http://www.MysteryTutor.com The Mystery Tutor explains how the SAT exam is standardized, and how that helps with SAT test preparation. Knowing the standards is the key to beating the test!

Be sure to check out the best SAT help at www.MysteryTutor.com!

- - -

I think you'll find that most teachers, particularly at the secondary level, would disagree. I find it ironic that this post was inspired by the "Dangerously Irrelevant" blog, because I (and many others I work with) would feel that is exactly what our teaching would become if we lost all control over curriculum. When teachers have no control over what they teach, the content will inevitably become stale, stagnant, and unresponsive to the needs of the diverse individuals we call students. It also eliminates the option to experiment with new ideas, new instructional methods, and even new technologies. And if our goal is to focus on 21st century skills (or Outcomes and Indicators) rather than content, why is it so crucial to teach the exact same content across the board?

When many of the secondary teachers in our district (and, I can confidently say, all of the teachers in my department) read something like this, and when we hear about curriculum binders with scripted lessons, we worry that we will lose all of the things mentioned above. And for good teachers who are committed to providing their students the best possible education they can provide, this is a scary thing. To remove teachers' ability to be creative and innovative seems to contradict the goals of our district - in fact, teacher innovation seems to be what has made this district so successful. We may also find that when teachers lose the ability to create and innovate in their own classrooms (which most of us share in with our colleagues), they will seek out a place where they will be allowed to do so.

All that said, there is certainly a balance to be sought after. Students in Class A should certainly have the same opportunities to learn as students in Class B – the same skills being developed, the same opportunities to use technology, and so on. There are many positive learning experiences that we can all participate in. There are many other ways to find consistency without having T&L mandate curriculum to teachers – even consistency within a grade level and a department is still consistency, and it is something that can be achieved by allowing professionals, who are extensively trained in their profession, to collaborate with each other and reach a consensus of their own. Does this require more time and effort? Absolutely. But there are a lot of reasons this is not an easy profession, and we knew this when we signed up.

- - -

For those that are currently in the classroom, do you find yourself agreeing with this, or would you prefer more standardized curriculum?

We attended the meeting together, and through our attendance became the district appointed Technology Curriculum Specialists at our school.  What that meant was left unsaid, which is often the case in the life of a public school teacher.  A few weeks later a stack of textbooks arrived, and we learned more.  The textbooks contained lessons in basic computer literacy – megabytes, saving files, word processing.  After a few emails with the Technology Curriculum Coordinator we learned that we were expected to do two things – incorporate a lesson into our regular curriculum about once each month and give occasional information sessions about curriculum and technology integration at staff meetings.

I tell this story to illustrate a point about the segregation of technology and curriculum that remains despite the pervasive influx of technology into our daily lives.  Personally and professionally our lives are being shaped by our digital appendages, and too often these essential technologies are used artificially in education in ways incongruous to the objectives established by districts and states.  The economy of America is being redefined.  The focus of the workplace is shifting from the assembly line to the cubicle.  It seems, however, preparing students for life gets in the way of the business of “doing” school.

Exposing a potential concern is not the focus of my argument, but it does provide some context.  The other piece central to this setting can be summarized in four letters – NCLB.  As a former teacher I see the benefit and detriment of No Child Left Behind.  On one hand, the legislation has created a system of standards and assessment that makes schools, teachers, parents, and students accountable for education.  On the other hand, it has created a system of standards and assessment that shifts our focus from other issues like diversity, ethnoeducation, and technology.

Instead of a broad look at the landscape of standards and assessment, I want to dig deeper in a single spot – college-ready literacy.  Do the current standards and assessment prepare students for college and beyond?  Do they provide the knowledge and skills students will need to be successful in a workplace that is increasingly digital and multimodal?

Working backward from desired outcomes, I will begin by first trying to articulate the skills requisite for 21st century professions.  Then, I will look at how those skills are addressed by college-entry exams and the standards they assess.  Test results will lead us to educational inequity, and my attention will turn to various forms of literacy.  Next, I will examine a case study from New York City of a progressive curriculum that overcame some of the major issues in secondary education through the authentic incorporation of technology.  Finally, I will conclude by examining another progressive initiative in Texas as an example of the issues and concerns that arise when embracing a technology-rich curriculum.

