Contact Us About Us UAF School of Education
School of Education logo

Overview

Search SOE

Search for:

School of Education Conceptual Framework

This document is also available as a downloadable PDF file (477K) , as well as an on-line executive summary.

University of Alaska Fairbanks

School of Education

Conceptual Framework

2002, revised July 28, 2004

The University of Alaska Fairbanks is accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
UAF is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and educational institution.

Table of Contents

1.0 Mission and Goals of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

2.0 The Alaska Education Context

3.0 Vision, Mission, and Goals of the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Education

4.0 UAF School of Education Programs

5.0 Candidate Proficiencies

6.0 Overview of UAF School of Education Assessment System

7.0 Philosophy of the Faculty

8.0 Knowledge Base of the Faculty

Mission and Goals of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) is a multicampus institution with responsibility for providing a range of programs including public service, research and doctoral programs, liberal arts and professional undergraduate and graduate education, certificate and associate degree vocational education, and developmental and life-long learning to traditional as well as nontraditional students. UAF is a separately accredited major academic and administrative unit of the University of Alaska, the state's only publicly supported system of higher education. UAF is the only unit within the institution with a large number of rural campuses throughout the state and the only unit with responsibility to deliver programs and courses to off-campus place-bound rural students through distance delivery methods. The University of Alaska Fairbanks is committed to having a diverse student body, and it actively recruits and encourages the enrollment of underrepresented students from local, state, national, and international communities.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks recognizes as part of its mission the importance of providing an education to and for the Alaska Native population. This means that it must provide a curriculum that is meaningful to Alaska Native people and it requires that UAF deliver education to small populations of students in remote rural areas of the state.

Bearing in mind its history, current strengths, and responsibilities within the university system, UAF adopted the following mission statement in June 2000:

The University of Alaska Fairbanks, as the nation's northernmost Land, Sea, and Space Grant university and international research center, advances and disseminates knowledge through creative teaching, research, and public service with an emphasis on Alaska, the North and their diverse peoples.

The Chancellor's Cabinet formally adopted Strategic Plan: UAF 2005 in July 2001. The goals of Strategic Plan: UAF 2005 are (http://www.uaf.edu/univrel/plan/):

The UAF Strategic Plan Indicator Report (http://www.uaf.edu/pair/SP2005_v5_files/ v3_document.htm) outlines the extent to which the above goals are being met.

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

The Alaska Education Context

Because the mission of the School of Education is informed by the multiple contexts for which we prepare educators, this section briefly describes those contexts before presenting the mission and vision that derive from them.

Schooling in Alaska has a number of unique characteristics that make the preparation of educators challenging. Although Alaska is the state with the largest land mass, it is also the state with the lowest population density. The population is 626,932 people, including nearly 103,000 of aboriginal ancestry (U.S. Census, 2000) who collectively refer to themselves as Alaska Natives. The large majority of non-Native people are migrants from the Lower 48 states, and there are increasing numbers of Asian and Latin American immigrants. With 20 distinct Alaska Native languages, several Asian and European languages, and American dialects from all regions of the United States, there is an unusual linguistic diversity for such a small population. Our urban schools are diverse, with as many as 44 languages spoken by students in Fairbanks and 92 languages spoken by students in Anchorage.

It is important to note that Alaska has the highest percentage and the sixth largest overall population of indigenous people in the United States. Alaska Natives constitute 16.9% of the state's population, and 23% of its school population (25% when including American Indians). Nearly 60% of Alaska Native students continue to attend school in rural and remote communities where K-12 school enrollments range from eight students with one teacher to 500 students with many teachers. The remaining 40% of Alaska Native students are in urban schools where the majority of the student enrollment is white.

There are 54 school districts in Alaska today. These are often described in three categories: (1) urban districts; (2) road system/marine highway districts; and (3) rural regional center and village districts. The urban districts include Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Matanuska-Susitna. The road system/marine highway districts include schools in communities accessible by car or ferry and primarily non-Native, such as Kenai, Ketchikan, Sitka, or Tok. The regional center and village districts include larger rural communities such as Barrow, Bethel, Kotzebue, and Nome, where the population is 30 to 50% non-Native, and small villages typically ranging from 65 to 700 primarily Alaska Native residents.

Because of the small populations in villages, there are many small rural schools staffed by small numbers of teachers. For example, in 2001, of 503 schools in the state, 25% had five or fewer teachers and 22% had 50 or fewer students. Most of these schools have a K-12, multigraded organization and the number of teachers typically ranges from one to 10. In a few rural schools, instruction in the early years may be in one of the Alaska Native languages, such as Gwit'chin, Inupiaq, Siberian Yup'ik, or Central Yup'ik (Barnhardt, 2001). Table 1 below describes the ethnicity of students in Alaska's schools.

Table 1: Ethnicity of students in all Alaska school districts combined, 2002-2003

Ethnicity

Alaska Native or other Native American

Asian-Pacific Islander

African American

Latino

White

Ethnicity Mixed[1]

Total Number of Students

Percentage of Students

25%

6%

5%

4%

58%

3%

134,364

Table 2 below provides information on the ethnicity of students in the four urban areas of Alaska—the Anchorage Municipality (population 260,283), the Matanuska-Susitna Borough just north of Anchorage (population 59,322), the Fairbanks North Star Borough (population 82,840), and the Juneau Borough (population 30,711)—according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development report on district enrollment, 2002.

Table 2: Ethnicity of students in the Anchorage Municipality, Mat-Su Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough, and Juneau Borough, 2002-2003

Ethnicity and Percentage of Students

Alaska Native or other Native American

Asian-Pacific Islander

 African American

Latino

 White

Ethnicity Mixed1

Total Number of Students
Anchorage

12%

11%

8%

6%

59%

3%

49,674
Fairbanks

14%

3%

8%

4%

71%

Not reported

15,412
Juneau

22%

9%

1%

4%

63%

1%

5543
Mat-Su

11%

1%

1%

2%

83%

2%

13,870

In 30 small rural school districts (55% of all districts), more than 50% of the student population is Alaska Native. In many of the small rural communities (with a population under 800), the Alaska Native population is over 90%. Many of these communities also experience a very high poverty rate. Table 3 below provides data on the ethnicity of students in the 50 non-urban school districts.

Table 3: Ethnicity of students in the 50 non-urban school districts, 2002-2003.

Ethnicity

Alaska Native or other Native American

Asian-Pacific Islander

African American

Latino

White

Ethnicity Mixed1

Total Number of Students

Percentage of Students

45%

3%

1%

1%

48%

2%

48,638

The high-school dropout rate for Alaska Natives and other Native Americans, African Americans, and Latinos continues to be much higher than for white students (Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 2002 report to the public), and there is a significant achievement gap between Alaska Native and white students (EED reports, 2003-2004). Taken together, these data demonstrate the need for programs that prepare school personnel to respond to the concerns of Alaska's geographically, linguistically, culturally, and socioeconomically diverse communities.

In part because of the challenges of responding appropriately to this diversity, Alaska has long had a shortage of professional school staff, and the demand continues to be greater than Alaska universities can fill. Over 1,000 educators are hired each year, but there are often up to 100 positions that remain vacant at the beginning of each academic year. The majority of these vacancies are in the area of special education and in rural schools. In addition, rural schools typically experience a high rate of turnover of both teachers and administrators (Hill, 2001). For example, in 2000, 10 rural districts experienced a 40 to 100% turnover of teaching and administrative staff, and during a recent three-year early retirement incentive program, the turnover rate reached 26% statewide.

A variety of factors contribute to school staffing shortages. New hires in rural schools are often new to the state and/or new to the profession. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Recruitment and Retention Report, Fall 2001, revealed that among all teachers hired that fall, 412 were new to Alaska and 357 were new to teaching; 21 administrators were new to the state and 56 new to administration.[2] Living in remote villages and working with students and parents who come from cultural and linguistic backgrounds very different from their own can be difficult for many teachers and administrators.

The constant ebb and flow of new village teachers, counselors, and administrators, many with their own ideas of what is best for the local children and some, unfortunately, with ingrained prejudices that influence their interactions with the community, has resulted in heightened tension in some communities. Mohatt and Parker (in Lipka, 1998) describe aspects of power structures and the culture of schooling in some rural Alaska schools and how these are in direct contrast to local Native cultural beliefs and practices. These tensions contribute to high turnover of school staff, which becomes cyclical as new teachers, also unfamiliar with rural Alaska and unable to bridge the gap between school and community, replace those who leave. Although it concerns them deeply, many rural communities accept as "normal" the fact that the entire non-resident staff of their schools turns over every three or four years.

