Curriculum, Annotated Bibliography Example

Anfara, J. A., & Mertens, S. B. (2012). “Capacity Building Is a Key to the Radical       Transformation of Middle Grades Schools.” Middle School Journal, 43(3), 58-64.

Anfara and Mertens present here an assessment of the middle school philosophy or concept, placing an initial emphasis on how effective teaching for young adolescents remains a largely unaddressed educational concern.  This viewpoint established, the authors conduct no study themselves, but rather investigate the work done thus far in the five major components of the central issue of capacity building within such schools.  Acknowledging that these elements are reliant upon one another, Anfara and Mertens then devote attention to teacher knowledge; professional communities; program coherence; technical resources; and leadership.  Each subject is briefly examined as to its import,with extensive findings supporting this in each case, and the authors conclude by reinforcing their belief that the discussion offered by them demands greater effort in educational development.

While Anfara and Mertens have clearly investigated the subject thoroughly, the article itself serves primarily as a reinforcement of values largely accepted and not subject to debate.  More to the point, citing the merits of schools providing teachers with the tools they require is hardly a questionable viewpoint, but it also adds little by way of new thinking or suggestions for enhancing such efforts.  Even as the authors devote space to “capacity building,” there is no escaping the clear implication that their work here exists to simply support improvement of the basic functions of middle schools.  The article affirms, but goes no further than a general affirmation of principles not at all contested.

The value of the article, then, is actually limited to the integrity and frequency of the facts it cites.  These are substantial, if the substance of the work is not.  There is, however, a section on teacher development that briefly moves to more concrete arenas requiring addressing, and this may be of value as schools seek to determine priorities in instituting change.  It may also be argued that provoking further discussion, as the article does, is of worth of itself, but it is difficult to identify contributions beyond these two mentioned.

Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). “Coaches as System Leaders.” Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50-53.

In this work, Fullan and Knight adopt the research strategy of investigating the actual circumstances and standings of coaches in school, and with regard to how these roles reveal a lack of proper understanding of a coach’s potentials.  The focus, in fact, is tongue-in-cheek, as the article provides a lesson in “how to squander coaches.”  Relying heavily on results from the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning, which conducted an expansive investigation of 100 schools over a three-year period, the authors report a uniform lack of application regarding coaches, as many convey that actual coaching is a minimal factor of their work.  The various ways in which this resource is squandered, as in an absence of focus from the school, emphasizes the authors’ intent that education requires a more effective use of the subject.

The article is well-written and engaging, if it refrains from defining the precise roles of such coaches.  The evidence offered is also strong, as Fullan and Knight cite relevant and specific cases wherein coaches are both neglected as a resource and highly influential in turning around weak performance.  These elements, moreover, support the assertion made that ignoring any aspect of educational resources must have an exponentially damaging effect on efforts at progress in general terms.

If this article is of value to a certain sphere of educational reform, it appears to be that of leadership.  More precisely, and as supported by case instances, the coaches appear to be victims of educational leadership somewhat at a loss as to how to best employ them.  Fullan and Knight are adamant that integrating the coach is critical for school improvement, and this indicates a neglected responsibility on leadership. Coaches, it is established, are most valuable removed from one-on-one relationships, and when they are agents in enhancing the school’s peer cultures.  It is then leadership’s obligation to see that they have these opportunities.

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B.A., Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009).  “Moving the Learning of Teaching Closer to Practice: Teacher Education Implications of School-Based Inquiry Teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.

The article in question employs a multifaceted approach to its subject, which translates to linking teacher development and inquiry with how schools may enhance performance.  There is a review of the existing literature, which emphasizes difficulties long present in actually evaluating teacher learning in school settings, and concluding in evidence affirming the need to differentiate such inquiry; two investigations, in theory-based frameworks, are carefully analyzed regarding all the pertinent factors going to teacher learning; and four operational features within schools, documented by the authors, are presented as supporting further efforts in isolating, and consequently enhancing, the processes of teacher learning as both removed activity and integral to educational success for the school.