The vertical articulation of technology and curriculum from middle school through college and into career is essential to the economic health of our nation.  It is necessary but unattainable without a systematic approach that supports powerful digital literacy.

A Tool No Longer
In September of 2007, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a self-described advocacy organization of business leaders, educators, and lawmakers, conducted a national survey of registered voters about education and the tools of success.  The Partnership offered these results:
•    80% of those surveyed said the things students need to learn today are different from what they were 20 years ago.
•    60% did not believe that schools are keeping up with the changing educational needs.
•    74% believed computer and technology skills deserved at least equal emphasis as the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics.
•    99% agreed that 21st century skills were critical to economic success.

The respondents were also asked to rank which skills they thought the most important and how well they believed schools were teaching the skill.  The most important was “Computer and Technology Skills” followed by “Reading Comprehension” and “Critical Thinking and Problem Solving.”  However, less than one-third believed schools were doing an adequate job teaching these skills (McInturff 6-13).

Although a small study, the results reveal an evolving manner of thinking about computers and technology in society.  As Stuart Selber suggests, the computer is no longer seen as a tool used by a select few.  Instead, it is seen as an instrument vital to success.  Quoting Langdon Winner, Selber adds that this instrument is altering the way we see our communities, our relationships, our moral and political boundaries, and ourselves (39-40).  In fact, arguing that computers are changing the workplace seems ridiculous to the level of overstatement.

Specifically, the digital age is demanding a multimodal approach to literacy that outdates traditional text-based print.  At home and at work, users are interacting with sound, image, and print in a way uncommon to the history of literacy.  Additionally, users are transcending the boundary between producer and consumer and are becoming creators of new media at an almost instantaneously (Merchant 122).  In the last twenty-five years chalkboards and overhead projectors have became nostalgic antiques replaced first by whiteboards and later by SmartBoards and LCD’s.  Teachers, like their counterparts in other professions, are expected to do more than turn on a switch.  They are expected to create and communicate digitally with little effort or forethought.

It is imperative, then, that education revision literacy to match literacy’s new instrument.  Text is more dynamic than ever, and the ability of professionals to read, write, revise, edit, respond, manipulate and synchronize text flawlessly with incredible speed is an expectation so ubiquitous it hardly requires acknowledging.  If multimodal, digital literacy is the new occupational standard the question remains – where do students acquire these skills?  The Partnership’s survey says not at school.

Standards, Assessment, and College-Readiness
The move toward standards in American education is largely the work of Marc Tucker and his colleagues at the National Center for Education and the Economy.  In his book Standards For Our Schools: How to Set Them, Measure Them, and Reach Them, Tucker and Judy Codding, depict a national system of education that functions independent of outcomes.  Their solution was to determine first what students should be able to do or produce when graduating high school and then reverse engineer a curriculum of support.  The plea was for a set of national standards and a national assessment that would replace locally produced versions that often exacerbated inequalities.  Without national standards it would be impossible to compare the rigor of one school to another, and high expectations for all students would eventually close the widening achievement gap among demographic groups (4-13).

Where NCEE’s advocacy of unifying standards across the country failed, the notion of high expectations for all caught on.  In its current manifestation it is commonly known as No Child Left Behind.  Missing from NCLB and its predecessors are the explicit desired 21st century outcomes a nation can rally around.  Instead, states and local districts are allowed to develop their own standards and assessments, and in doing so are perpetuating the system of academic inequality it hoped to reform.  The result of the reform is probably best expressed in The Partnership’s survey already mentioned.

We do not have the benefit of national standards or national assessments that allow us to understand our progress toward multimodal, digital literacy, but we do have assessments that are taken nationwide.  The SAT and the ACT have been guarding access to college for years.  Additionally, the Texas Higher Education Assessment (THEA) provides local assessment of college readiness.  These tests, typically taken at the end of high school, can be seen as indicators of what students are able to do and presumably predict how well (or if) they will succeed in college.

Do these tests assess the outcomes parents, educators, and scholars deem critical to economic success?

According to the THEA Faculty Manual: A Guide to Results the test covers three areas – Reading Skill, Mathematics Skill, and Writing Skill.  Focusing on literacy, the test assesses six reading standards and 12 writing standards.  The reading standards are:
•    Determine the meaning of words and phrases.
•    Understand the main idea and supporting details in written material.
•    Identify a writer's purpose, point of view, and intended meaning.
•    Analyze the relationship among ideas in written material.
•    Use critical-reasoning skills to evaluate written material.
•    Apply study skills to reading assignments (5).