The context of schooling in Alaska, described above, informs the core of the UAF School of Education mission, which is set within our overall responsibility to the state and our specific responsibilities to the districts surrounding our geographical home. In part because of geographical proximity, these nearby districts play a critical partnership role in providing many of our adjunct faculty, hosting SOE interns, sharing professional development activities, and advising our programs. We, in turn, provide pre-service preparation and ongoing professional development for many of their personnel.

In the following section, we present the overall mission of the UAF School of Education, which derives from the contextual needs outlined above, after which we demonstrate how the specific elements of our programs flow from our mission.

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

Vision, Mission, and Goals of the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Education

Vision

The vision of schooling in Alaska shared by the faculty of the UAF School of Education is of schools that function as an integral part of the community; schools in which children, teachers, school administrators, school counselors, parents, elders, and other community members become interdependent. We share the vision that a highly qualified educator is one who not only has a deep understanding of academic and pedagogical knowledge, but also has a deep understanding of the cultural, environmental, and emotional context of the children for whom they share responsibility with the family and the community. We envision schools in which the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the professional school staff reflect the diversity of the students in the community.

Mission

We focus our vision of schooling in Alaska through our mission statement, which undergoes regular review and revision based on faculty consensus. In a series of meetings in 2000 and 2001, and again in 2004, the faculty reviewed its mission in light of the revised mission of UAF and adopted the following:

Mission of the School of Education: Preparing professional educators who are culturally responsive, effective practitioners. Such educators exhibit specific professional characteristics. They:

We define the key terms in our mission statement as follows:

· Professional: educators who are fully functioning members of the education profession, and who feel connected to that profession even before they exit our programs.

· Culturally responsive: educators who have an understanding of and respect for the children, families, and communities they serve as professionals. They will know how to respond to their communities in ways that enable those communities to feel that their cultural and linguistic heritages are honored by their schools and integrated into the schools in the manner most likely to result in the personal and academic success of the community's children.

· Effective: educators who develop goals for themselves and their students, and who are able to demonstrate that they and their students have attained the intended goals. We strive to help our candidates become professional educators who will have a lasting, positive impression upon the students, families, schools, and communities in which they serve.

Goals and Objectives

We situate our vision and mission in practice through goals and objectives, summarized in the following list.

  1. Increase the number of qualified educators for Alaska's schools by:
    • providing licensure programs at undergraduate and graduate levels
    • providing education programs to place-bound educators in rural Alaska
    • recruiting Alaska Native candidates
    • aligning programs with state and national standards and the candidate proficiencies identified in our Conceptual Framework
  2. Enhance the professional skills of Alaska's K-12 educators by:
    • providing professional development opportunities throughout their careers
    • providing graduate degree programs statewide
    • developing partnerships with public schools
  3. Develop and support ongoing systemic educational collaborations with Alaska schools and communities to:
    • respond to the needs and interests of youth, families, and communities
    • better serve Alaska's diverse populations
    • enhance learning opportunities for individuals with exceptionalities
  4. Conduct collaborative research on cross-cultural and multicultural education to provide on-going support for

In Table 4, we compare the objectives noted under each goal, above, to the strategic plan of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Because the objectives, as they appear above and in our brochure, "Programs and Conceptual Framework," have been reordered and recombined for purposes of this comparison, we refer to them in Table 4 as "commitments." The purpose of the table is to demonstrate a clear synchrony between the goals of the university and commitments of the School of Education as expressed in our goals and objectives.

Table 4. Objectives of UAF School of Education correlated with the UAF Strategic Plan

UAF Strategic Plan 2005 goals

Objectives of the UAF School of Education

Provide high-quality undergraduate education for traditional and nontraditional students

Provide teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and post-baccalaureate levels

Provide program delivery to place-bound college students and K-12 educators in rural Alaska

Align SOE programs with state and national standards

Serve as a model to demonstrate how gender, racial, and cultural diversity strengthen a university and society.

Increase the number and quality of K-12 educators prepared for Alaska schools, particularly for rural schools serving Alaska Native communities

Prepare educators who are responsive to the needs of children, youth, and families in communities throughout Alaska

Prepare educators who demonstrate the incorporation of cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity as a source of strength in their educational beliefs and practices

Serve as a world leader in arctic research and related graduate education

Provide graduate programs for K-12 teachers, school counselors, and other educators

Provide continuing professional development for educators throughout their careers

Serve as the premiere higher educational center for Alaska Natives

Expand our role as a leader in the state and the nation in the preparation of Alaska Native educators

Prepare educators who possess a sound base of knowledge of the Alaska context and of Alaska Native cultures

Serve as a world leader in arctic research and related graduate education

Serve as an academic gateway to the study of North Pacific and the Circumpolar Northern land and seas

Conduct collaborative research/inquiry relevant and useful to schools and communities of Alaska and the Circumpolar North

Incorporate research on education in Alaska and the Circumpolar North into our curricula

Develop local and international collaborations with researchers and scholars in the areas of multicultural education, cross-cultural education, and indigenous education in order to better serve diverse and exceptional populations

Form active collaborations with communities, organizations, businesses, and government to meet identified state, national, and global needs

Develop statewide partnerships responsive to the needs of Alaska's children, youth, and families

Develop and support ongoing systemic collaborations with schools, communities, and organizations (including Alaska Native organizations) in rural and urban areas of Alaska

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

UAF School of Education Programs

Stages of an Educator's Professional Career

As discussed, the context of schooling as it exists in Alaska today and our vision of what it might become directly influence the design of our programs. In addition, we recognize that to become culturally responsive, effective practitioners, pre-professionals move through a series of stages on their way to becoming effective practitioners. These stages appear in graphic form below.

stages of an educator's professional career

These stages can be identified and described in terms of SOE responsibilities at each stage.

A. Pre-professional preparation. Pre-professional preparation of our candidates involves faculty from disciplines across the University of Alaska Fairbanks as a whole, especially faculty in the College of Engineering and Mines; the College of Liberal Arts; the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics; the School of Management; and the College of Rural Alaska. It is the particular responsibility of the faculty of the School of Education to help candidates develop the pedagogical foundations needed to prepare them for their school internship experiences.

B. Professional preparation for initial licensure. Candidates are engaged in a two-semester internship in a public school, during which time they develop close working relationships with their students, mentor teachers, and university supervisors, and become integrated into their school-wide communities.

C. Induction years—professional development. Because Alaska is a small state where professional relationships tend to be close and enduring, SOE faculty have a long tradition of informally supporting graduates into their professional years. Beginning fall 2004, the SOE will begin a formal collaboration with the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development and the UA Statewide Office of Academic Affairs to provide induction services to all teachers new to the state and/or new to the profession. Two School of Education faculty members will be devoting the equivalent of one full-time position to this collaborative induction year support initiative.

D. Graduate Preparation. Candidates attain advanced degrees and/or advanced licensure through other types of post-baccalaureate programs (e.g., Guidance and Counseling, Reading Endorsement) and through the Master of Education degree.

E. Continuing professional development. The School of Education engages teachers and other school personnel in continuing professional development through mentoring programs, graduate courses (600 level) that can be applied to a graduate degree and/or an advanced professional licensure program, and/or through professional development courses and workshops (500 level) that can be used for recency credits only (i.e., they cannot be used to meet degree requirements).

To summarize, the goals and objectives of the UAF School of Education derive from the context of schooling as it exists in Alaska today, our vision of what schooling could look like as the profession continues to mature within our multiple settings, and our understanding of the typical stages educators pass through on their way toward becoming culturally responsive, effective practitioners. Together, these inform our programs today and chart their development into the future.

Overview of Our Programs and Graduates

Prior multicultural experience and appreciation for diversity are two of the "strongly preferred" characteristics built into many SOE staff and all SOE faculty position descriptions. Faculty have also studied and observed first-hand the impact that high turnover has on students, families, and communities. And we understand that both students and educators move frequently between rural and urban schools. Consequently, SOE personnel are committed to helping K-12 educators acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to respond effectively to the particular challenges in any school and community they choose to serve. This is not an easy task, and we accept the ongoing dialog about how to balance priorities as part of our professional responsibility.

Our programs are based on strong collaborative relationships with our geographically neighboring districts and on a long history of delivering programs to off-campus students and interns. Thirty-five years ago, our off-campus delivery models originated in an attempt to recruit Alaska Native candidates, but aspects of those models (e.g., technologically mediated instruction, heavy use of practicum experiences) have informed the learning experiences we provide to on-campus students, just as our more traditional delivery structures have informed our commitment to a common set of learning outcomes for all SOE graduates.