While there can be no dispute with the extensive and scholarly research conducted for this work, it is presented in a manner ultimately obfuscatory, and one wherein even the terminology employed appears contradictory. Essentially, the authors are seeking to identify causal relationships between how teaching is done and how learning is achieved, but there are digressions regarding actual learning of teachers that shift focus.  More exactly, the findings and opinions offered lose impact because so immense a subject defies even theoretical frameworks.  Then, the authors tend to move from theory to empirical data with little connection, largely due to the lack of relevant research.

This criticism notwithstanding, there is value here, particularly in the assertions that active inquiry, and from teachers, may produce new models for more effective education.  This is, in fact, a subject geared for Professional Learning Centers, as the studies cited indicate significant success when teachers more directly involve themselves with students in each learning process.  It is regrettable that this value is difficult to isolate in so elaborate, if academically sound, treatment.

Hord, S. M., & Hirsh, S. A. (2009). “The Principal’s Role in Supporting Learning Communities.” Educational Leadership, 66(5), 22-23.

This brief article may be viewed as something of a primer for leadership in education, and specifically in how the principal is positioned to create real change in schools where low-level performance has become the norm.  No studies or findings are cited; rather, anecdotal evidence is offered, relating both the potentials of a proactive principal and the conflicts perceived by teachers themselves.  These conflicts are presented as requirements teachers feel they need, such as consistent administrative support and sufficient time in which to develop plans and skills.  Beyond this, the thrust of the articles addresses the role of the principal as simultaneously demanding and encouraging teacher cooperation.

It may be argued that the greatest asset of the Hord and Hirsh article lies in its brevity; more exactly, there is no redundancy because the presentation is so limited, and this adds to the impact of its admittedly obvious thrust.  At the same time, actual evidence would enhance the authors’ argument, rather than the referring to the views and experiences of an unidentified principal.

If, however, the proposed rationales are not strikingly original, they have value for the fields of teacher leadership and PLCs.  The emphasis is blatant, in that only a supportive educational culture can provide quality education, and the principal is inherently obligated to direct their efforts to orchestrating this.  That aspect of leadership is not overstated, as the article clearly indicates that teachers, deprived of it, are inclined to reduce their own levels of involvement.

Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Michlin, M., Mascall, B., (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning.  Final Report of Research. St. Paul, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational        Improvement, University of Minnesota & Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in           Education at University of Toronto.

This report, the product of the combined efforts of the universities of Toronto and Minnesota, is a painstaking examination of what and how educational practices serve to improve learning.  The field is vast, and the report is segmented by multiple, in-depth chapters.  Leadership is emphasized in the first several, as those practices from high-performing principals and teachers are examined.  Part Two takes a wider view and addresses community and family interaction and influences on educational advancement, and the third section expands the arena further, discussing state and legislative factors.  It is to the report’s credit that the essential subject remains in view through all of this, as research to a staggering degree is offered to reinforce the importance of it; namely, that involvement on all levels is critical in moving education forward, and in enabling schools to achieve at their potentials.

This product of six years of study is both readable and informative, if there are unnecessary lapses into the obvious.  Given the report’s audience, for example, it seems extraneous to note: “Some evidence suggests that student engagement is a strong predictor of student learning” (p. 8).   At the same time, there is a distinctly strong voice throughout, and one admirably taking a deep focus on leadership effects, aspects of learning processes, and the crucial element of active involvement.  The general impression made, in fact, is that the report should stand as a mandatory text for all those directing efforts to improve modern educational systems.

Not unexpectedly, then, the report has significant bearing on educational leadership in all its manifestations, and in curriculum, instruction, and assessment concerns.  PLCs are as well pertinent, as the report substantially urges to developing of such communal resources.  More to the point, the report is comprehensive in the truest sense of the word, in that it provides the broad perspective from which educational issues must be seen, if change is to be effectively implemented.

Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2011). “Peer? Expert? Teacher Leaders Struggle to Gain Trust While Establishing Their Expertise.” Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 48-51.

The Mangin and Stoelinga article offers an investigation into an important issue, that of the paradox implicit in the teacher leader role.  There is ample discussion of both what this role seeks to achieve, and how this is typically thwarted by the egalitarian relationships in place better the leaders and the teachers themselves.  Multiple examples are provided illustrating why this paradox exists, chiefly in that teacher leaders feel they achieve more, or at least promote an harmonious teaching environment, when they are perceived as equals, and not as supervisory agents.  To that end, the authors present the argument that degrees of expertise or authority must be recognized, if these teacher leaders are to have their desired impact.

The article, while written in a scholarly tone, is engaging and clear.  It follows a pleasing trajectory of definition of the role to the seeming inevitability of the issue, and then cites examples supporting how the paradox/issue is manifested.  Essentially, it has one question to ask: “How can the teacher leader be both a trusted colleague and a resource for instructional improvement?” (p. 48), and it responds with the logical conclusion that some gradation of status is necessary to benefit the teachers, the leaders, and the educational process itself.

Teacher leadership is clearly served by this brief, but well-presented, article.  If its main points are less than surprising, they are nonetheless essential, and there is here a concrete addressing of an issue which seems likely to be typically ignored.  Cooperation is, after all, a desirable element within a teaching staff.  As Mangin and Stoelinga make evident, however, education suffers if too much emphasis is placed on a regard for equality, and the actual purpose if the teacher leader is minimized.

McPherson, S., & Borthwick, A. (2011). “Lessons from New Zealand: Leadership for Learning.” Learning & Leading With Technology, 38(5), 20-25.

This is a singular article, in that there is, not so much an investigation or analysis of an educational research issue, but an almost cheerful presentation of how New Zealand accomplishes great strides in education.  The article begins with a statement of the nation’s

ideology, which integrates education within a cultural framework in a way reflective global issues and demands.  There is then the Minister of Education’s agenda presented, and this is followed by examples of the effectiveness of this, as witnessed during a study tour.  A variety of teaching strategies are discussed, and the work concludes with a reinforcement of New Zealand’s commitment to teacher leadership and education.

To assert that the article reflects something more on the order of a mission statement is not unreasonable; there is a sense of reading, in fact, a brochure.  This unfortunate mode of presentation, however, masks what is excellent here.  If the endorsements of New Zealand’s efforts are perhaps too “ringing,” there is nonetheless a substantive discussion throughout of how integration of educational components, along with a consistent degree of support from the community and the government, produce the results schools everywhere are seeking.  Regrettably, only more in the way of actual documentation, rather than recounted opinion and observation, is needed to truly validate this as an important article.

Running throughout these pages is an emphasis on leadership, and specifically in how student and teacher leadership enhance learning opportunities and generate others. Consequently, instructional leadership is addressed here as well, and the benefit is that the totality of the views goes to an inescapable logic. As New Zealand has – apparently – discovered, fostering leadership potentials within teachers and students inevitably and vastly improves learning experiences. If the promotion seems extreme, the content remains valid for leadership.

Meacham, J., & Gaff, J. G. (2006). “Learning Goals in Mission Statements: Implications for Educational Leadership. Liberal Education, 92(1), 6-13.

The Meacham and Gaff article is centered completely on one word in its title: implications.  This is a research work of a kind seeking to explore a factor not typically addressed when educational issues are discussed, that of a pronounced absence of distinct mission statements as reflecting school ideologies and ambitions. To that end, the authors examine the statements, or lack thereof, of 331 colleges, and analyze the results.  They note that a minority of prestigious universities offer statements clearly indicating commitment, while the majority of these schools surveyed convey a wide range of purported goals.  These findings are compared with a similar report, and the authors conclude that this diversity in statements indicates an absence of actual commitment within the colleges themselves, even as they stress the importance of a school’s professed values as impacting directly on education.