The twelve standards for writing are broken into two subsets – Elements of Composition and Sentence Structure, Usage, and Mechanics.  Students are also expected to produce a writing sample.  The Elements of Composition are:
•    Recognize purpose and audience.
•    Recognize unity, focus, and development in writing.
•    Recognize effective organization in writing.

The standards for Sentence, Structure, Usage, and Mechanics are:
•    Recognize effective sentences.
•    Recognize edited American English usage.

The writing sample should show the following characteristics –
•    Appropriateness
•    Unity and Focus
•    Development
•    Organization
•    Sentence Structure
•    Usage
•    Mechanical Conventions (7-8)

Potentially, these standards are applicable to the multiliteracies of the 21st century, but the vagaries of a standard like “understand the main idea” are so open to interpretation it loses its potency.  The reading test consists of 40 multiple-choice questions matched to reading passages ranging from 300 to 750 words in length (5).  The test, itself, is a throwback to traditional text-based print.  At best the test appears to be a minimum skills test, and by no means does it address the interwoven complexities of multimodal text or the ability to create it.

Perhaps more disturbing than the generalness of the standards and the dated design of the test is the approximate percent correct needed to pass.  The test is scored from 100 to 300, and a passing score on the reading section is 220 or approximately 67% correct (22-25).  Not every student wanting to attend college in Texas is required to take THEA, however.  In fact, a high score on another controversial exam provides THEA exemption.

Since 1901, the College Board has administered the SAT as a test for college admissions.  Students must score 1070 on the reading and mathematics sections of the SAT in order to be exempt from THEA.  A look at the average SAT scores from 1972-2004 indicates a national mean that hovers around 1000 (Kobrin 6-12).  This would suggest that the THEA exempt student demonstrated knowledge and skills about the 50th percentile.  However, male takers typically score near the exempt mark.

Looking at scores from recent years portrays a different picture.  In 2006 and 2007, two groups – Asian-Americans and Whites – scored very near or above the THEA exemption score.  African-Americans were the lowest scoring demographic, scoring nearly 200 points behind both leaders.  Test data from Kobrin’s study shows a few other interesting areas of note.  When family income and parental education is factored we see that Asian-Americans and Whites from high-income or highly-educated families typically score near exemptions levels (6-13).

These scores imply an expansive gulf of inequity in secondary education.  If these assessments are indicators of the college-readiness of students at the end of high school, then we see, as Tucker originally observed, standards that are applied unevenly in districts, schools, and the classroom.  They insinuate that middle and upper-class Asian-American and white students with well-educated parents are radically more prepared for college than a poor, Black female of less educated parents.

Perhaps the issue is overdetermined.  It is impossible to point to a direct causal relationship for this statistical phenomenon, but two observations must be acknowledged.  The first, as seen with the THEA, is that college-readiness tests do not assess 21st century skills and are in themselves holdovers of traditional, print-based text.   The second is that they grant greater access to higher education to dominant demographic groups, especially men from affluent, well-educated families.

Although a single observation, it reflects a trend greater than standards and assessment.  Whether these tests are the cause of educational inequity or a mirror to the face of an inherently flawed system is a question I will not attempt to answer because a greater question presents itself – how do we ensure access to higher learning for all students?

Powerful Literacy
The discovery that the American education system trains its students unevenly and unfairly is a bit like Columbus discovering a “new world.”  Not only is it not a breakthrough, we find that many people are already there.  Women, immigrants, and minorities were only recently allowed unilateral access, and some may still argue that access to some fields and some institutions is still guarded.  Despite a legacy of an educational elitism, Patrick J. Finn argues that, however sacred, the widening gap between classes is inherently un-American.  He points out that elite boarding schools and working-class public schools approach literacy very differently, and the resulting outcomes either empower or domesticate.

“There’s literacy, and then there’s literacy.”  Finn describes four kinds.

The first is performative literacy.  This is the ability to call words, to decode sentences, and to turn oral language into written.  This is the lowest form of literacy.  The next level is functional literacy.  This is the literacy required to get through day-to-day experiences.  Reading the newspaper, filling out applications, and following written directions all fall into this category.  And then, there is informational literacy.  This is the ability to turn written text into understanding and reproduce your understanding as information.  Finn calls these three forms “domesticating literacy.”