We currently offer a bachelor's degree for the preparation of elementary teachers, fifth-year licensure programs for the preparation of both elementary and secondary teachers, and a Master of Education degree program. These are available in Fairbanks and by distance delivery to students throughout the state. Our programs use a variety of instructional technologies and models of delivery that include weekly audioconferences, web-based instruction (including Blackboard and on-line portfolio systems), e-mail and phone communication, and on-site visits for supervision of interns and student teachers. In addition to facilitating communication among all program participants, these technologies model for our candidates some of the strategies they will use to become effective practitioners.

All of our programs include courses that focus directly on issues related to teaching responsively and effectively in a wide variety of cultural and linguistic contexts, with a focus on Alaska Native rural environments. Candidates learn to work in Alaska's diverse settings through a variety of specific requirements: undergraduate students complete multiple fieldwork requirements in different contexts; post-baccalaureate and graduate students are placed in schools that serve diverse student populations; and all post-baccalaureate students participate in one-week practicum experiences in rural communities.

Through a partnership initiated with the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development six years ago, we have been able to obtain district and school names and position descriptions for SOE graduates employed in Alaska, allowing us to create a School of Education database of 3,255 individuals who have completed our programs since 1976. These data reveal a steady history of preparing educators who have stayed and been successful in Alaska's schools.

Of the 3,255 individuals, 1,480 (45%) held professional positions in Alaska's schools within the last six years (1,370 teachers, 95 school administrators, 17 curriculum specialists, and 60 school counselors). In addition, 1,133 continued to hold positions in Alaska's schools in the 2003-2004 school year. These figures represent 35% of the candidates who have completed our programs since 1976, and 14% of the 8,100 teachers employed in the state, indicating that a high percentage of UAF education graduates not only obtain public school positions in Alaska but are far more likely to continue as Alaska educators than those who come from outside the state.

Within the subset of the 1,480 SOE graduates employed in schools within the past six years, 47% (700) have been employed in schools that are not in the four urban areas, and 55% (820) have been employed in urban schools. Seventy-two individuals have served in both settings. During the 2003–2004 school year, 440 out of 998 (44%) professional personnel employed by the Fairbanks North Start Borough School District had earned licensure, endorsements, or degrees through the UAF School of Education. They included 407 teachers, 27 counselors, 10 curriculum specialists, and 16 building administrators.

As a result of our long commitment to preparing culturally responsive, effective practitioners, and because of our focused recruitment and retention efforts, UAF is a leader in the state in the preparation of rural and Alaska Native educators. The percent of SOE Alaska Native education graduates among all SOE graduates typically equals or exceeds the 16.9% of Alaska Native residents among the state's population as a whole. In addition, of the 380 Alaska Native candidates who have completed our programs since 1970, 66% (252) were employed as professionals in Alaska public schools at some point during the past six years, and 82% of them served in rural schools for one or more of those years. Fifty-three percent were still employed in Alaska's schools in 2003-04. These data provide strong evidence of the longevity of Alaska Native educators relative to educators from outside the state. In addition, we know through ongoing professional relationships that many Alaska Native educators who no longer work in public schools serve in other educational capacities, including several in higher education.

Partnerships

To help prepare more educators who will contribute to culturally responsive schools in rural and urban environments, the UAF School of Education has developed a variety of formal and informal partnerships with school districts and communities throughout the state. We believe that these collaborations help reduce the academic achievement gap between different populations of students in different geographic locations. Our collaborative efforts range from working with nearly all of the 54 districts in the placement and support of our teacher education students during their year-long internship year to a large number of special projects. For example, over the past 20 years, we have worked with numerous rural districts to arrange placements for student teachers and/or interns, including many Alaska Native teacher aides. Some of these districts, for example Lower Kuskokwim, Lower Yukon, Yupiit, and Yukon Koyukuk, have also hosted teacher education candidates in week-long "rural practica" during each of the past three years. While it is natural for the urban district serving our home community to hire UAF graduates, these collaborative efforts with rural districts, along with our distance-delivery degree options, have broadened the learning opportunities available to all of our candidates and have resulted in rural districts also hiring large numbers of UAF graduates.

Several small projects are funded through a special Alaska Schools Research Fund and others through national grants. These projects focus on a wide range of activities and programs designed to support Alaska Native students and communities and to contribute to the development of culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogy for use in our programs and in K‑12 schools. Some recent and ongoing projects include preparation and support of Alaska Native language teachers, Future Teacher Clubs for high-school students, tuition and book waivers for Alaska Native students, mentoring programs to support new teachers, and cross-cultural language/literacy networks for practicing teachers. Two Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology grants have allowed the School of Education to provide technology training and support for large numbers of students and faculty on the Fairbanks campus and in rural areas. In addition, a very large number of professional development courses and graduate programs are offered to educators throughout the state, regardless of their geographic location.

Currently, two School of Education faculty members serve as principal investigators for multiyear National Science Foundation grants. One, an indigenous math curriculum project now in its seventh year, focuses on the development and use of culturally meaningful and appropriate math curricula based on indigenous knowledge. Project members work with elders, parents, and teachers in several rural sites as well as in the Fairbanks schools. The second NSF project is the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative, now in its ninth year. This is a collaborative effort between the Alaska Federation of Natives, the University of Alaska, and the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. As its brochure states:

The purpose of the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative is to coordinate a series of initiatives aimed at systematically documenting the indigenous knowledge systems of Alaska Native people and developing pedagogical practices and school curricula that appropriately incorporate indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing into the formal education systems. The goal is to infuse the initiatives into the curricular and instructional practices on a sustainable basis. The emphasis throughout the program has been on renewing Native pathways to education, so that traditional knowledge systems, ways of knowing and world views can be more effectively utilized as a foundation for learning all subject matter, particularly in the context of rural and Native Alaska. Overall guidance for the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative is provided by a series of Elder's Councils and the Alaska Native/Rural Education Consortium. (Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative program brochure).

One Rural Systemic Initiative activity, the Alaska Native Knowledge Network website, makes available over 3,000 resource materials. The site receives approximately 700,000 hits per month (http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/). These resource materials are an invaluable asset to our programs, particularly the cultural guidelines that have been developed for students, teachers, schools, and communities.

Our programs also involve collaboration among the five higher education institutions in Alaska. For example, the development of our new BA in Elementary Education degree required extensive collaboration among the schools of education and the colleges of arts and sciences within the University of Alaska system. Similarly, the three schools of education also collaborated to develop a statewide reading endorsement program at the graduate level. Although UAF does not house advanced degrees for school administration or special education, we have a collaborative relationship with the University of Alaska Anchorage that provides a faculty member in educational leadership and a faculty member in special education. These faculty have offices within the UAF School of Education, allowing them to provide access to advanced degrees and licensure in school administration and special education to candidates residing in the area of Alaska traditionally served by UAF. In addition, both faculty members travel extensively throughout the state, working particularly with rural-based candidates. We also collaborate with the University of Alaska Southeast, which offers an advanced degree in early childhood education. Since spring of 2002, we have facilitated a unique partnership with all five teacher preparation institutions in the state to develop a database system for tracking the progress of candidates, with a particular focus on the assessment of the state and national standards and on NCATE criteria. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development has sent staff members to some of these collaborative planning meetings to help assess our data needs.

Until recently, the dean and faculty members from the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Education participated in regular statewide meetings with representatives of several statewide groups, including the commissioner of education and a member of the Alaska Board of Education. Although this advisory group no longer exists, the important collaborative networks established during the meetings allow many of us to continue to work together.

It is clear that through our distance delivery options, research priorities, and partnerships with schools and other higher education throughout the state, UAF School of Education faculty and staff have a strong commitment to the improvement of schooling for all students in Alaska through the development and implementation of culturally appropriate curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in the preparation of school personnel who are responsive to the cultural interests and academic needs of local communities and the state of Alaska as a whole.

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

Candidate Proficiencies

To define what our mission and goals should look like in practice, we developed a single set of candidate proficiencies for all our programs, including programs for initial and advanced teacher preparation and our Guidance and Counseling Program. Our intent was to base the proficiencies on national and state teaching standards and our School of Education mission statement (i.e., professional educators who are culturally responsive, effective practitioners), and to organize them in relation to the criteria we assess (i.e., knowledge, skills, and dispositions). The following definitions are pertinent:

Our UAF School of Education candidate proficiencies are presented on the following page as Table 5. For ease of reference, the number of the Alaska Teacher Standard that most closely aligns with each proficiency is included. This document guides theory and practice relative to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in each of our programs.