The authors here do a precise calculation of the material selected, breaking mission statements down into expressions of civic duty, personal responsibility, ethical values, and others.  The primary flaw, however, is that Meacham and Gaff automatically assume the mission statements convey the actual state of the schools’ ideologies, and this seems somewhat unfair.  That a college offers a few sentences generally endorsing integrity, for instance, by no means translates to a college necessarily halfhearted in its efforts.  Nonetheless, the article has merit, in that it exposes the need for a school to express an entire persona, as it were, as well as verify its own accomplishments through its establishing its focus, in the statement, on the fields going to the nature of those accomplishments.

The article is of interest to leadership concerns, as well as to those of curriculum.  More exactly, as the core of the work centers on the need for school administration, and at the highest levels, to express distinctly identified values and goals, these same elements must be reflected in how the education occurs.  More importantly, leadership applies here because the article focuses on educational leadership in its truest capacity, as an instrument to guide.

Moore, S. L., Ellsworth, J. B., & Kaufman, R. (2011). “Visions and Missions: Are They Useful? A Quick Assessment. Performance Improvement, 50(6), 15-24. doi:10.1002/pfi.20222.

This article seeks to explore, and in a surprisingly technical fashion, precisely why mission statements matter and what components go into those that do. There is no focus here on education; rather, it is the general organization of any kind that is the object. There is a highly readable and scholarly analysis of organizational expressions of visions, presented occasionally informally: “Trying to link bottom-line results to societal value added may seem like trying to nail mud” (p. 16). There is then a series of tables offered, delineating the aspects of organizational goals and the societal concerns generating them.  Examples and citations indicate the irrefutable relationship between statement and success, as pathways to such relationships are explored.  Lastly, the article provides an eight-point construct with which an organization may create a truly applicable and beneficial statement regarding its goals and nature.

It is commendable that a work not actually addressing education should be so relevant to it.  Given the college mission statement noted above, in fact, the relevance is greater in comparison, perhaps because the generality of only using an organization obviates the ideological language usually presented in regard to educational statements, and there may be a greater focus on the mechanics of the process itself. The work is engaging, intelligent, and it greatly affirms the validity of attending to mission statements, as they invariably have direct influences on the life of the organization.

Here, again, leadership in education is pertinent.  Administrators, in fact, would do well to note the precision of the authors’ breakdown of ideological components, as this generates the essential need for the school to examine its actual foundations.  As may be evident, this in turn affects curriculum concerns, as well as teacher leadership.  Actually, as the statement encompasses the life of the school, all arenas within it are involved in the successful formulation and expressions of it.

Nelson, T., LeBard, L., & Waters, C. (2010). “How to Create a Professional Learning Community. Science And Children, 47(9), 36-40.

This article is true to its title’s intent, and serves as a template of instruction. The authors commence with a discussion of what the PLC is, and then move on to identify the pivotal components required to create an effective model. The inquiry cycle is stressed as providing an actual framework to the PLC, and the authors refer only to their own experiences in substantiating this. Then, there is a further analysis of the components of the cycle, such as data collection and implementation processes. A breakdown of PLC characteristics, ranging from consistent support to meaningful connections to others schools, is finally followed by a strong recommendation that PLCs be created, for the benefit of the community at large. The article is clear and composed with obvious commitment. While the examples andexperiences cited appear valid and persuasive, there remains the feeling that external sources would enhance the argument; the authors, despite sound rationale, seem to be “writing in a vacuum.”  There is as well a conspicuous absence of noting the difficulties in, not creating the PLC, but in prompting the creation to begin with.  These things aside, however, this is a compelling argument for furthering interest in, and development of, the truly effective PLC. As may be expected, the value here goes strongly to PLC considerations. Most particularly, there is a technical aspect to the article’s presentation that must ease any PLC process; more exactly, as the ambitions going into PLCs are frequently generalized desires to improve education, the understanding of the key components offered here is of great worth. As also may be obvious, any work serving to enhance PLCs must have a direct impact on instructional leadership, in that the latter is guided when the former presents insights.