Finn’s final form is powerful literacy.  “Powerful literacy involves creativity and reason,” Finn explains.  “The ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize what is read” (122-124).  Finn believes that working-class children need powerful literacy the most.  The role of the teacher is to make literacy dangerous, an instrument of social change for the individual and her community.

Domesticating literacy is rule-based.  Following directions and “getting it right” is more important than making connections to other learning.  It emphasizes facts over learning and offers rewards for obedience.  Reading and writing is often done through texts that are not relevant or important to students’ lives.  Children are taught to be holders of knowledge, not creators, and the text is the final authority.

Powerful literacy, however, encourages students to think for themselves.  Discovery and experience are valued over the accumulation of unrelated facts.  Students are allowed to question ideas and make decisions about their own learning.  Students are encouraged to form their own opinions, and they recognize that all texts are forms of opinion like their own.  Powerful literacy is democratic literacy where the user/creator retains autonomy.

Although Finn’s argument concerns traditional, print-based approaches, the connection to multimodal, digital literacy seems evident.  Performative digital literacy would be the ability to turn on a computer and execute a few basic programs.  Functional digital literacy would include the daily use of the computer to perform routine functions like word-processing, email, and reading the news.  Informational digital literacy would include use of the computer to gather and store information and to reproduce that information electronically.  But powerful digital literacy blurs the line between user and creator.  The powerfully literate student evolves from a consumer of information to a producer – a key indicator of success in the 21st century.

Teaching powerful literacy overcomes social and cultural boundaries that have historically limited access.  Looking back, THEA standards seem to support domesticating literacy.  What does it say when college admissions test determine how well a student has been domesticated?  Children of affluent, highly educated families blow past the bar set by domesticating literacy to the point that some are exempt from the domestication exam.  Still, other students are remediated or excluded for their lack of “skills.”  Working-class children require powerful digital literacy, but the reforms in education like NCLB only reinforce the domesticating traditional, print-based literacy that restricts access and perpetuates a system that is un-American.

What can a teacher do?

Christopher Walsh and P.S. 126
Located on the edge of Chinatown and the Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan is P.S. 126, a K-8 public school.  During the 2002-2003 school year, Christopher Walsh conducted an action research study on the benefits of multiliteracy practices on 58 of his middle-school students.  Prior to the study, Walsh was a proponent of progressive literacy, using Nancy Atwell’s Readers/Writers Workshop in his classes.  His strategy shifted, however, after making a surprising discovery about his students.  Walsh realized a gap existed between the inability of his students to use and interpret print texts and their capacity to create and communicate with digital and electronic texts outside of school (79).

Walsh understood that his curriculum did not match the competencies of his students in two ways.  On one hand, his modeling and use of traditional texts was beyond the capabilities of many of students who were learning English as a second language.  On the other hand, his projects and activities failed to incorporate the technological strengths of his students, which included complex, semiotic manipulations.  He decided to take his curriculum beyond the boundaries of traditional, print-based instruction and created a curriculum of “multimodal” activities that embraced a variety of means and mediums of communication.

Walsh’s students were precisely the type of students often excluded from powerful literacy.  They were poor – 92% received free or reduced lunch, and they were all recent Chinese immigrants, often living with extended family, who spoke a language other than English at home.  However, their culture valued technology and saw computers as an important factor in academic and economic success.

Walsh’s new curriculum required students to maintain an online portfolio and to participate in the construction of a class web-hub.  Additionally, students participated in discussion boards, individual and group WebQuests, the construction of personal websites, blogs, and email.

Students studied human migration using the art, music, and film of African-Americans and poor Whites between 1920 and 1950.  The students discovered that their textbooks did not give a full representation of their experiences during the period.  They noticed that history books took a passive voice to “hide agency and responsibility for perpetuating violent actions.”  Students observed that lynching, racism, and other discriminatory acts were noticeably absent.  Students then were encouraged to rewrite, reconstruct, and argue critically with the text and its authors (81).

Walsh’s students as English language learners were able to transcend their inadequacies with the consumption and production of traditional, print-based text through semiotic reconstructions, which they created.  Students incorporated images, music, and text to reconfigure artifacts of the past with their individual interpretations in an aesthetic design that allowed users to interact through multiple approaches.