Candidate Proficiencies Correlated to State Standards

We then undertook a process of comparing, revising, aligning, and consolidating successive iterations of our candidate proficiencies to the Alaska Teacher Standards. Where there was direct correlation, we adopted the language of the Alaska Teacher Standards for our program assessment documents. In those instances where the wording of the Alaska Teacher Standards did not adequately incorporate the candidate proficiencies from our Conceptual Framework, we added specific items that we refer to as "UAF additional performances." This process yielded our primary working document, which we refer to as the "Alaska and UAF School of Education Standards and Performances for Culturally Responsive, Effective Practitioners," presented on pages 17-18 as Table 6. As Table 6 demonstrates, there is close correlation between the Alaska Teacher Standards and our UAF proficiencies.

Table 5. UAF School of Education candidate proficiencies—knowledge, skills, and dispositions of professional educators who are culturally responsive, effective practitioners and the Alaska Teacher Standard that most closely matches each proficiency (revised April 2004).

Outcomes for candidates

Professional educators

Culturally responsive

Effective practitioners

Knowledge

· Are highly qualified in their field of expertise (AK Standard 4a)

· Demonstrate knowledge of current educational theory, research, & best practice in the professional setting (AK Standard 4)

· Demonstrate knowledge of the Alaskan context and of Alaska Native cultures, languages, & history (AK Standard 3c)

· Recognize that all individuals can learn, no matter their age, race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ability, or exceptionalities (AK Standard 2b)

· Understand diverse learning styles and multiple intelligences (AK Standard 2b)

· Recognize the importance of using technology in culturally responsible ways (AK Standard 3a)

· Recognize the legal and ethical responsibilities of a culturally responsive practitioner (AK Standard 8a)

· Understand effective pedagogy (AK Standard 4)

Skills

· Provide a safe, healthy, inclusive learning environment for all children (AK Standard 6)

· Demonstrate effective communication skills (AK Standard 4)

· Are self-reflective, critical thinkers (AK Standard 1a)

· Provide opportunities for students to engage in higher order and critical thinking (i.e., reflection, inquiry, and problem solving) (AK Standard 4)

· Plan, organize, implement, & assess instruction in culturally responsive ways (AK Standard 3a)

· Build on the local knowledge within Alaska towns and villages (AK Standard 3a,c)

· Critically examine forms, uses, and accessibility of technology (AK Standard 4c)

· Work collaboratively with families & communities (AK Standard 7)

· Incorporate into the learning environment the varied cultures and languages of Alaska (AK Standard 3a)

· Apply content within & across disciplines in culturally responsive ways (AK Standard 4)

· Assess and teach to individual learning preferences, interests, & ways of knowing (AK Standard 2)

· Design & implement appropriate instruction for multiple learning styles and multiple forms of intelligence (AK Standard 2b)

· Design, implement, & assess instruction that addresses standards and elicits effective performances (AK Standard 5)

· Develop inclusive communities of learners (AK Standard 6)

· Make sound ethical and professional decisions (AK Standard 8a)

· Demonstrate skills effective for a wide range of educational settings, including rural Alaska Native communities (AK Standard 3a)

· Incorporate technology effectively in professional settings (AK Standard 8)

· Connect learning to individual needs and interests (AK Standard 3b)

· Design & implement an effective learning environment (AK Standard 6)

Dispositions

· Demonstrate respect for students, colleagues, & community members (AK Standard 7)

· Are highly motivated & committed to their profession (AK Standard 8)

· Demonstrate intellectual curiosity & a commitment to ongoing professional development (AK Standard 8)

· Demonstrate personal responsibility for the individual's learning (AK Standard 6)

· Demonstrate & promote respect for cultural, ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversity (AK Standard 3)

· Strive for equitable outcomes and success for every individual (AK Standard 6)

· Support the rich cultural & linguistic heritage of rural & urban Alaska communities in their professional lives (AK Standard 3)

· Advocates for collaboration with children, youth, and families (AK Standard 7)

· Are willing to take professional risks (AK Standard 1)

· Advocate for the improvement of the professional environment (AK Standard 8)

· Are resilient & flexible (AK Standard 1)

Table 6: Alaska and UAF School of Education Standards and Performances for Culturally Responsive, Effective Practitioners (merging the Standards for Alaska's Teachers with the proficiencies UAF expects its candidates to demonstrate).

1

A teacher can describe the teacher's philosophy of education and demonstrate its relationship to the teacher's practice.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Engaging in thoughtful and critical examination of the teacher's practice with others, including describing the relationship of beliefs about learning, teaching, and assessment practice to current trends, strategies, and resources in the teaching profession.

B. Demonstrating consistency between a teacher's beliefs and the teacher's practice.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Demonstrating a willingness to take professional risks.

· Demonstrating resiliency and flexibility.

2

A teacher understands how students learn and develop and applies that knowledge in the teacher's practice.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Accurately identifying and teaching to the developmental abilities of students.

B. Applying learning theory in practice to accommodate differences in how students learn, including accommodating differences in student intelligence, perception, and cognitive style.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Providing opportunities for all individuals to learn, no matter their age, race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ability, or exceptionalities.

· Assessing and teaching to individual learning preferences, interests, and ways of knowing.

3

A teacher teaches students with respect for their individual and cultural characteristics.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Incorporating characteristics of the student's and local community culture into instructional strategies that support student learning.

B. Identifying and using instructional strategies and resources that are appropriate to the individual and special needs of students.

C. Applying knowledge of Alaska history, geography, economics, governance, languages, traditional life cycles, and current issues to the selection of instructional strategies, materials, and resources.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Demonstrating and promoting respect for cultural, ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversity.

· Supporting the rich cultural and linguistic heritage of rural and urban Alaskan communities in their professional lives.

4

A teacher knows the teacher's content area and how to teach it.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Demonstrating knowledge of academic structure of the teacher's content area, its tools of inquiry, central concepts, and connections to other domains of knowledge.

B. Identifying the developmental stages by which learners gain mastery of the content area, applying appropriate strategies to assess the stage of learning of students in the subject, and applying appropriate strategies, including collaborating with others, to facilitate students' development.

C. Drawing from a wide repertoire of strategies, including, where appropriate, instructional applications of technology, and adapting and applying these strategies within the instructional context.

D. Connecting the content area to other content areas and to practical situations encountered outside the school.

E. Staying current in the teacher's content area and demonstrating its relationship with and application to classroom activities, life, work, and community.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Applying content within and across disciplines in culturally responsive ways.

· Critically examining forms, uses, and accessibility of technology.

· Demonstrating effective communication skills.

· Providing opportunities for students to engage in higher order and critical thinking (i.e., reflection, inquiry, and problem solving).

5

A teacher facilitates, monitors, and assesses student learning.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Organizing and delivering instruction based on the characteristics of the students and the goals of the curriculum.

B. Creating, selecting, adapting, and using a variety of instructional resources to facilitate curricular goals and student attainment of performance standards.

C. Creating, selecting, adapting, and using a variety of assessment strategies that provide information about and reinforce student learning and that assist students in reflecting on their own progress.

D. Organizing and maintaining records on students' learning and using a variety of methods to communicate student progress to students, parents, administrators, and other appropriate audiences.

F. Reflecting on information gained from assessment and adjusting teaching practice as appropriate

to facilitate student progress toward learning and curricular goals.

6

A teacher creates and maintains a learning environment in which all students are actively engaged and contributing members.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Creating and maintaining a stimulating, inclusive, and safe learning community in which students take intellectual risks and work independently and collaboratively.

B. Communicating high standards for student performance and clear expectations of what students will learn.

C. Planning and using a variety of classroom management techniques to establish and maintain an environment in which all students are able to learn.

D. Helping students understand their role in sharing responsibility for their learning.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Demonstrating personal responsibility for the individual's learning.

· Striving for equitable outcomes and success for every individual.

7

A teacher works as a partner with parents, families, and the community.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Promoting and maintaining regular and meaningful communication between the classroom and students' families.

B. Working with parents and families to support and promote student learning.

C. Participating in school-wide efforts to communicate with the broader community and involving parents and families in student learning.

D. Connecting, through instructional strategies, the school and classroom activities with students' homes and cultures, work places, and the community.

E. Involving parents in setting and monitoring student learning goals.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Demonstrating respect for students, colleagues, and community members.

8

A teacher participates in and contributes to the teaching profession.

Performances that reflect attainment of this standard include …

A. Maintaining a high standard of professional ethics.

B. Maintaining and updating knowledge of both the teacher's content area(s) and best teaching practices.

C. Engaging in instructional development activities to improve the quality of or update classroom, school, or district programs.

D. Communicating, working cooperatively, and developing professional relationships with colleagues.

UAF School of Education additional performances:

· Recognizing the legal and ethical responsibilities of a culturally responsive practitioner.

· Incorporating technology effectively in professional settings.

· Demonstrating high motivation and commitment to the profession.

· Demonstrating intellectual curiosity and a commitment to ongoing professional development.

