascination with a mechanical life-sized doll, the
clockwork robotics of his time, that captured my attention right away. Bloom also covers our responses to
art, our thinking about good and evil, and why certain things induce disgust (not as obvious as it sounds). I
especially liked the last section of the book, which covers the spiritual realm. The last chapter, “Gods,
Souls, and Science,” begs the question of whether or not there really are such entities as bodies and souls.
Happy Reading ~ Buona lettura!
14
How Does a Small Private University on the Yakama Sovereign Indian Nation
Implement Online Education?
by Charles E. Wheaton
The size of the university does not matter when implementing online education—even smaller institutions
can accomplish much in this arena. What does matter is having the vision and passion to make education
accessible to all students. Twenty five years ago, one faculty member had this vision and passion and
started on a quest. With the support of university administration and funding from federal grants, now any
student may access higher education through online, interactive classes. What began with only a few
classes has grown to a point where all graduate courses and degrees are accessible online, as well as many
undergraduate courses.
Introduction
How does a small, private university transition into offering online education while staying true to the
mission that we hold very dear? We are a small private university located on the Yakama Sovereign Indian
Nation in rural central Washington State. We have found that by offering online learning opportunities we
are able to strengthen our commitment to our mission of providing quality, accessible baccalaureate and
master’s degrees to populations that, for reasons of location, poverty, or cultural background, have been
denied these opportunities in the past.
In the short span of ten years and two different university
administrative teams, each of these administrative teams has
shared with faculty the same concerns many of the top
researchers and practitioners in the area of online education
have found. Throughout this paper I will share a few of the
comments from these experts.
For example, Lalita Rajasingham (2011) Senior Lecturer in
Communications School of Information Management at
Victoria University of New Zealand and co-author of “The
Global Virtual University” states:
Alex Gutierrez, Business Major
“Universities today face new challenges. Exponential growth in the demand for
higher education, significant decreases in funding for education, the changing
nature of knowledge, changing student demographics and expectations, and global
competition, demand a reexamination of how universities fulfill their core
functions.”
Although we have not felt the enviable challenge of exponential growth in student demand for education, as
the increases in costs and decreases in funding deeply impact the students we serve, we find the words of
Rajasingham resonate with us. She continues on to say that in addition to the “rapid advances in
information and communications technologies, the challenges of storage, processing, disseminating, and
application of knowledge to real life problems are cause for reexamination.” Rajasingham’s words set the
stage very concisely for a discussion of our university’s journey into online education offerings. We submit
these are the same challenges most universities are facing in this rapidly changing world of technology.
15
With the current technology available to us, we serve students from throughout the state, throughout the
nation, and even a few who are outside of the United States. We are also able to attract highly capable
instructors, who without our online model would not be able to serve with us. For example, one of our very
successful instructors spends much of his time on a fishing boat off the west coast of Washington. Another
example of outreach comes from our founding president who submitted a proposal to offer online
leadership courses to Sisters of the Holy Names who serve in Lesotho, Africa, one of the poorest countries
in the world. Through her efforts, nine sisters were able to take a leadership class. Even with power
outages and problematic internet connections, the Sisters and I experienced such a successful experience
through the use of email, Skype, and Blackboard Collaborate that a friendly bit of jealousy developed
among neighboring religious communities because of the professional development these Sisters were
receiving.
Another example is of a student from Nespelem, Washington who was able to attend class despite the fact
that her town of less than 250 people is located on the Colville Sovereign Indian Nation in Northeast
Washington State and is at least twenty miles from the next closest towns which are also considered quite
remote.
The university has been fortunate through the efforts of superb grant writing and generosity from the federal
government to have received several grants that have provided the impetus to build an effective model of
online education. Since 2003, Title V grants have been received which have helped to develop online
programs; one received in 2009 dealt with developing culturally relevant online programs while another
which was received in 2003 focused on re-visioning courses, which applied to the development of online
courses. The grant received in 2009 focused solely on graduate courses where no courses were previously
offered online and now all of these organizational leadership courses are offered online. Therefore it is
possible that a student might complete all of their degree online. Each five semester cohort is comprised of
fifteen to twenty students so approximately eighty students have taken much of their coursework online.
The entire graduate faculty of approximately ten different instructors has received extensive training on the
use of online instruction and this training continues.
This training continues through this grant as a professional learning community is being created to enrich
the support and collegiality among twelve onsite and regional adjunct faculty members. Through the
monthly PLC meetings, great ideas, strategies, and instructional tools will be shared.
It all began in the late 1990's, when Dr. Loren Schmidt, chair of the English department and others in the
English department at the university began to offer online supplements to their face-to-face courses. This
was intended primarily to provide students who missed classes the opportunity to make up class work with
lecture outlines, study questions, the next session's assignments, and other needs. At least twenty students
have obtained their entire degree online since this venture began. Not long after this it became apparent
there was a greater demand for this type of learning so our university joined in a cooperative program for
offering courses through the Online Consortium of Independent Colleges and Universities (OCICU)
through New Ventures of St. Regis University in Colorado. The English department continues to be very
successful in offering courses through this consortium and this cooperative effort has continued to this day.
Definition and Model
At a recent international conference, members of our university were asked to share the successes of our
online teaching and learning model. A few doors down during a different time slot another presenter was
focusing on the need to have a specific definition for online or blended instruction. This difference is
mentioned because we believe the great advantages to online instruction are to monitor and adjust the
16
instruction to meet the many needs of students. Whether we call it blended, hybrid, distance or any other
name we adopt, our focus is still on providing the most effective means of helping our students learn. We
cannot continue to force a form of teaching and learning on our current students that appears to be outdated
to them. We are committed to providing good teaching and learning where we modify and adjust the
learning experience to meet the needs of each individual student at any time throughout the course.
We appreciate the broad definition of online learning from the National Center for Education Statistics
(2011) which provides the following definition of what they refer to as distance education courses. As
mentioned above regardless of the name, their definition aligns very well with the myriad of ways our
instructors use online methods of teaching and learning:


Distance education courses and programs provide flexible learning
opportunities to both undergraduate and post graduate students.
Distance education courses include live, interactive audio or video
conferencing; prerecorded instructional videos: webcasts; CD-ROMs or
DVDs; or computer-based systems accessed over the internet.
Janna Anderson, Center Director of Elon University’s Imagining and Internet Center in North Carolina
along with Lee Rainie, internet, science, and technology director at the Pew Research Center point out “the
transmission of knowledge no longer needs to be tethered to a college campus.” Obviously, not every
course lends itself to online delivery, especially courses which require a laboratory experience; however, we
have found by using a learning management system (LMS), video-conferencing and lecture capture
instructors are using some online delivery in chemistry, nursing, and clinical lab science where one
wouldn’t normally think it would be as applicable. Other courses where it is used are social sciences,
English, undergraduate and graduate education, mathematics and numerous other courses.