Ultimately, Walsh’s class entered a citywide contest that encouraged the production of educational websites.  Students extended the exercise to include modern issues such as racism, diversity, and sexism.  The group’s production won the 2003 ThinkQuest competition.

Through the project Walsh realized traditional print-based literacy is sometimes opposed to the multiliteracies students use when they are away from school.  Incorporating multimodal approaches allowed students to increase their productivity as learners while simultaneously achieving the intended pedagogical outcomes traditional methods hoped to produce.  By using areas of strength, Walsh was able to work backwards to ensure students acquired the standard skills of conventional literacy.

Students made connections beyond the assignment and ultimately related the experiences of African-Americans and poor Whites to their own experiences as marginalized immigrants.  The student sites generated over 25,000 hits, extending the exercise to include civic contribution.  Finally, the classroom environment and the students’ projects mirrored the structure and production of the modern workplace.  At the very least, Walsh’s students show what is possible when powerful digital literacy is favored over other domesticating forms (84).

The Technology Immersion Project
The success of Chris Walsh and his students in incorporating 21st century skills into a thinking curriculum should not overshadow some of the very real issues projects like his undertake.  Districts and states are experimenting with meaningful, technology integration and the road is not always smooth.  An example of the hardship of introducing a non-traditional reform that encompasses the needs of the digital age can be witnessed in the Technology Immersion Project (TIP) in the state of Texas.

TIP began in the Spring of 2004 in 29 middle schools in 23 diverse districts across the state.  The goal is to create a school environment that completely embraces technology, where the student and teacher are completely “immersed” in a digital environment.  Implementation is evaluated by annual reports, and the project is scheduled to end in the Spring of 2008.

The report of first-year implementation proved promising.  Computers per classroom increased from 2.3 to 18.0.  With an average class size of 20, approximately 90% of students had daily access to a computer.  Comparatively, the average Texas classroom contains 3.7 computers.  However, 53% of the classrooms at the end of the first year used the traditional arrangement of desks and rows.  Maybe the most promising finding, however, is that time teachers spent providing whole class instruction reduced from 53% to 34%, meaning students worked individually or with partners roughly 2/3 of the time.  The teacher viewed their role in the classroom differently as well.  The teacher saw herself as the manager and monitor of learning instead of the provider (Shapley 8-10).

This is important progress because workplaces are beginning to look radically different than traditional classroom.  Rarely will an employer spend more than half of her time lecturing employees on what they should be doing and how.  The transition from assembly line rows and columns was harder to give up, but the time spent in authentic workplace activities like solo and group projects increased significantly, and the first-year report shows that students spent 58% of their time working with technology.

However, the results from year two seem less promising.  Implementation slowed and most administrators felt it had plateaued.  Schools with higher proportions of economically disadvantaged students had the lowest implementation rates.  Teachers felt they received inadequate support from administration and professional development opportunities, and most teachers felt the challenges of immersion outweighed the benefits (Evaluation 3-5)

Students, however, felt differently.  They routinely felt they learned more from digital sources than they did from traditionally printed text.  Students believed immersion increased their productivity and responsibility.  More importantly, students felt technology immersion increased their college and career readiness (6-8).
The TIP research suggests that acesss to technology and a system that values traditional methods over modern are primary obstacles between students and 21st century skills.

Conclusion

Christopher Walsh and TIP shows us what is possible and problematic when integrating technology and curriculum.  The standards movement has provided little or no support to the immergence of skills requisite for future success.  In fact, standards and assessment support traditional literacy, which has historically provided educational inequity.  Schools seem reluctant to embrace the role of provider, and students are looking outside the classroom to find the marketable skills of the future.  Without a systematic approach for digital reform in education there is little hope that children will discover the instruments of success in their lives as students.

Freshman composition in institutions of higher education then becomes the last best chance to acquire these skills.  The teacher of freshmen composition must embrace a multimodal, digital literacy that empowers students to be creative producers instead of domesticated consumers.  Additionally, instructors of first-year composition should realize that many students are entering college with educational gaps not specific to the digital divide.  Like Christopher Walsh, teachers must find effective methods to bridge the gaps between semiotic understanding and print-based texts.  Furthermore, this instruction must be personally relevant to the day-to-day experiences of the student.

We must begin, however, with desired outcomes – what should students be able to do and produce to be competitive in the 21st century.