Richmond, G., & Manokore, V. (2011). “Identifying Elements Critical for Functional and Sustainable Professional Learning Communities.”  Science Education, 95(3), 543-570. doi 10.1002/sce.20430.

Affirming that, for the purposes of the article, the PLC is: “Teachers who meet regularly with a common set of teaching and learning goals, shared responsibilities for work to be undertaken, and collaborative development of pedagogical content knowledge,” (p. 545), the authors then present the results of data collection from an urban school district study.  The method relies on interviews obtained from multiple participants, engaged in varying levels of activity within four PLC environments.  Excerpts from recorded sessions are presented, and all the information is assessed according to the four elements of teacher learning and collaboration, teacher community formation, teacher confidence, and impact of policy on classroom practice.

Detailed examinations of these results leads the authors to conclude that, while teachers uniformly express a need for cooperation and mutual learning, reforms as arising from PLCs may be severely hampered by district parameters and restrictions. This is a thoroughly valid, and strikingly acute, analysis of the actual workings of PLCs. Virtually no consideration is ignored, from the more generalized objectives to precise interactions between student responses and teacher interest.  In addition to the impressive dissection of the data, equally important is how this is viewed as indicative of ordinary circumstances, and how the achievements of PLCs may influence teachers and students in immeasurable ways.

Clearly, such an article is highly relevant to PLC study, if not invaluable.  There can be no overstating of the breadth and integrity of the research, particularly as the former, again, addresses literal needs.  This is data translated into the living processes of education, and interest in the potentials of PLCs, along with a heightened awareness of those forces perhaps inhibiting these potentials, can only be enormously served by attending to this work.

Skiffington, S., Washburn, S., & Elliott, K. (2011). “Instructional Coaching: Helping Preschool Teachers Reach Their Full Potential.”  Young Children, 66(3), 12-19.

Washburn and Elliott seek to explain and promote the advantages of coaching, as facilitating the development of preschool teachers.  The article begins by introducing Amelia and Tonya, a teacher and coach respectively, and it proceeds by documenting their interactions indetail and assessing Amelia’s progress. Prior to the actual case, the authors pause to discuss theirown work in the field, citing evidence to support their view of instructional coaching as a unique vocation in education at this level.  The authors conclude by drawing from the case illustrations if how it addresses a variety of important issues, including the degrees to which teachers a assess themselves and how core competencies are critical in coaching itself.

The article is not difficult to follow, and the ostensible handicap of employing only one case actually works to the authors’ advantage; in maintaining the focus on Amelia and Tonya allows for an examination of great insight.  More exactly, as the circumstances are so limited, it is possible to see exactly how Tonya obtains Amelia’s trust.  Then, the “lessons learned” are by no means facile, or reliant on generalized language.  For instance, a section devoted to the benefits of coaches instructing teachers in utilizing data is both highly specific and informative.

Instructional leadership is clearly addressed here, and it is interesting that the preschool factor does not appear to diminish the importance of the work. In basic terms, the instruments and methods exchanged between the two women seem to be applicable to any educational setting. The primary advantage of the article, then, is in its validated endorsement of the many ways in which coaching may enhance teaching.

Spanneut, G. (2010).  “Professional Learning Communities, Principals, and Collegial Conversations.” Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(3), 100-103.

Gene Spanneut’s article is focused on instructional leadership, with specific regard to the role played by principals.  He begins by noting how important the subject has been recognized to be, and then moves into how the principal may most effectively enhance the PLC experience.

This is attempted by a series of remarks identifying aspects of this process, each substantiating the author’s statements.  The emphasis throughout, and validated by extensive citations, is on the principal sharing, rather than steering (p. 101).  No actual research is conducted, and the author concludes by stressing how collegial conversations, rather than any supervisory authority, generate the more effective PLC.