What we often hear, however, when we mention online education to those students unfamiliar with this
delivery model is they don’t do well without the physical interaction of traditional classes. The same can be
said of instructors who are unfamiliar and often fearful of changing their style of teaching. While that is
understandable, we have found many ways of maintaining active participation and interaction with the
methods we employ. By using synchronous (virtual face to face) and asynchronous methods of instruction,
which include forums, blogs, assignment and exam uploads, and other means of exchanging information,
we are able to offer our students the advantages of a traditional interactive model of instruction along with
the conveniences and benefits of online instruction. We have also been able to offer painless training for
instructors even to the point of accompanying them online for their first few sessions.
Online instruction also offers the flexibility to meet in any location
where there is internet connectivity and when it is most convenient for
the participants. In the virtual classroom, it is even possible to include a
national expert in the synchronous discussion or if an instructor feels a
need or desire to s/he may choose to meet students in a face to face
environment. This works especially well if students happen to be
grouped by region.
Dr. Wheaton teaching from a hotel lobby
in Dallas, TX
For the past four years, the Clinical Lab Science program, which is an
intense one year program, has been able to serve students from
outside of our immediate region through the use of the online
17
program. As a result, twelve students a year, or approximately forty-eight total students, have graduated
from the program. Although the online model of instruction has grown significantly since the late 1990’s,
the university still does not offer any degrees that are completely delivered online.
Student Diversity
Tisha Bender (2012), Professor and Online Teacher Trainer at Rutgers University, observes “There is much
greater diversity within the student body than even a decade ago. It has been thought that typical college
teaching methods were tailored to deliver content to white, middle-class males, as they had traditionally
been the dominant group.” Fortunately, this simply is not so at our university and many others as well.
In our situation, we serve many students from diverse
ethnic backgrounds and poverty. They are often single
parents and are working full time jobs to support their
families in addition to taking a full load of classes. By
offering a unique blend of online instruction we are able to
mitigate the challenges of travel and childcare. The cost of
higher education is already so expensive that we strive to
alleviate some of the challenges that go along with it. By
taking advantage of distance education, students save the
cost of travel and reduce the time they might need to spend
away from their employment related tasks and their family
responsibilities. Due to the population we serve and the
range of differences in the students’ pursuit of higher education, instructors must be willing to provide
activities which establish rapport and they must be creative in their presentation of content. The delivery of
content for early childhood workers may be quite different than that of graduate students. For example, the
director of the early childhood program has made it possible though online delivery to offer students a
variety of instructors with specialties in areas that complement the major theme of the course. Throughout
the same course, students may have four different instructors, each presenting on a different topic related to
the major theme of the course.
Cristal Reyes, Psychology Major
During the four years of one of the Title V federal grants referred to earlier up to twenty students a year
received approximately $40,000 a year in scholarship funding. Students from various areas were awarded
scholarships based on meeting specific criteria. The criteria were:

residing in a remote or isolated area;

being of Hispanic heritage; or

having limited economic resources.
Our beliefs about the need to address student diversity through online teaching and learning are confirmed
in this brief quote by Northern Kentucky University’s Cultural Anthropologist and Celtic Researcher
Michael Simonton (2011). He writes:
“Distance education can be an important approach to responding to the growing
pluralism of learners’ backgrounds, characteristics, or unusual learning needs that
may require or benefit from specialized instruction. Taking the time to learn about
the learners in the class yields a more productive learning environment. Knowledge
of general learner characteristics can inform the instructor of the nature of the
18
students at origination and distance sites. This knowledge can aid the distance
education instructor in overcoming the separation of instructor and students.”
Therefore, if a student begins a program and is called to serve in the military, a mission or needs to travel
for a conference, or even be a part of a family vacation or anything else that might take them away from our
region for any period of time, it doesn’t matter because we can accommodate them. Time zone changes
may offer some challenges but our instructors are committed to making it work for the students. With the
excellent service and resources available from our library and the multitude and variety of data bases to
which it subscribes, students may access research materials from anywhere as long as they have internet
connectivity. These data bases provide access to issues of academic journals, books, primary sources,
newspapers, periodicals, and dissertations. Of course none of these resources would be as useful as they are
without the excellent training provided by the library staff.
It is apparent now that what was once a minor add on to teaching and learning has now become a
mainstream activity. Dr. Fred Saba (2011), Professor Emeritus of Educational Technology at San Diego
State University and Founder and Editor of Distance-Education.com highlights this need for higher
education to embrace online learning:
Contemporary distance education theory offers a platform for developing a
dynamic instructional design model and flexible organizational structures for the
educational systems of the future. It suggests radically different instructional
design models and organizational structures that will prove necessary in educating
the workforce of the future. The fast-paced work environment of the 21st century
requires that individuals be able to adjust to new conditions as they materialize.
We have found that with deliberate and
conscious adherence to contact time and
scheduling of content presentation for each
course, instructors are able to tailor their
courses to meet student needs and to meet the
state and national requirements for contact
time and academic standards. This is done by
developing a comprehensive syllabus and
schedule that combines synchronous and
asynchronous teaching and learning time
periods which meet state and national
requirements for accreditation. If a student
has an emergency that causes her to miss a
portion of a class, all synchronous learning
experiences are recorded for students to view for the first time or to view for the purpose of review.
Idalia Aguillon, Business Major
In our surveys of instructors, we have found all have commented on the work of online students as being
very focused and stellar. In fact, many of these instructors who also teach a face-to-face version of the
classes state that the work of online students is actually superior to that of the face-to-face students.
Ingrid Sturgis (2012), Assistant Professor and Researcher with Howard Medie Group at Howard University
stated:
19
“Hybrid courses, adaptive learning techniques, assessment analytics and open
learning initiatives may make one-size-fits-all a thing of the past. As technology
improves, institutions will be better able to assess student educational needs and
provide prescriptive techniques to improve classroom success.”
Training and Evaluation
Personalized and collegial training is provided to each instructor through a partnership with a center for
intercultural learning and teaching, a university service which began in 2003 as a resource for research and
training. Following each online course, both the instructor and the students reflect upon the quality and
effectiveness of the teaching and learning experience. Areas addressed in these reflections include:
establishing and maintaining a positive student-focused online learning environment; incorporating
democratic principles in the online class; demonstrating online communication skills and strategies that
facilitate growth; and modeling best professional practices in teaching and learning while online. By
reflecting on these areas, instructors are able to constantly improve their practice.
Faculty have been trained to use video-conferencing methodology, a learning-management system, white
board applications, e-portfolio, lecture capture and other technologically related tools. These tools support
the institution’s online efforts by allowing for synchronous virtual classroom and office hour connections
between students from locations in various places around the globe. The learning management system
allows for students to post to forums, obtain supportive material such as web-links, articles, syllabi,
instructor handouts, contact information, rubrics, grade postings, and other important messages. Lecture
capture allows for an expanded outreach to students as they can review class presentations as many times as
necessary to understand complex concepts.