The mission, goals, standards, and assessment criteria summarized in Tables 5 and 6 form the basis of our performance-based assessment system.

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

Overview of UAF School of Education Assessment Systems

The knowledge, skills, and dispositions of candidates in UAF School of Education initial licensure and graduate programs are assessed at multiple points through a diverse array of assessment techniques. The development of assessment systems for each of the individual programs in the School of Education, as well as the creation of a comprehensive, unit-wide assessment system, has been an ongoing process for the past several years and has recently culminated in the development and implementation of a customized database to aggregate the multiple types of data generated by the various individual programs.

Development of Assessment Systems in Individual Programs

In response to the call for performance-based assessment systems for initial licensure and graduate candidates, individual programs in the School of Education have been working over the past several years to develop a variety of tools to assess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of their students relative to professional and state standards and the competencies outlined previously in this document. Collectively, the programs have developed assessment systems that share the following characteristics:

· They assess candidates relative to their ability to meet the combined Alaska/UAF teacher standards and the relevant set of professional standards (ACEI, NCTM, etc.).

· Candidates are assessed at multiple transition points (four or five depending on the individual program), and assessment data at each transition point is used to evaluate both candidate proficiency and program efficacy.

· The knowledge, skills, and dispositions of candidates in all programs are assessed at multiple points of time.

· Multiple forms of assessment are used, including (but not limited to):

· Major decisions, such as program completion and institutional recommendations, are based on outcomes and performance assessments.

· Major assessments employ the use of task-specific analytic rubrics that delineate for candidates and evaluators several levels of performance and help ensure validity in scoring.

· Assessments are used to drive program changes, identify candidate needs and to evaluate individual and group progression through programs.

· Assessment systems are consistently evaluated and revised based on their effectiveness, validity, and reliability.

Development of a Unit-Wide Assessment System

The diversity inherent in multiple program assessment systems evaluating candidate performance relative to the standards of their individual specialized professional associations (as well as state and UAF standards) created a challenge in developing a system to assess our unit as a whole. The individual programs, however, found unity in the development and creation of a FileMaker Pro database that was developed over the past two years in conjunction with the other Schools of Education in the University of Alaska system (Juneau and Anchorage) and two private colleges that also prepare teachers in Alaska (Alaska Pacific University and Sheldon Jackson College). The database uses, as one of its primary organizing tools, the five main components of NCATE Standard One: (1) content knowledge, (2) pedagogical content knowledge, (3) professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, (4) dispositions, and (5) student learning/K-12 impact. It also divides data entry into four or five "gates" or transition points, depending on the program. The database has the flexibility to allow the individual programs to determine which specific assessments they will use to report candidate progress at each gate in each of the five areas, yet at the same time allows us to look collectively at how our unit is progressing—as a whole—in each component of NCATE Standard One. The database, which just became available for program use in April 2004, is also compatible with the University of Alaska "Banner" student recordkeeping system, and information on School of Education candidates can be downloaded from one system to the other. Each of the individual programs has recently determined which assessments and criteria it will use to enter data on candidate progress in the database, and once the system has been in use for a year or more we will be able to assess the validity and reliability of the data across programs. The small number of candidates in many of our programs will also impact the ability to compare candidate preparedness across programs, but the data from the database will be very useful in determining the effectiveness of individual programs and in monitoring candidate progress through the various transition points of each program. It is envisioned that the use of the common database for all School of Education programs will help bring an additional level of alignment among our programs.

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

Philosophy of the Faculty

Introduction

The School of Education at the University of Alaska Fairbanks is striving for what we call a "critical praxis of possibility," where practices are informed by history and theory, reflected upon critically, and used for a new vision of democratic possibility. We maintain that although democratic education made great strides during the civil rights era, much work still needs to be done. In this spirit, we are committed to preparing the best possible K-12 educators for this geographically large, culturally diverse, far north state.

Because of our commitment to research and teaching about Alaska Native education, much of this essay will focus on those unique concerns. We will show, for example, how Alaska Natives, historically, have been systematically oppressed through colonialist, religious, and imperialist education and are now trying to reclaim control over their own schooling. Thus we educate teachers to be aware of and make decisions based on this political context and to support indigenous efforts of self-determination and local control. We encourage teachers to understand education as a site of historical, political, economic, and social struggle and to grasp the interrelatedness of race, identity, and the curriculum.

We believe that language, mind, knowledge, and culture are socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and inextricably linked. Although we recognize individual differences, we believe that learning is radically social, and that learning occurs by, for, and with other people. Given this philosophical disposition, we encourage student-centered, inquiry-based, and multicultural collaborative learning. Students need to go beyond what they can currently do and learn how to solve increasingly more sophisticated authentic problems with the help of more knowledgeable others. Like all other aspects of the curriculum, technology has to be critically evaluated and not blindly accepted just because it is new. The important question is whether or not it works, and for whom, in a specific context. Ultimately, we believe that hope for a more socially just world is a moral imperative, and that educators are important change agents.

As already mentioned, this philosophy statement reflects the UAF School of Education's commitment to what we call "a critical praxis of possibility." The word "critical" is of utmost importance, for herein lies the notion that knowledge is power, and that teachers and students use knowledge for self and social transformation (Freire, 1973). Along with this is the acknowledgement that power and ideology are always operating within and around education (Apple & Weis, 1983; Apple, 1993; Giroux, 1988; McCarthy, 1998). Indeed, education is a contested space, a site of political struggle. In Alaska, the battles are particularly fierce because of the various outside forces that have taken control of Alaska Native education throughout history.

We use "praxis" instead of "practice" to underscore the belief that history, theory, and research must inform educational activity. Unlike "practice," "praxis"—a more precise term—also carries the notion of reflection followed by change. In short, praxis is a cycle of theory into practice with ongoing reflection.

The underlying goals of our educational philosophy are similar to the early progressivist goals of democracy, equality, and social justice (Addams, 1902; Dewey, 1916) for all Alaska students. We also are committed to social, institutional, and political systemic change in an attempt to address the historical wrongs that have occurred in this state. All of this is with an idealist look toward what can be rather than an idle acceptance of what is. That is, we hold fast to the possibility of a more democratic, equitable and socially just public education system. But we know we cannot do it alone. Our work is accomplished through partnerships with other academic units, the school districts, the state, regional groups, advisory councils, communities, neighborhoods, families, and children.

Mind, Knowledge, and Society

In this section we address how our understanding of the mind, knowledge, and society interrelate within an idealist theoretical framework with an eye toward a "critical praxis of possibility."

We believe that because knowledge is socially constructed, it can be either liberatory or oppressive. In contrast to the realists, whose ultimate goal is to discover universally true laws that can be communicated through neutral, culture-free language and that can be applied in any situation to predict, understand, and govern behavior, the idealist philosophy believes that reality is never separate from perception. What is to be considered true is a socially negotiated theoretical and contextual truth (Habermas, 1985, 1989).

Though some of our faculty members are more interested in developmental constructivism, with its focus on individual development (Piaget, 1971), most of us would align ourselves with social constructivism and/or emancipatory constructivism. Social constructivism focuses on the social, cultural, and historical contexts as determinants in growth and learning (Vygotsky 1978, 1981). Emancipatory constructivism assumes the above but adds the political context (Freire, 1973; Giroux, 1988; hooks, 1995). Grounded in the ideas of social justice, this stance focuses on equity, access, and power and posits that knowledge is always situated, interested, and partial rather than decontextualized, value-free, and total.

Basically, constructivists believe in the interrelatedness of behavior, mental processes, and the environment (Graedler, 1997). Constructivist theory rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experience. Therefore, learners are active seekers of meaning, not passive storage containers of information (Dewey, 1916). Learning is hands-on experimenting, applying what is known to what is being constructed to make sense of the world (Piaget, 1971).

The faculty of the School of Education rejects the idea that cognitive development is culture free; we instead advance the notion that social experience plays a major part in mental development, and give a central role to social interaction, language, and instruction in the formation of the mind (Bruner, 1966; Vygotsky, 1978).

Of central importance is viewing education as more than curriculum and instructional strategies. Rather, we must consider the broader context of how culture and its system of symbols (e.g., language, numbers, scientific notation, pictures) forms and transforms the mind and provides a toolkit by which individuals construct both themselves and their world.

This perspective places the cultural component of language use in relationship to thought, and the individual in relationship to others. The relationship is social, cultural, and historic because we use the cultural tools of comunicative signs and symbols handed down to us to construct our learning. Thus, the collective knowledge we build together is used by each of us for our own purposes.