If the above indicates weakness in the article, the reality is that Spanneut makes a compelling case for encouraging such principal participation.  Importantly, he strongly indicates that the sharing to be encouraged between principals and teachers in such settings is an exponential process, and one creating PLC environments necessarily unique unto themselves.

There is as well an admirable, if not forcefully expressed, conviction that principals, by virtue of their position, are obligated to initiate PLC activity.

This works addresses the concerns of leadership and PLCs equally.  Its chief asset, in fact, lies in its conveying how inextricably linked the two are, or should be.  The message is clear: as the principal, or leader, initiates open discussion and trust in the PLC setting, the teachers respond in similar manners, and an untold number of both issues and solutions may be discussed.

There is as well, then, an impact here on teacher leadership, as such sharing must empower the teacher.

Thornton, H. J. (2010). “Excellent Teachers Leading the Way: How to Cultivate Teacher Leadership.” Middle School Journal, 41(4), 36-43.

In this discussion of teacher leadership, Thornton focuses on middle schools, and presents evidence going to its role in improving student performance and school success.  He offers a table illustrating how poor performances invariably occur in those schools with large populations of minority or economically disadvantaged students, and then breaks down this data in terms of cultural and structural elements.  It is made clear that all the data is obtained from 44 middle schools, representing a wide range of diversity in both teacher and student populations.  From this, the author correlates components of both frameworks, supporting his later assertions that tangible issues interfere with teachers’ exhibiting the necessary leadership to surmount the disparities of school environments.  He concludes with recommendations for actions which may address those obstacles, and empower teacher leadership.

The article is clearly well-researched, if there is some ambiguity in its format.  More exactly, Thornton is slow to address the obviously important factor of the student populations as disadvantaged, and the reader must dig deep to comprehend this factor in his analysis.  At the same time, there is a thoroughly valid connection made between school behaviors as relevant to teacher leadership and outcomes.  If Thornoton meanders in his approach, he nonetheless finds his way back to substantiating his points, and these are conveyed with admirable clarity in his concluding segments. Most particularly, he notes that time limitations, communication issues, and ineffective principal leadership are most damaging to teacher leadership potential.

Once again, it becomes evident that no single value may apply here, as the article serves the interests of teacher leadership, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and instructional leadership.  There is no real dichotomy between these concerns, as teacher leadership must impact on the other agents, as it is influenced by them.  Thornton’s work is, then, an interesting perspective in that a single study further supports the need for schools to prioritize developing teacher leadership.

Wahlstrom, K. L., & York-Barr, J. (2011). “Leadership: Support and Structures Make the Difference for Educators and Students.” Journal Of Staff Development, 32(4), 22-25.

This work seeks to distill the findings of a six-year study, enabled by the Wallace Foundation, devoted to investigating the effects of leadership on learning.  This is achieved through examining the three concepts made evident as critical by the study: building capacity, providing support, and distributing responsibility.  While little in the way of the study’s findings is cited, each concept is fully explored and also presented as reliant upon the others.  The authors then conclude by emphasizing that, the irony notwithstanding, leadership may be promoted only when leadership acknowledges the importance of the promotion within the schools.

The article is engaging, readable, and clearly adamant in its declarations.  This last is by no means an implied criticism; rather, as the authors are working from an extensive foundation of information, the tone is appropriate.  While not overtly aggressive, there is an implacable assertion of the importance of leadership as crucial in any educational approach or system, as the support for such leadership is inevitably and equally essential.

It may be safely held here that the value of this articles goes to every educational concern, from that of curriculum to PLCs.  Leadership, as the authors eloquently make clear, is precisely that vital.  The leader’s capacity is limited only by the degree of support received, as their influences must have an exponential impact on the educational life of the school. Importantly, this is also not leadership confined to either teacher or principal, as discussed in the article. This in itself powerfully reinforces how educational leadership, proactive on every level, creates a mutually enhanced educational environment.