Students have greatly benefitted from faculty trainers who offer trainings to improve online instruction.
The trainers also engage in extensive research to keep abreast of more effective computer assisted programs
and applications. Using the rigorous and meticulous methods of instructor self-reflection and curriculum
development standards, online courses continue to be developed and improved.
As the online instructor pool has stabilized, less emphasis is placed on the beginning online skills. The
refinement of such skills, however, remains an integral focus for the further development of the faculty.
Specific knowledge includes but is not limited to: infusion of culturally relevant strategies and activities
into online classes, and use of student information to incorporate specific learning strategies.
Although we have much to learn and a long way to go to keep up with the rapid and changing pace of
technology and our current and new generation of learners, we feel we are on target with some of the major
themes and arguments from the PEW Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project which include:





Higher education will vigorously adopt new teaching approaches, propelled by
opportunity and efficiency as well as student and parent demands.
Economic realities will drive technological innovation forward by 2020,
creating less uniformity in higher education.
Bricks will be replaced by clicks.
Universities will adopt new pedagogical approaches while retaining the core of
traditional methods.
Collaborative education with peer-to-peer learning will become a bigger reality
and will challenge the lecture format and focus on “learning how to learn.”
20
For us, maintaining and staying true to our mission of providing quality, accessible baccalaureate and
master’s degrees to populations that, for reasons of location, poverty, or cultural background, have been
denied these opportunities in the past, is what drives our efforts in online instruction. We agree with Lalita
Rajasingham and the other experts quoted throughout this article that there are many challenges facing
universities, but we are convinced the online experiences we have outlined throughout this article not only
provide all of the efficiency and conveniences, but they also give students job ready technology skills they
will need in the workplace.
Peter Bishop (2014), former Director of the Future Studies program at the University of Houston,
emphasizes the urgency (pressing importance) that educators must recognize and realize the future is now.
In the most recent issue of “The Futurist,” he writes about how the increased rate of innovation in this
technological revolution has disrupted all organizations and whole societies. He says educators have a clear
responsibility to include the future in curriculum planning at all levels. This university has been on that
journey for more than twenty-five years.
References
Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2012, July 27). The future of higher education. Washington, DC: PEW Research
Center’s Internet and American Life Project.
Bender, T. (2012). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and
assessment (2nd Edition). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bishop, P. (2014, September/October). Collaborative futures education. Bethesda, MD. The Futurist, World
Future Society.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033), Indicator 43.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Rajasingham, L. (2011) Will mobile learning bring a paradigm shift in higher education? Educational
Research International. New York, NY: Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
Saba, F. (2011). The future of online education: A research and developmental agenda. In M.F.
Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (Ed.), Education in a competitive and globalizing world: Pedagogical
models: The discipline of online education. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Simonton, M. (2011). Instruction design for online classes. In M. F. Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (Ed.).
Education in a competitive and globalizing world: Pedagogical models: The discipline of online
education. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Sturgis, I. (2012, March 15). The online frontier. Diverse Issues in Education.
Author
Charles E. Wheaton, Ph.D., is the Online Faculty Trainer/Curriculum Specialist at Heritage University in
Toppenish, WA 98948. He can be reached at 509-307-7500 or [email protected]. For more
information about his work, you may also see www.leadershipserviceswa.com.
21
Totally Online Public Schools: Experience and Insights of a Teacher
by Thomas E. Hancock
The author is a former professor, K-12 teacher, and private school founder. Following his fifth year as a
full-time online teacher, he presents his perspective on issues related to online high school education. He
also details the daily work of an online teacher and describes the three systems learned as a WAVA, K-12,
Inc. teacher: Totalview, the Learning Management System, and Blackboard/Collaborate. Finally, he
addresses issues connected to virtual learning: a lack of widespread understanding, a need for scientifically
sound research on virtual education, appropriateness of online versus brick and mortar schools for
different students, advantages of online schools for teachers, socialization of online students, and the
problems of cheating and valid assessment.
As a K-12 educator for 15 years, I founded and taught in private schools where educators were free to do
whatever we felt was best for our students’ learning. When I taught in the public schools, I was deeply
impressed with the commitment of teachers and administrators, amidst more requirements, challenges, and
constraints than in private schools. Later, as a professor of educational psychology for 15 years, my passion
in instruction and research was to improve learning by giving students more control over what, when, why,
and how they learned. Mentoring hundreds of education graduate students with their research has been
quite satisfying to me and, yet, the most exciting part of my 35 years as an educator has been teaching fulltime these last five years in an online public high school, Washington Virtual Academy (WAVA).
Online education is growing (Barbour, 2013; INACOL, 2013; Nelson, 2013). In 2009-2010, an estimated
1,816,400 K-12 enrollments occurred in online courses (INACOL, 2013), and last year 29 states and
Washington D.C had full-time online schooling, serving 310,000 K to 12 students (Watson, Murin,
Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013). Unfortunately, the research concerning the effectiveness of online
education is not keeping pace with the growth, and those few sound studies that have been published are
inconclusive (Barbour, 2013; Molinar, 2103). However, to me it is clear that online education is ideal for
some students and that brick-and-mortar education is best for others. Parents, students and teachers can
have a choice.
The Emergence of Online Schools
Change happens slowly in the educational establishment. Some educators whose career and experience has
been solely in a brick and mortar setting may be skeptical, resistant, and perhaps fearful of totally online
schools. The lack of a solid research base may contribute to these feelings. At the same time, virtual
educators have experienced growing pains while serving as pioneers, learning experientially what works
and what does not. Nevertheless, virtual educators believe that American education will be enriched as the
online school revolution continues to find its place alongside our brick-and-mortar system. I am glad that
Washington State is one of the more progressive states in providing students, parents, and teachers the
choice to pursue education in whichever setting best serves their individual needs (Watson, et al., 2013).
Many types of virtual education have evolved, such as blended programs, single course offerings, and fulltime online schools (Molinar, 2013). In this article, I draw from my experiences and share insights on a
22
full-time, online, public high school. The life of an online public high school teacher is quite different from
the life of our brick and mortar colleagues. Then I will provide some insights on issues related to online
education. I do not want to devalue or replace our brick and mortar system, which works well for many
students, but to describe an option that can be invaluable for some student populations.
Introduction to My Life as an Online Teacher
Although I had previously designed and taught graduate education courses delivered partially online, I soon
discovered that few of the traditional education schema still fit in my new job. Clearly, a new paradigm had
to be learned, but I also saw three immediate benefits: no longer were class time and energy wasted in
dealing with discipline problems, students had more control over their learning, and we no longer had to
commute to and from school.
Learning Three Systems for Our Online School
My first month as an online high school teacher was in the fall of 2009, with 38 students learning French. I
was under a .2 contract, but spent almost 40 hours a week that month to master the basics of my new job.