In this model, interpretation and meaning making is not autonomous but are done with others, and through this interaction meaning is constructed. Formal and informal instruction, performed and shared by more knowledgeable others, is the main vehicle for the cultural transmission of knowledge. This process of sharing ideas with others results in each individual refining her own ideas and helping to shape the ideas of others (Eggan & Kauchak, 2001). Information is normally passed on by social agents like peers, parents, teachers, or elders, and in so doing they construct a universe for the child that is similar to their own. In this way, culture, which influences perception and behavior, is inherited from one generation to the next. Hence, children's development is a reflection of their cultural experiences and the opportunities they have had to access members with specific skills and knowledge.

A final point we would like to make in this section is that we do not believe that knowledge has to be strictly utilitarian, in the sense that it will directly help students gain employment some day—although we are, of course, concerned about the material realities of living in the 21st century. Still, we cannot always predict how knowledge will benefit a child or a society. Knowledge and critical thinking, in and of themselves, are virtuous and should be used to help all students be politically aware, well-informed, and compassionate citizens in a yet-to-be realized democracy.

Because we believe that learning is undeniably a social enterprise—that knowledge, the mind, language, and practices are socially mediated and constructed—several of our strands below have the prefix "socio-" attached to them. This is to remind and reinforce that we are operating within a complex social ecology. Although we are concerned with the individual and his or her unique relationship to and success with schooling, we also recognize that individuals never operate autonomously. Rather, they are social actors whose individual development is mediated by family, community, culture, society, and history. Because of our mission of preparing professional educators who are culturally responsive, effective practitioners, we give considerable weight to our philosophies of language and culture in this essay.

We have organized the rest of the document into four major sections. These four sections describe the basis for our professional commitments, the commitment to prepare educators for Alaska's schools who are responsive to:

  1. the sociohistoric context of Alaska, which influences behaviors and beliefs of communities and individuals in Alaska today;
  2. the sociopolitical nature of the interface between schools and communities;
  3. the sociocultural concerns of the families and communities that schools serve; and
  4. the sociolinguistic diversity of Alaska's schools and communities.

First, we address the sociohistoric and sociopolitical context of Alaska. In order to train culturally responsive teachers, we must have a sophisticated understanding of the unique historical and political forces that have shaped, and continue to shape, education in the state. Second, we speak to sociocultural concerns, with specific attention to Alaska Native culture, multiculturalism, and the politics of racial identities. We move, then, to the third section on sociolinguistic concerns, where we explain how we see knowledge, language, and power as interlocking forces that inform our philosophy of language learning, language revitalization, and language policy and planning. The fourth and final section moves specifically to our beliefs about the role of children in society: their ability to learn (no matter their age, race, gender, class, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, abilities, or exceptionalities), the curriculum, the role of standards and assessment in an age of accountability, the role of technology, and what the future local and global labor markets hold for children currently in the K-12 Alaska public school system. Throughout the whole document, we argue that learning is realized through social activity (Bruner, 1966; Wertsch, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).

Sociohistoric and Sociopolitical Concerns

Alaska has a unique history and geographic setting and a rich cultural context that has contributed to policies and practices of education in Alaska, particularly for Alaska Native groups (Barnhardt, 2001). The Russian period, 1741-1867, is the first documented period of oppression of Alaska Natives. In the early years of Russian invasion, thousands of Aleuts were slaughtered by Russian soldiers along the southwestern coast of Alaska. Many more were enslaved.

Ioann Veniaminov, a Russian missionary who arrived in 1824, is said to have "brought a period of enlightenment and benign Russian influence in the colony" (Krauss, 1980). The Russian Orthodox Church was the first to develop a system of writing for Aleut. Several other Alaska Native language scripts soon followed. Russian church schools were the first schools and the first to teach literacy using Native languages. This contrast between the Russian soldiers and missionaries is valuable for reflecting on the extent to which indigenous societies the world over have been influenced, both positively and negatively, by colonialism.

In contrast, when American missionaries first arrived in Alaska in the late 1800s, bringing with them the next wave of schooling for children in Alaska, the main goal of most missionary groups was to eliminate Alaska Native language and culture. The Presbyterian missionary Sheldon Jackson became the first commissioner of education and "adamantly opposed the use of Native languages in either education or religion" (Krauss, 1980). While a few missionary groups, notably Moravian and Roman Catholic, attempted to use Native languages in their religious services and conducted some further translations of the Bible into Native languages, most others prohibited (often by use of force) the use of Native languages in churches and in the schools that the churches established.

Church schools remained the predominant form of education for rural villages for many years after Alaska became an American territory. Not until 1884 did this change, when a federal law was enacted that brought federally funded education to Alaska, under the Department of the Interior (Barnhardt, 2001). Eventually, the Bureau of Indian Affairs operated schools in Alaska, a system that remained in place in a number of villages until 1986.

From 1905 to 1986, a dual system of education in Alaska existed, as the gold rush and then the oil industry brought in more and more people from other states. During much of this period, white students went to schools run by the Territory of Alaska, while many Native students attended schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, in a number of locations, no schooling was available at all for Alaska Natives. In the 1960s, the state set up a system of state-operated-schools to address the needs of rural and on-base military schools. However, this did not terminate the BIA schools.

Many factors, including epidemics, missionary ridicule of language and customs, and, until 1975, the loss of rural children to boarding schools away from their Native villages and outside the state, influenced schooling in Alaska (Napoleon, 1996; Hootch v. State-Operated School System, 1975). It was a difficult history where indigenous peoples were systematically oppressed. Some of these difficulties persist; pressure from Western social systems and institutions continues to threaten the flow of family and village life (Kawagley, 1995). Some even argue that this history has contributed to a collective lowered self-esteem, a sort of cultural post-traumatic stress syndrome among Alaska Native populations (Napoleon, 1996).

Since the establishment of the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1966 and the signing of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, Alaska Natives rapidly have become influential in state politics and business. In recent years, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638, Alaska Native groups have increasingly assumed more control over their resources. Working with the principles of self-determination, Alaska Natives seek the establishment of systems that serve their local communities and embrace their cultural knowledge and traditions (First Alaskans Foundation 2001:5). Nonetheless, obstacles still exist.

Alaska Native leaders recently made recommendations to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission based on claims that predominantly Native rural communities suffer disproportionately from inadequate police protection, lack of employment, and poorly funded schools (Alaska Inter-Tribal Council v. State of Alaska, Kasayuli v. State of Alaska, 1997). In villages, Alaska Natives live in Third World conditions. According to the 2000 U.S. census, for example, Wade Hampton, Bethel, and Dillingham—all rural regions of the state—have child poverty rates of 48%, 40%, and 38% respectively.[3] Given the history and collective memory of the people living in Alaska, tensions continue to exist between communities and the public education system. If racism and discrimination persist, policies and practices established by state and federal institutions— including public education, health, social services, and natural resource services—will continue to be harmful to Alaska Natives (Barnhardt, 2001) and other minority groups.

Given this background, the UAF School of Education is dedicated to promoting democratic, culturally responsive education. The vision of a democratic education must be grounded in the experiences of those involved and must reflect the ideas of justice and freedom found in democratic theory. In the words of Paulo Freire (1996), "Education [should be] the practice of freedom--as opposed to … the practice of domination" (p. 62). So, too, should our philosophy be grounded in the experiences of those we teach. Children of many cultures attend urban and rural schools in Alaska, and the educational system should support people in their endeavor for self-determination and political empowerment regardless of cultural background. Teacher education in Alaska must support true school reform that incorporates the values, traditions, and cultures of all.

John Dewey refers to the democratic ideal in Democracy and Education (1916) as a model for breaking down barriers antithetical to a "community of purpose and welfare, loyalty to public ends, and mutuality of sympathy" (p. 82). Translated into the classroom community, this ideal is a model that emphasizes a shared common interest and freer interaction between social groups. A pragmatist, Dewey was interested in a more humane education with an emphasis on connecting thinking processes with social processes to solve problems. He believed it essential to educate citizens toward a democratic ideal in order to serve all segments of a pluralistic society.

In contrast to Dewey's ideal of a community-oriented school, an individualistic model (as per Locke and Rousseau) has traditionally been the norm in schools in America. The focus is on the individual and not so much the group as a whole or the community from which these individuals come. Individualistic models range from self-paced classrooms, where every child allegedly progresses at his or her own pace, to ability grouping ("tracking," as it is called in some schools), with separation of children into groups by ability and intelligence, yet students study the same subjects and are assessed the same way.

Dewey's philosophy has been revisited in new reform movements that have had an impact in isolated schools around the country. For example, Howard Gardner's school projects such as Project Zero, the SUMIT project, and the Key School promote environments that model true communities of learners—communities that recognize the importance of developing strengths of children based on learning about each student's background, interests, experiences, and goals (Gardner, 1999).