Thanks to my helpful colleagues, I learned the three major systems of our school: TotalView, the LMS
learning management system, and Elluminate (now Blackboard/Collaborate). These same systems are used
by all online schools associated with the K-12 Corporation, which in Washington was almost 64% of online
ALE FTEs in 2011-2012 (Nelson, 2013).
TotalView. In TotalView, I found access to all records for my students. I could communicate with them
electronically—individually or as groups—track their performance, generate reports, and record and view
notes about all the staff’s interactions with students and parents. This one-stop-shop became a gamechanger for me the teacher in facilitating informed communication and meeting the needs of my students.
The Learning Management System. Next was the LMS, where each of my courses was found. Here, the
course content includes text presented by the K-12 Corporation (which occasionally I alter to suit our
needs), multimedia presentations, learning exercises with automatic feedback, and assignments—which
went to a drop box and could be evaluated automatically (such as a multiple choice test) or by me as the
teacher. At the course site, the students also find links to related learning resources, the assignment
calendar, the syllabus, their grade book, and a section for me to track the time each student spends in each
part of the course. I discovered that teaching 50 minute classes was no longer the essence of my job, but
rather it was evaluating student work, giving feedback, motivating students, and helping them with
whatever school need they may have.
Blackboard/Collaborate. The third major system to learn was Elluminate (which transitioned to
Blackboard/Collaborate), our state-of-the-art virtual classroom where "live" class is conducted. There is a
whiteboard space where I or the students can write, draw, or type. I can talk students through a set of
prepared slides, display text and diagrams, share software applications on my computer or theirs, stream
from the Internet, speak with a webcam, and give the students the same privileges. They have multiple
tools to be actively participating during a lesson: using emoticons, grabbing the mic, texting questions and
answers (visible to just to me or the whole class), and an icon with a bell sounding when students raise their
23
hands. There are other functions, such as moving groups of students into breakout rooms, but my favorites
are the tools to monitor understanding—seeing when each student is starting to write, having students select
responses, and getting instant summaries. In addition, the system records these sessions for a student’s
review or for students who cannot make it to the live class.
My Typical Day
Part of what I love about being an online teacher is the flexibility in my schedule. For example, I often
choose to work on weekends. Much of my job can be done in the middle of the night, when there are no
phone calls or other interruptions. At other times, if I need a change of pace, I go for a run or do something
else and then come back refreshed. Though most full time virtual teachers report working 40 to 60 hours a
week, it is not as draining because we can work when we are most efficient.
I usually start around 7 a.m. (or as early as 4 a.m. or as late as 9 a.m.) by turning on my computers (three
screens) and logging into our electronic school. First, I check my calendar for anything that is time
(schedule) dependent, such as a live class, a tutoring session, or a virtual meeting. Next, I consider and
respond to email from other staff members, from my students, and from parents. Occasionally, I will
follow-up with phone calls.
Then I open each of my courses to see and prioritize the assignments or tests that need to be evaluated. Our
goal is to get work evaluated and returned within 48 hours. I am able to give detailed feedback on each
assignment using the Nuance Dragon program where I speak and the text is typed. In my French course, I
will usually record audio feedback for each student individually.
When a live class is scheduled, I prepare a presentation outline, interact with students when they arrive, and
often use the webcam to emphasize points and let students visually see my passion for the subject. We
often have lots of high energy interaction and I focus on monitoring their understanding. In addition to
French, math, and psychology courses, my teaching load has also included Math LAP. This is mostly oneon-one instruction in our virtual classroom, helping at-risk seniors to pass their math courses or to succeed
on the statewide Math EOC (End of Course) Exam.
Other parts of my job include creating a monthly calendar for courses, participating in course discussions,
and helping students over the phone. Students and their parents are encouraged to phone us. In addition, I
have a homeroom group with 20 to 30 students, where I monitor their overall performance at the school. I
make sure there is some type of weekly contact, have a monthly live phone conference with any student
who is failing courses, and at least twice a year I have a goal-setting conference with each homeroom
student and parent. Our faculty has a weekly online meeting, and monthly we have a face-to-face faculty
meeting at various places around the state, as well as monthly virtual department meetings. We are
constantly evaluating what works best for improving efficiency and student learning.
The Uniqueness of Our Online School
The same type of activities described above typically occur among online teachers elsewhere in the country
(Ferdig, 2009), but teachers at WAVA also experience some differences (Nelson, 2013). We are on the
24
state salary scale, including substantial TRI pay (for WAVA-Monroe), and are also recipients of the other
benefits of the union system. I understand that many other Washington State online teachers are contracted
with a far heavier course load, much less remuneration, and a longer working year without recourse for
effective bargaining. This points out the importance of describing the school carefully in conducting
research. It remains my hope that all online teachers in Washington and throughout the country will have a
work environment with the benefits I am describing.
Perspectives on Various Issues
Efficacy: Online versus Brick and Mortar Schools. Research evidence does not clearly support either
type of school as better (Barbour, 2013; Molinar, 2103). However, as I said earlier, my observation is that
brick and mortar schools are most effective for some student populations and online schools for others.
Over the years, many educators and legislators have been working toward teaching in the least restrictive
and most effective manner and finding that one size does not fit all. That is why I fear decision makers
basing decisions on statistical significance from simple comparisons between online and brick and mortar
schools. For the results to be genuinely useful, researchers would need to slice the data by sub-groups
(Rice, 2006); e.g., whether the students chose their schools or the teachers were able to effectively bargain
for the best instructional environment. I have not found such research, despite searching for it. Most
articles, like this one, are merely descriptive, episodic, or autobiographical (Cavanaugh, 2009).
Desirability: Online Schools vs. Brick and Mortar. Brick and mortar schools have value in enabling
positive social interactions and offer the potential to learn from negative and undesirable situations. Also,
they are more desirable for those families who feel, for various reasons, that it is not healthy for their
children to be alone at home during the day. I have seen many students who cannot learn self-control in
managing their time, and therefore do not succeed in an online school. They need the structure of 50-minute
periods where a teacher is present.
However, online schools are highly appropriate for various other student groups. For example, among my
own students, I have taught high school age professional athletes (motocross, skating, equestrian, fighting,
boarding) and performers (actors, musicians, and even a TED presenter) who can each pursue their
passions. Special education students can receive far more personal attention and thrive without the
potential of feeling socially ostracized. Kids who have been bullied can feel safe "doing school" from
home. Bullies, student drug pushers, and kids with unhealthy, dangerous social behavior can obtain an
education in our virtual setting without posing a threat to other students and education staff. Young people
who feel less than beautiful because of their height, weight, or physical appearance can relax and be
themselves. Parents who travel can take their children along. For teens who do not wake-up until late
morning, online school enables them to engage when they are alert. For students who can completely
master course content quickly, requiring a specified amount of seat time can be almost inhumane. And
finally, some of my students have said, they just "couldn’t take the social drama of the brick and mortar any
longer."
The Desirability of Online Schools for Teachers. Virtual instruction is ideal for many teachers. Among
my colleagues, only two outstanding teachers have chosen to return to brick and mortar schools—they
25
missed the face-to-face interaction with students. I believe there are several reasons that none of the other
online teachers I have known have chosen to return to brick and mortar schools.
Personally, I have found that genuine, safe connection with students is stronger in our virtual setting. Since
most of us teach only three to five hours of live class a week, we have more time to encourage and interact
one-on-one with our students. I can communicate quickly and efficiently through all three virtual systems,
including our in-house email. I have found that many students are more honest and expressive, as we email
back and forth. This expanded mentoring opportunity is one of the most satisfying parts of my life. As
nearly all of the interactions are recorded in some way, the threat of wrongful accusation, inappropriate or
even dangerous behavior on the part of a teacher, a student, or a parent is greatly minimized.
Another reason virtual education is so desirable, for students and teachers, is flexibility. We can often work
when we are the most efficient and can alter our schedules when life’s pressures necessitate. Many
excellent teachers, whose children or other family members are at needy seasons of life, teachers who
would otherwise have quit, can remain engaged. Teaching can be scheduled to accommodate newborns,
elderly parents, spouses with health or schedule issues, teenagers with unpredictable life dramas, and
multifarious other life challenges.
And, as previously mentioned, it is an amazing relief to have no behavior problems! We all know that
many teachers leave their calling due to potentially serious problems with disrespectful, unruly, and even
dangerous children. If only all those teachers could be in an online school using their talents and training! I
was able to have decent classroom management in the brick and mortar setting, but I confess it was
sometimes an immense drain. That energy drain and pressure are no longer an issue.
Current Challenges
Much has been written about the problems and challenges with virtual education (Barbour, 2013; Rice,
2006). I would like to address some of these challenges and offer some reflections that may be helpful.
Learning about virtual education. Not all virtual education is the same. In Washington, there are18
different online course providers, 15 program providers, and 19 multi-district online school programs
(Watson et al., 2013). When we see or hear of poor performance in some programs, we must not over
generalize. Not surprisingly, those programs with more resources, higher teacher salaries, sensible course
loads, and more student support tend to have higher student success rates. (The same might be said of brick
and mortar schools.)
The socialization of online students. A frequent concern is how online students will learn to work with
others. Since the students' time is more flexible, they can choose with whom they spend time. On one
hand, I have seen a lack in social ability in some students who have chosen to stay at home. However, they
may or may not have fared better socially in a conventional setting. On the other hand, many parents and
students benefit from having more control of their social involvements. For example, some of our students
hold part-time jobs, help their family with a business, go door to door as missionaries, are involved with
equestrian groups, attend specialized schools in the mornings, or travel as performers. Such activities allow
26
for social interaction at various levels and provide valuable life experience mingled with the students’
formal education.
At WAVA, we are also deliberate about our students connecting with us and with each other. We are
increasing the number of face-to-face field trips and gatherings around the state. Destinations have
included the Seattle Science Center, the Museum of Flight, the Museum of Technology and Industry,
Digipen, and yearly retreats for fun and learning at Great Wolf Lodge. There is plenty of potential for faceto-face opportunities to be incorporated into online school programs.
Cheating and valid assessment. Since virtual teachers are not physically present with the students during
tests and since assignments from the nationwide K12 curriculum find their way to "cheating" sites, students
who give way to dishonesty can suffer in virtual programs. We online educators are becoming quite adept at
detecting cheating on tests and assignments copied from the Internet or done by relatives and friends. Many
of us are altering the assignments each term so it is harder to cheat. Continued progress here is crucial for
the health of online schools.
Our students do take the EOC exams, which we hope are valid indicators of valuable learning. The K-12
corporation students nationwide are encouraged to do Scantron testing. A current issue being addressed is
that we cannot be sure each Scantron test is actually completed by the student without help. This is a
challenge we are working on.
And finally….We need valid measurement, not only related to Common Core standards, but also of the
lifelong impact of all types of schools. Researching the consequential validity of our programs and tests, in
both online schools and brick and mortar schools, will provide valuable information about the impact of the
whole education endeavor. I suspect the quality of life and success will be significantly greater for students
who have chosen the type of school that most matches their individual needs. I am confident that many will
be more successful in life because they have chosen to do their education totally online!
References
Barbour, M.K. (2013). The landscape of K-12 online learning: Examining what is known. In M. G. Moore
(Eds.), Handbook of distance education (3 rd ed.) pp. 574-593. New York: Routledge.
International Council for K-12 Online Learning & Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). Virtual
schools and 21st century skills. Vienna, VA: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/iNACOL-Fast-Facts-About-Online-Learning-October-2013.pdf
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A
review of literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1). Retrieved
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607
Ferdig, R., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E., & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling standards and
best practices for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479-503.
27
Molinar, A., (2013). Virtual schools in the US 2013: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence.
National Education Policy Center. Boulder, Co. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/nepcvirtual-2013-section-1-2.pdf
Nelson, Karl (2013). Online learning annual report 2011-2102. Report prepared for the Washington State
Legislature. Olympia, Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/LegisGov/2013documents/OnlineLearningAnnualReport.pdf
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448. Retrieved from
http://people.uncw.edu/caropresoe/EDN523/523_Spr_07/K12_Distance_Learning.pdf
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning:
An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group.
Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KP2013-lr.pdf
Author
Thomas E. Hancock, Ph.D. has just retired after five years teaching in a totally online public high school.
Formerly he founded private schools, taught K-12, and was a university professor/researcher. Tom is
moving from Washington to Colorado, where he will serve as a grandfather and be available to help
organizations improve learning and constituent satisfaction. He can be reached at [email protected]. If
readers have trouble connecting with Tom due to his move, please contact the WEJ editor for an updated
address. ([email protected])
28
Salish School of Spokane:
A Model for Saving and Revitalizing Endangered Languages
by Dorothy E. Munson, LaRae Wiley, and Christopher Parkin
Interior Salish languages, spoken by Native Americans of the
Columbian Plateau, are rated as extremely endangered on the
Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS). Without
successful interventions to save Interior Salish languages they
are expected to die by the year 2050. Salish School of
Spokane (SSOS) is an Nsəlxcin (Colville-Okanagan Salish)
immersion language school with a mission to create a vibrant
community of fluent speakers of Interior Salish languages.
Begun as a pilot project in 2009 with 4 students and one
teacher, SSOS has grown to 27 students, ages one year
through eight years, and 15 staff members. The authors of
this paper hope to encourage other educators and language
activists to see SSOS as a model useful in their work to save
endangered languages.
“Reversing language shift—taking action to alter a trend
toward language loss (Fishman, 1991)—has become a priority
for many Native American communities faced with the
extinction of their heritage language” (Peter, 2007, p.323).