The UAF School of Education faculty understands that traditional individualistic teaching practices are antithetical to the full development of the child as an integral part of his or her community. Schools function in a manner that does not mirror the way communities function in the outside world. Traditional individualistic teaching practices do not promote equitable learning for all students.

Relational epistemology (Thayer-Bacon, 1995) recognizes that people have a past and have been affected by others' views. A social-feminist philosophy, it connects being with knowing, and assumes that people are social actors who are "embedded and embodied" (p. 7) and thus should be understood in relation to one another. In the Alaskan classroom, epistemological assumptions must consider western and indigenous worldviews as well as those of other cultures. Communal experiences contribute to an evolution of the worldview and this view is value-laden and interest-laden, rather than neutral and apolitical. It is born out of an historical and political context that we cannot overlook. We must encourage teachers to reflect upon and critically examine this context, and chart a pedagogical course that reflects these dispositions.

Sociocultural Concerns

Though Alaska is predominantly a white state (69.3% according to the 2000 U.S. Census) it is "less white" than the national average, which is 75.1%. With 20 different Alaska Native groups and four major indigenous language families (Eskimo-Aleut, Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Haida) with 20 distinct languages and several regional dialects (Krauss, 1980), Alaska Natives and other Native Americans make up 16.9% of the population—by far the largest minority group in the state. Besides the indigenous groups, Alaska also has residents who identify themselves from scores of other ethnic origins, including African American, Asian (Filipino, Korean, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Vietnamese), Latino, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander (Samoan, Guamanian), and mixed (two or more ethnic origins). More than 30 other ancestries are prominent in Alaska as well; for instance, at least 30% of Alaskans identify themselves with German, Irish, English, Norwegian, and Russian lineages (U.S. Census, 2000).

Each cultural group has its own way of being and knowing, which must be understood by the stewards of K-12 classrooms. For example, many Alaska Natives live in small, rural villages, practice a subsistence lifestyle, and recognize a spiritual connection to others and nature (Kawagley, 1995). At the same time, they may also identify with the mainstream white culture. Remarkable among many minority groups is what Alan Peshkin (2000) calls a "dual identity," which refers to the negotiation of both traditional and Western worlds (Fogel-Change, 1993), and in some cases more than two. This dual identity is a source of tension for many Alaska students. On the one hand, students may feel allegiance to their traditional culture and its ways of knowing and being. On the other, many understand (either consciously or unconsciously) that thinking, acting, and talking white affords them power and acceptance. Because the culture of public schooling is (still) predominantly white and Western, minority students do not always feel as though they belong or are confused about the extent to which they fit in. As outsiders or partial outsiders, they often feel rejected (even by well-meaning white teachers) and often resist mainstream schooling.

One solution to this problem is to educate school personnel about a wide variety of cultures and to implement culturally relevant curricula and pedagogy. But that is rarely enough. The problem is that teachers often do not reflect on the impact that race has on all students, both white and nonwhite. Teachers often profess "colorblindness" (Sleeter, 1993) which is at worst patronizing and at best naïve, because race and culture profoundly affect what is known and how it is known. You cannot erase race or ignore how it produces a caste-like system in the United States (Ogbu, 1978). Thus, we must encourage teachers to examine how racial and cultural "others" negotiate American school systems, and how they perform their identities utilizing various strategies and tactics (de Certeau, 1984) of both resistance and acceptance in order to fit into the everyday life of schools. Most importantly, all teachers, counselors, and administrators need to constantly examine the status and power that comes with being white.

To conclude this section, the School of Education faculty is fully committed to addressing diversity (Anzaldúa, 1987; Banks, 1994; hooks, 1990; Nieto, 1996; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001), implementing culturally based pedagogy (e.g., Barnhardt, 2002; Lipka & Mohatt, 1998), and training teachers to be culturally responsive educators. Of course, cultural responsiveness must go beyond the token required class on culture or the history of Alaska; it must be a sustained, systemic part of all aspects of our teacher training. Thus, our course offerings and syllabi reflect a concerted effort to put knowledge into its proper cultural context and to represent a wide array of cultural perspectives through our assigned readings. We further maintain that multiculturalism is important for everyone, no matter what race, ethnicity, or ancestral origin. In a postmodern world where national economies, governments, and environmental policies are clearly interdependent, all students need to be prepared for global citizenry.

On a more micropolitical level, however, much of the work comes from within the minority communities themselves, through (at least in the case of Alaska Natives) the aforementioned doctrine of self-determination, and other kinds of grassroots efforts. The dominant culture must nonetheless educate itself and provide an open, supportive, collaborative climate in which more democratic, reflective practices can occur. Although this is beginning to come to pass in some corners, we believe in the possibility of this occurring throughout Alaska and are committed to making it happen.

Sociolinguistic Concerns

Language is a symbol system that is the most important form of communication for humans. It is the primary way in which we make meaning and is critical to the formation of mind, culture, and identity. But just as knowledge is socially constructed and differently valued, so is language. Some languages, discourses, dialects, registers, genres, and ideolects are more valued than others. Thus, like knowledge, language is power. Our educational philosophy about the role of language, literacy, and learning is conceived with this fact in mind. We are keenly aware, for instance, that the variety of language that dominates public schooling is designated "standard American English" by those who control it, in itself an act of power. Yet, many of our K-12 students are ambivalent about this power discourse.

We are also mindful of the pernicious federal, state, and parochial "English-only" policies that were in effect in Alaska during the late 1800s and continued well into the 20th century (Barnhardt, 2001; Dauenhauer, 1982). These policies adversely affected the flourishing of Alaska Native language and by extension, Alaska Native culture. (Even today, some political groups are still lobbying for an English-only Alaska, despite a recent Superior Court decision that ruled it violates the Alaska Constitution's free speech clause.) Thus, our philosophy of second language acquisition supports additive rather than subtractive bilingualism. This means we believe that students have a right to gain full fluency in their native language, as well as learn other languages. The important point here is that students, along with their families and communities, have the right and means to choose.

We believe that literacy, like learning itself, cannot be defined or understood outside of a dynamic social system. For years, some scholars (e.g., Goody & Watt, 1968; Ong, 1982) argued that literacy was the mark of a sophisticated and educated society and the vehicle to abstract, complex thought. Predominantly oral societies, they reasoned, were thus capable of only literal and banal knowledge and were considered cognitively inferior. In reality, oral societies employ complex cognitive skills through spoken narratives. Furthermore, literacy and orality are interrelated: they support and extend one another, rather than sit in binary opposition (e.g., Tannen, 1982). Keeping this in mind, our philosophy of language must not privilege literacy over orality.

We recognize that ethnic groups who may rely on spoken language more than written texts must survive in the culture of schooling—a place that does value literacy over orality and dominant discourses over subaltern ones. We therefore suggest, as Delpit (1995) does, that the teachers we train be very explicit with students about the power relationships embedded in language and their right to make informed choices about literacy practices. Some Alaskan communities, for instance, are devoted to Native language revitalization and have thus taken the initiative to develop high-quality immersion programs to preserve and reinvigorate their language and culture. K-12 educators, through place-based education, need to be responsive to different community needs and acquiesce to local decision making vis-à-vis language policy and planning. Once again, all practices must be critically reflected upon as part of a deeply contextualized historical, political, and social matrix.

The Child, Curriculum, and Society

The first four sections outlining our beliefs and dispositions are important because of how these social issues affect children. Indeed, the reason we do any of what we do is because we believe in the possibilities each child has within him or herself.

First and foremost, we believe that all children can and do learn, no matter what their physical, physiological, psychological, or emotional limitations may appear to be. We believe in the wholeness, integrity, and well-being of all children, no matter their age, race, gender, class, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, abilities, or exceptionalities. We believe that all children have certain gifts and unique contributions that must be developed through education. Although we celebrate the individuality of each child, we also understand that his or her learning and development are dependent on social interaction: families, communities, and cultures. As argued above, learning is always social, and language and knowledge always socially constructed.

Vygotsky argues that the capacity to learn through instruction is a foundational feature of human intelligence and that children and adults have a natural ability to learn and teach. When adults help children accomplish a task that they cannot accomplish alone, they foster the development of knowledge and ability. The development of ways of reasoning and learning is a product of social interaction between the developing child and more mature members of the community. Hence, children's knowledge is the product of a joint construction of understanding by the child (novice) and a more expert member of the community/culture.

A corollary to this is that children should never be underestimated, but rather pushed to go a step beyond what they can currently do with the help of a more knowledgeable other. Once again, we see that learning is profoundly social. An important question thus arises: What kind of curriculum and practices can support the social nature of learning?