Salish School of Spokane, guided by the theoretical and
empirical work of Fishman (1991), is dedicated to saving and
revitalizing Interior Salish languages, all of which are
extremely endangered and are predicted to die by the year
2050 unless intensive interventions are implemented that
match the level of endangerment of these languages.
Using the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS),
developed by Fishman (1991) to measure how endangered a
language is, all Interior Salish languages, spoken by Native
Americans of the Columbian Plateau, are rated as extremely
endangered and near death. GIDS is an eight-stage model
widely used for evaluating how endangered, or close to
extinction, a language is. Stage One on the GIDS indicates no
threat of endangerment for a language: the language is widely
used in education, commerce, the media, and is embraced at a
national level. As a language scores higher on the GIDS, the
degree to which it is endangered increases. Languages that
are at Stage Seven on the GIDS are spoken primarily by
About Salish School of Spokane
SSOS Mission Statement:
Salish School of Spokane is dedicated
to creating a vibrant community of
fluent speakers of Interior Salish
languages by providing Salish
language instruction to children and by
empowering parents and families to
speak Salish in their daily lives.
SSOS Vision Statement:
Salish School of Spokane will provide
outstanding immersion education in
the languages of the Plateau, creating
fluent speakers. The school will seek
to serve children from birth to twelfth
grade, delivering the highest quality
academic and culturally relevant
education. The services of the school
shall be available for all children and
families, regardless of race or
economic status. Salish School of
Spokane will serve as a beacon of
light, guiding family and community
efforts to reclaim our language.
"The destruction and abandonment of
human languages represents a loss of
a great work of human genius. Salish
people know that language is the
foundation of cultural identity and
cultural identity is in turn the creation
of lived beauty" (Parkin & Wiley,
2012)
29
elders, some of whom are culturally active, though few or no children are raised in the language. A Stage
Eight language is dangerously close to extinction and is spoken only by a few elderly “culturally isolated
fluent speakers” (Parkin, 2010, p.8). All Interior Salish languages are rated as Stage Seven or Stage Eight
on the GIDS.
In his book, Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to
Threatened Languages Fishman (1991) describes effective strategies for preventing the deaths of extremely
endangered languages. Creating new groups of fluent speakers of endangered languages through
immersion schooling and commitments by parents and grandparents to raising their children in the
endangered languages will help build strong language – culture communities which are foundational to
intergenerational transmission of language, culture, and traditions. Dowdy (2012) proposes creating and
maintaining an “intergenerational language nest” which involves multiple generations within a family
speaking the endangered language to each other in everyday living. Salish School of Spokane (SSOS) is an
experimental language nest working to create new fluent speakers of Nsəlxcin among families, teachers,
and involved community members.
Successful Interventions at SSOS
SSOS’ efforts to revitalize Interior Salish languages utilize several successful interventions proposed by
Fishman (1991) as appropriate responses to Stage Seven and Stage Eight languages through their language
immersion school, family and teacher language training, and language training for community members.
SSOS is also involved with other organizations whose missions are to save and revitalize Interior Salish
languages in order to reconstruct the languages and build connections between new speakers and elders.
The key to successful strategies is to match the strategy to the level of endangerment of the target language.
Successful strategies for saving and revitalizing Stage Seven languages include: training new speakers of
child-bearing age; building connections between new speakers and culturally active elders; empowering
speakers to raise children in the language; and working to form a language-culture community. When a
language is near death, at Stage Eight, Fishman (1991) suggests the following strategies for saving and
revitalizing the language: reconstructing the language through recording elders while they address culturally
important concepts; creating a reliable fluency training program; training new fluent speakers; and building
connections between new speakers and elders. Unfortunately, many activists who work to save endangered
languages fail to match their language-saving strategies to the language’s level of endangerment. Some of
these mistaken efforts include: public school language programs; casual community classes; college and
university language classes; media production with some language; cultural events with some language; and
linguistic studies and analyses (Fishman, 1991; Parkin & Wiley, 2012).
Culture-Based Education for Native American Students
In keeping with its mission and vision, SSOS holds high expectations for academic excellence while
providing culture-based education and immersion schooling in Nsəlxcin (Southern Interior Colville–
Okanagan Salish). Recent research focused on the education of Native American youth, (Demmert, 2001;
Demmert & Towney, 2003; & Beaulieu, Dick, Estell, Estell, & McCarty, 2005; Lam & Guillory 2007),
30
“shows that Indigenous students’ academic performance improves considerably when a school curriculum
promotes the culture, and specifically the values, ideas, mores, and language(s) of its respective
communities” (Guillory, 2012, pp.1-2). Culture-based education is not the same as adding bits and pieces
of Native American culture to the educational structure and curriculum of schools based in the dominant
culture of our nation.
Culture is often seen as non-academic and less valued than classes focused on what is considered academic
or intellectual.
Hermes (2000) warns that to simply add in or even "superimpose" elements of Native
cultures on the existing White curriculum is ineffective at best and even worse; this
appears to exert an additional marginalizing effect on the role of Native cultures in the
education of our youth (cited in Guillory, 2012, p. 29).
“The distinct boundary between learning culture or academics tends to narrowly define both identities (a
traditional-cultural identity versus an intellectual identity) and makes the choice for an identity of an ‘Indian
intellectual’ seem like a contradiction” (Hermes, 2000, p.391). If culture can be understood as dynamic, a
process by which we are “creating relationships and meaning, we shall be able to move beyond the
destructive dichotomy that associates intellectual rigor with Whiteness…[and then] culture-based
curriculum holds tremendous promise for indigenous people” (p.387).
Culture-based education for Native American infants, children, and youth is not easily achieved and may
require a reexamination of the dominant theories of education in our nation (Grande, 2000). Brayboy
(2005) proposed Tribal Critical Race Theory as context for the examination of education and found “it will
be more beneficial to Native youth for educators and stakeholders to push ahead in the effort to use culture
as the foundation for curriculum rather than settling for a piecemeal infusion of Native cultures” (Guillory,
2012, p.8). Culture-based education may also alleviate Native American students’ ethnostress which is “the
stress that occurs when a Native student attempts to reposition a sense of self in an Anglo-dominant
environment while being fully aware of his or her historical and cultural connections and significance to
Native identity” (Tynan & Loew, 2010, p.33).
Language Immersion Schooling
The SSOS’ immersion school approach to reversing the language shift of Interior Salish is consistent with
current efforts of other Native American communities and language activists to save their heritage
languages. Recently there has been intense focus on “creating language programs that reach into daycares,
preschools, elementary schools, and beyond” (Paskus, 2013, p.13). It has been determined that Tsalagi
Ageyui, “Our Beloved Cherokee” (a preschool immersion program), of all Cherokee Nation language
programs holds the greatest potential to increase intergenerational, mother-tongue transmission in the home,
family, neighborhood, and community” (Peter, 2007, p.323). The shift toward language immersion schools
with children beginning in infancy is now recognized as a necessary element of successful strategies to save
endangered languages. Language immersion, which provides all or most of children’s instruction in the
31
target or heritage language, is increasingly the pedagogy of choice among Indigenous communities seeking
to produce a new generation of fluent Native Language speakers (McCarty, 2003, pp.148-149).
Many examples of language immersion schools for Native American children in the United States are
provided in Paskus’ 2013 article: More Than Words, A Way of Life. Founders and leaders of these schools
have embraced the need for a language nest in which newborns, toddlers, preschoolers, and early
elementary school children can live their heritage languages and learn how to use their heritage language in
their schooling and in their daily lives. The language nest model goes beyond teaching the language to
babies and children and helps parents learn the language and speak it with their children while also helping
young children build connections with their elders. The language nest model creates ongoing opportunities
for intergenerational transmission of language, culture, and traditions.
Language learning in infancy and early childhood is now understood to have potentially long lasting effects
on a child’s language development in the areas of vocabulary, prosody, phonology, grammar and cognitive
development (Marchman and Fernald, 2008; Swingley, 2008; and Soderman, 2010).
Young language learners are more likely to develop prosody and phonology, the
music and rhythms unique to particular languages…However, sometime between
nine and 18 months of age and thereafter human beings gradually lose the capacity to
‘hear’ certain sounds in languages they don’t experience on a regular basis
(Soderman, 2010, p.58).
In order to create new communities of fluent speakers of Interior Salish, speaking and living life with a
child in their heritage language in the context of a language nest is crucial.
Growth of the School’s Students, Staff, & Facility
SSOS began as a six-month pilot project in 2009 with 4 students and one teacher. The pilot project was
based on a language-nest model, in which children spend their day in language immersion with a fluent
Elder or teacher, while their parents participate in evening or weekend language classes. With three
families participating, the fluent teacher conducted preschool and cultural activities in the basement of one
of the families’ homes. The preschool was not licensed, and received limited funding through Washington
DSHS payments on behalf of one family for childcare provided by a family member. As a result of the
success of the pilot project, the three participating families, along with other community members, formed a
non–profit Washington State corporation, and began soliciting funds from individuals to launch a formal
school operation. SSOS opened a licensed, home daycare in the fall of 2010 with 10 children enrolled.
As part of the formal licensing process, a parent–child handbook was developed, along with other
operational and curriculum policies. For the first two years of operation, the school had just 2 seasonal
employees, and depended upon a volunteer Executive Director. Each year since 2010 the student
enrollment has increased, and for the 2014-15 school year SSOS has 27 students enrolled in its childcare
center and elementary school programs.
32
In order to achieve its mission, SSOS provides free Salish language classes for parents and community
members, as well as intensive Salish language training for all teaching staff. Parents of enrolled children
are required to be active Nsəlxcin language learners, and each class (toddlers, preschool, prekindergarten,
elementary) is staffed by two teachers in order to allow each teacher to attend daily language classes and to
give them time to study. SSOS uses a comprehensive second language acquisition curriculum in order to
teach Nsəlxcin to teachers, parents, and community members, and the development of the curriculum has
been the foundation on which the school's success is based.
Curriculum
The Salish language curriculum used to teach Nsəlxcin to teachers, parents, and community members was
developed by the school's lead founder, LaRae Wiley, and her husband Christopher Parkin, working with
fluent Elder Sarah Peterson. This original curriculum was developed in response to the needs of their
families to learn Nsəlxcin in a predictable and sequential manner. It consists of six textbooks with
accompanying audio files, five software applications, as well as lesson plans, teaching pictures, and other
materials to support instruction.
The creation of a comprehensive Nsəlxcin curriculum has allowed for the timely training of new fluent
preschool and elementary teachers, and has also allowed parents and others to move toward fluency in the
language. To date, the curriculum has been used to bring 10 apprentice speakers up to a level of advanced
fluency. These new speakers make up 75% of the new fluent speakers of the language worldwide. More
than 20 other apprentices in Washington and British Columbia are being taught Nsəlxcin using this
curriculum.
Salish School of Spokane makes its Nsəlxcin curriculum available to other tribal language groups to adapt
to their own languages and cultures, and materials from the curriculum have now been translated into
Spokane Salish, Kalispel Salish, Wenatchee-Columbian Salish, Shuswap Salish, and the Kootenai language.
The Nsəlxcin curriculum, resources and language assessments developed by SSOS and its partners are
available for free at http://www.interiorsalish.com/.
Funding/Budget
Funding for SSOS comes from many sources. Grants contribute a majority of SSOS’ funding, and the
organization has been successful in securing $680,000.00 in grant funding from the Administration for
Native Americans, an office of the federal Administration for Families. SSOS has also received significant
grants from Spokane area tribes and both local and region foundations. Approximately 10% of the SSOS
operating budget comes from student tuition. Tuition is paid according to a sliding scale and ranges from
$6,600.00 to $2,200.00 per year depending upon family income. The SSOS Annual Campaign contributes
approximately 5% of the budget and relies on the SSOS Board of Directors and Executive Director
developing relationships with donors who financially support the mission of SSOS. Fundraising events are
held several times each year and contribute approximately 4% of the annual budget.
Challenges and Recommendations
33
The challenges SSOS has faced since its beginning in 2010 are many: funding; personnel; physical plant
maintenance and upgrades; curriculum development; Board of Directors’ membership and leadership;
teacher evaluation; mandatory language training for all school staff and students’ parents/guardians;
relationships with partnership organizations; providing services to partnership organizations; and the
exhaustion of school leadership and staff due to over-working at the school and on behalf of partnership
organizations. A challenge that has resulted from the successes of the SSOS is the abundance of requests
for help, especially in the area of language curriculum development and teacher training.
Any new school is likely to encounter similar challenges. This may be especially true for any school
completely responsible for finding and maintaining its own funding and facilities; developing its own
curriculum; and providing language training for its staff and students’ parents/guardians. In conversations
with school staff and parents of students who attend SSOS it is clear that these challenges are associated
with the school’s rapid growth and expansion. The Board of Directors is working with the school’s
leadership to create a plan to manage and guide further growth of the school and services the school
provides to partnership organizations.
One of the recommendations the SSOS leadership has offered to others interested in starting a school with a
mission of saving and revitalizing endangered languages is to first visit other schools with the same mission
and learn from their stories of successes and mistakes. During these visits it will be essential to talk with
the leaders and developers of the school, community members, and any staff, parents, and students who will
share their experiences. The individuals who began SSOS visited the
us Salish an ua e nstitute;
the Kalispel Language Program; the Peigan Institute; some of the Native Bands’ Schools in Canada; and the
individuals who were developing the Inchelium Language and Culture Association, to seek advice and learn
what seemed to have worked and what did not. The major lessons learned from these partner organizations
were: 1) don't wait for permission or funding, just go for it; 2) start by creating a fluency tool that can be
used to train fluent teachers and parents, and; 3) believe— believe that Native languages matter, believe that
they can be saved, believe that you can be the one to save your language.