A central tenet of our philosophy is that classrooms should be thought of as communities with their own social organization, including roles, rules, behaviors, and discourses. Within these communities, we encourage student-centered, inquiry-based collaborative learning. By the latter term, we don't mean simply "learning together." True collaboration means that each member of a partnership or group has something unique and valuable to contribute in order to solve a problem. Problem-solving should be jig-sawed so that each individual has a necessary piece of the puzzle and the problem cannot be solved without that piece. When feasible, these collaborative projects should go beyond the classroom to include families and communities. In this model, the learner is an apprentice, an experimenter, and an inquirer. The teacher's role is to facilitate each individual's learning process and to coordinate learning with others. Throughout the process, students, teachers, and communities construct knowledge together.

School reform efforts have done little to change the way most schools in America function. Attempts towards more heterogeneous classrooms and student-centered pedagogy have not succeeded in producing classrooms free of the domination of traditional individualistic teaching practices (Cuban, 1993). Teaching practices remain unchanged because they are deeply rooted in logical-positivist beliefs of the dominant Anglo-American culture regarding the nature of knowledge and learning. Furthermore, Cuban explains that the organization of formal schooling functions to sort students, and only through systematic and deliberate efforts would changes occur (p. 16). Top-down administrative approaches to school reform have only served to reinforce the status quo. Only true grassroots efforts have succeeded in altering the way that classrooms look (Wheelock, 1992).

Authentic problem solving (rather than busy-work such as filling out repetitive worksheets) is at the heart of inquiry-based learning. Students must ask: What is the best way to solve this dilemma? Learning should involve asking questions, thinking critically, and solving authentic problems with others. Students should be assessed on their process of problem-solving as well as their performance. In a reductivist, positivistic age of accountability and standardized tests (which seek to quantify individual student achievement) authentic, collaborative, inquiry-based, place-based learning is more important than ever.

As for content, we believe that the curriculum should be deep yet broad, challenging yet exciting. It should follow the Alaska State Content and Performance Standards, which encourage both depth and breadth, as well as a sustained and systematic multicultural perspective in all content areas.

Knowledge across content areas should be connected and integrated through projects and problem-solving rather than compartmentalized within one content area or discipline. Again, teachers we train will reflect on their practices in order to keep the learning current, culturally appropriate, challenging, and effective.

We argued earlier that language and knowledge are always embedded in power relations. So too with technology. Although we agree that technology is an important part of the K-12 curriculum because students have to know how to negotiate a changing (largely digital) knowledge-based economy, we caution teachers to reflect on its use. Technology is not a priori a good thing. Like language, it can be either liberatory or oppressive, depending on its design and use (Bruce & Hogan, 1998). Though technologies for distance learning are critically important in Alaska (Reyes & Bradley, 2000) —an enormous, sprawling state with a limited road system—issues of equal access, capability, connection quality, and network speed are still a problem. Technology is not the great equalizer that early enthusiasts imagined it would be. In fact, its design and use is profoundly ideological rather than politically neutral. It is, to borrow a phrase, "a Western cultural icon of prestige, power and progress" (Aikenhead, 1996). It is more than just a benign tool—it changes and restructures social relationships.

Oscar Kawagley, a philosopher and faculty member who has conducted extensive research on Alaska Native epistemology, has written passionately about how modern technology has harmed his own Yupiaq culture. He maintains that Yupiaq people "have been victimized, as have many other people in the world, by the myth of progress and development. Their minds are imprisoned by the modern world, with its syncopating lights and gadgetry that is hypnotic and desirable, but in reality presents a mishmash of images in a shotgun fashion, with little connection to the vagaries of real life." It is time, he argues, for the Yupiaq to get in rhythm with their own culture. "There is no need to forsake all that has been presented by others. Technology and schools have their place, but they must be used with reason and in a sacred way to edify and enhance Yupiaq peoples' culture, environment and the world as a whole" (Kawagley, 1999, p. 9).

Noting the importance of nature as metaphysic, Kawagley would like to see a return of "soft technology" (e.g., organic gardening, traditional housing) that is adapted to the culture and environment and does not upset the balance of nature. He furthermore feels strongly that Alaska Native people should take control of their own educational system—and that includes its technology. With this local control in place, indigenous people can decide for themselves to what extent they want to appropriate (or ignore) Western technology. A study commissioned by the First Alaskans Foundation (2001) concluded that many barriers to successful schooling for Alaska Natives are rooted in past personal experiences and that it is important for Alaska Natives to "own" their education. The School of Education supports these efforts at community self-determination.

At the same time, we cannot ignore more macro state-level issues, since our job is to prepare teachers for the whole state—both rural and urban areas. Economic and social change is inevitable in Alaska with its shrinking commercial fisheries industry and less state spending. The consequences of this are a high rate of unemployment and a changing labor market. High teacher turnover rates are at truly crisis levels. In 2000, 18 Alaska school districts out of 54 had greater than 30% turnover of all teachers and administrators (Hill, 2000). In rural Alaska, 80% of the teachers are hired from outside of Alaska, which is problematic because "they have no reference point for the type of environment in which they will be teaching. This causes barriers between student and the teacher and it impedes learning" (First Alaskans Foundation, 2001, p. 13).

More work needs to be done to understand the role of globalization in education. What kind of world are we preparing Alaskan children for? Can we prepare them? There are still many questions we need to answer. In a post-9/11 United States, it is evident that students must have much more rounded and sophisticated global perspectives. A steadfast commitment to world history, multicultural education, and geopolitics throughout the curriculum is clearly needed.

Conclusion

To conclude, the School of Education is striving for a critical praxis of possibility, where practices are informed by history and theory, reflected upon critically, and used for a new vision of democratic possibility. We maintain that democracy, though a centuries-old idea, still represents a radical, unrealized dream. We have shown how Alaska Natives, historically, have been systematically oppressed through colonialist and imperialist education and are now trying to reclaim control over their own schooling. Thus, we educate teachers to be aware of and make decisions based on this political context and to support indigenous efforts at self-determination and local control. We encourage teachers to understand education as a site of historical, political, economic, and social struggle, and to understand the interrelatedness of race, identity, and the curriculum, especially the role of white privilege.

We have also argued that language, mind, knowledge, and culture are socially constructed and inextricably linked. Though we recognize individual differences, we believe that learning is radically social, and that learning occurs by, for, and with other people. Given this philosophical disposition, we thus encourage, as much as possible, student-centered, inquiry-based, and multicultural collaborative learning. Students need to go beyond what they can currently do to learn how to solve increasingly more sophisticated authentic problems with the help of more knowledgeable others. Like all other aspects of the curriculum, technology has to be critically evaluated and not blindly accepted just because it is new. The important question is whether or not it works, and for whom, in a specific context. Ultimately, we believe that hope for a more socially just world is a moral imperative.

| Table of Contents | Top of Page |

Knowledge Base of the Faculty

The bibliography below includes all the references mentioned in the philosophy statement, and it includes a number of other theoretical works, research, and educational policy documents that also inform what we do as a unit.

Addams, J. (1902) Democracy and social ethics. (Reprint 1964). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Towards a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217-238.

Alaska Native Knowledge Network. (February, 2001). Guidelines for nurturing culturally healthy youth. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK.

Alaska Natives Commission, Final Report. (1993). Report of the education task force. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Natives Commission.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands - la frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute.

Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge.

Apple, M. W., & Weis L. (1983). Ideology and practice in schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understanding about writing, reading and learning. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Banks, J. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Barnhardt, C. (1994). Life on the other side: Alaska Native teacher education students and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Barnhardt, C. (2001). A history of schooling for Alaska Native people. Journal of American Indian Education, 40(1),1-29.

Barnhardt, C., & Caldwell, P. (2002). Where are our UAF Teacher Education Graduates? Preliminary report. Unpublished report.

Barnhardt, R. (2002). Domestication of the ivory tower: Institutional adaptation to cultural distance. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(2):1-12.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Bodley, J. H. (2000). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states, and the global system. (3rd ed.) Pullman, WA: Washington State University.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking et al. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bruer, J. (1999). The myth of the first three years: A new understanding of early brain development and lifelong learning. New York: Free Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bruner, J. S. ( 1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S., & Haste, H. (Eds.). (1987). Making sense: The child's construction of the world. New York: Methuen.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in education: A theoretical and practical guide. NY: Routledge.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught. (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dauenhauer, R. (1982). Conflicting visions in Alaskan education. Fairbanks, AK: Center for Cross-Cultural studies, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Deloria, V., Jr., & Wildcat, D. R. (2001). Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

Eggan, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Ellsworth, E. (1993). Double binds of whiteness. In M. Fine et al. (Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power and society. New York: Routledge.

Fienup-Riordan, A. (1990). Eskimo essays: Yup'ik lives and how we see them. London: Rutgers University Press.