Resources
Many online resources for individuals or groups who are interested in learning more about SSOS, Interior
Salish, Nsəlxcin, endangered languages, the GID Scale exist. For individuals who are interested, the video,
Joshua Fishman and Salish Revitalization is available online and Joshua Fishman’s whole book, Reversing
Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages is also
available online. All these resources are free and links to them follow the reference section of this article.
References
See Appendix with an extended reference list, along with links to additional resources.
34
Authors
Dorothy E. Munson, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Eastern Washington University.
LaRae Wiley is the Executive Director at the Salish School of Spokane. Christopher Parkin is the Principal
at the Salish School of Spokane. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dorothy E.
Munson, Department of Psychology, 135 Martin Hall, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004.
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Appendix with Extended Reference List and Additional Resources
Brayboy, B.M.J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review, 37 (5), 425446. DOI: 10.1007/s11256-005-001/-y
Beaulieu, D., Dick, G., Estell, D., Estell, & McCarty, T. (2005). Preliminary report on No Child Left
Behind in Indian country. Washington, DC: National Indian Education Association.
http://www.niea.org/data/files/policy/nieanclbpublication.pdf
Demmert, W. (2001). Improving schools’ academic performance among Native American students: A
review of the research literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small
Schools. http://inpathways.net/Improving_Performance.pdf
Demmert, W. & Towner, J. (2003). A review of the research literature on the influences of culturally based
education on the academic performance of Native American students. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Lab. http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/196
Dowdy, S. (2012). Building an intergenerational, home-based language nest Melissa Borgia. Santa
Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 21, 115-124. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1221440112?accountid=7305
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of
Assistance to Threatened Languages. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ah1QwYzi3c4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_su
mmary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Grande, S. (2000). American Indian identity and intellectualism: The quest for a new red
pedagogy. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(4), 343-359. DOI:10.1080/095183900413296
Guillory, R.M. (2012). Native American/Native Alaska culture: Differing perspectives on its
definition and infusion into education. Unpublished manuscript.
Hermes, M. (2000). The scientific method, Nintendo, and Eagle feathers: Rethinking the meaning
of “culture-based” curriculum at an Ojibwe tribal school. Qualitative Studies in Education,
13(4), 387-400.
http://www.jcu.edu/education/ed350/The%20scientific%20method%20Nintendo%20and%20E
agle%20feathers%20rethinking%20the%20meaning%20of%20culturebased%20curriculum%20at%20an%20Ojibwe%20tribal%20school.pdf
Lam, P-Y, & Guillory, R. M. (2007). Educational experiences and aspirations of American Indian
high school students in the Spokane School District. Institute for Public Policy and Economic
35
Analysis, Monograph Series, Eastern Washington University. Cheney, Washington.
http://www.ewu.edu/Documents/CBPA/IPPEA/Monograph12ES.pdf
Marchman, V.A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in
infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Developmental Science,
11, F9-F16. DOI 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00671.x
McCarty, L.T. (2003). Revitalizing Indigenous languages in homogenizing times. Comparative
Education, 39(2), 147-163. DOI: 10.1080/0305006032000082380
Parkin, C. (2010). A Summary and application of the theoretical and empirical foundations of
assistance to threatened languages from Joshua A. Fishman. Unpublished manuscript.
Parkin, C. & Wiley, R. (2012). Joshua Fishman and Salish Revitalization: An Introduction for
Activists. Video found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZiHYXHaK1k
Paskus, L. (2013). More than words, a way of life. Tribal College Journal (24), 4, 13–16.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ewu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=2ff9da1f-11c04feaa67464d896dd63aa%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z
SZzY29wZT1zaXRl#
Peter, L. (2007). “Our beloved Cherokee”: A Naturalistic study of Cherokee preschool language
immersion. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 323-342. DOI:
10.1525/aeq.2007.38.4.323
Soderman, A.K. (2010). Language immersion program for young children? Yes…but proceed
with caution. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 54-61.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ewu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2e0f01bdcf48-4b0f-a050-c315f15cce32%40sessionmgr4001&vid=4&hid=4107
Swingley, D. (2008). The roots of the early vocabulary in infants learning from speech. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 308-312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00596.x
Tynan, T. & Loew, P. (2010). Organic video approach: Using new media to engage Native youth
in science. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 34(4), 31-40.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ913000
List of Resources
Salish School of Spokane
http://www.salishschoolofspokane.org/
ali
an a
n i
http://salishworld.com/
Kalispell Language Program
http://www.kalispeltribe.com/language/
The Peigan Institute
http://www.pieganinstitute.org/
Interior Salish: Enduring Languages of the Columbian Plateau
36
http://www.interiorsalish.com/ with links to:
 News
 Inchelium Language & Culture Association
 Paul Creek Language Association
 Salish Font & Keyboard
 Nsəlxcin Curriculum
 Nsəlxcin Resources
 Language Assessment
 Learn Salish – Resources
 Learn Salish – Web Aps
 Revitalizing Salish
 Cultural Resources
 Additional Links
 Contact Information/Guest Book
Endangered Languages: Okanagan-Colville:
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/oka
Joshua Fishman and Salish Revitalization (Video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZiHYXHaK1k
Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened
Languages (Book)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ah1QwYzi3c4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summa
ry_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
37
The WERA Educational Journal
Current Editor:
Karen Banks, Ph.D.
Consultant in Research, Evaluation, &
Assessment
[email protected]
Incoming Editor:
Peter J. Bylsma, Ed.D., MPA
Director, Assessment and Program Evaluation
Mukilteo School District
[email protected]
Book Review Editor and
Editorial Assistant
Andrea Meld, Ph.D.
Kent School District
WEJ is transitioning to a new editor, effective with
the next issue. Karen Banks will continue to
support the journal as a co-editor for the next few
issues, but the primary point of contact will be the
incoming editor and former president of WERA,
Peter Bylsma.
Executive Secretary
Sharon Rockwood,
WERA
The WERA Educational Journal is published twice a year as a peer-reviewed online journal.
Submissions are welcomed from WERA members and others. Submission deadlines are October 1 st
and March 1st. Publication dates are normally in December and June.
The following individuals served as reviewers for the current volume (two issues) of WEJ. In
additional to the personal thanks of the editor, we know that all the authors are appreciative of the
hard work reviewers do, so that WEJ can continue to improve. Our thanks to all of you!
David Holdzkom
Jill Hearne
Patrick Cummings
Linda Elman
Peter Hendrickson
Benjamin Jones
Andrea Meld
Duncan MacQuarrie
Juliana Muli
38