Works Cited
“Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: An Analysis of Second-Year
(2005-06) Implementation.” Texas Center for Education Research. 2007.

Finn, Patrick J. Literacy with an Attitude Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.

Kobrin, Jennifer, Viji Sathy, and Emily J. Shaw. “A Historical View of Subgroup Performance Differences on the SAT Reasoning Test.”  <http://www.collegeboard.com>. 2006.

McInturff, Bill and Geoff Garin. “A Presentation of Key Findings from a National Survey Conducted September 10-12, 2007.” Partnership for 21st Skills. <http://www.21stcenturyskills.org>. Oct 2007.

Merchant, Guy. "Writing the future in the digital age." Literacy 41 (November 2007): 118-128.

Selber, Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Studies in writing & rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004.

Shapley, Kelly S. and others. “Effects of Technology Immersion on Teaching and Learning:  Evidence from Observations of Sixth-Grade Classrooms.” Texas Center for Education Research. 2006.

“Texas Higher Education Assessment Faculty Manual: A Guide to THEA Test Results.”  <http://www.thea.nesinc.com>. 2005.

Tucker, Marc S., and Judy B. Codding. Standards for Our Schools: How to Set Them, Measure Them, and Reach Them. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998.

Walsh, Christopher S. "Creativity as capital in the literacy classroom: youth as multimodal designers." Literacy 41 (July 2007): 79-85.

How have your shaped your course around a major focus that adds not only interest but a strong vehicle for the course's standards?

You can give attention to branding your small business with whatever current resources you have. Much of branding has to do with thinking things through and defining yourself in detail.  Defining doesn't have to cost a dime, unless you hire or recruit someone to help you.

FODDER

Think about these three things:

1) What do you do, and need to do exceptionally when your reputation is on the line?

2)  What is important to you (your core values), and what are your standards for those values?  Example:

A. My value: Creativity

B. My standards for that value: 1) I always use and present creative thinking tools when responding to a clients' challenge. 2) Challenge and dedicate myself to be well-informed in diverse fields (psychology, philosophy, management development, politics, art, marketing, coaching, business, literature, etc.) so I can draw on different bodies of knowledge for ideas and solutions. 3) Strive to be inventive in my thinking. 4)  Express myself artistically. 4) Feed myself images. 5) Choose variety and diversity instead of sameness and homogeny.

3. What aspects of your personality make an impact on others when you're at your very best?  For example: Do you always get a laugh? Are people touched by your acts of thoughtfulness and kindness?  Are you sought out for your wisdom?  Can you be counted on to take charge in a crisis?  Do you bring a sense of calm and equanimity?  Does your speaking stir crowds?  Do you always get things done? Make a list five unique aspects of your personal style in relation to others.

FUN

Write your "brand commitment" in one short sentence.  Make it authentic and grandiose simultaneously.  Make sure it expresses how you positively impact others. Include your values unique impacts of your personal style. Test it on those who know you.

My own draft example: "Creatively, Intelligently, Uniquely... Inspiring Entrepreneurs to Think and Act Like Business Geniuses." (took 2 minutes)

Any suggestions to improve the above example?

Want to post yours and get feedback?

Ms. Muse

copyright, Valerie J. Olson, 2008

A full profession is along the lines of law.  What makes us different?  Well, for one thing, unionization makes us different.  Unionization is for LABOR, not for a PROFESSION.  I've never heard of a lawyer's strike, or a doctor's strike, yet teachers DO strike...like labor.  Does this encourage a professional image?  I do not think so.    We are not self-regulating, as the American Medical Association, or the American Bar Association.  Both organizations control the discipline, licensing and regulation of their respective professions, insofar as their membership obeys the law.  How can we separate educators into a profession that operates on a similar standard of excellence that needs to be clear-cut and precise?  Is this a place the NEA needs to fill? 

On a personal level, I wonder often, sometimes out loud, how I personally can become the most professional teacher I can be---and still keep the warm-fuzzyness necessary to teach in the lowest grades.  This is a responsibility that I cannot shirk.  I am pre-service--still a student, yet this standard of professionalism is one that I cannot NOT consider, even now---because in the NOW is when the habits of professionalism are established.  They can't NOT happen, if I am going to give my students the very best that they can have.  My goal, as an educator, is to give my students, in the poorest of circumstances, a skill set and a competency in education that will allow them to compete with their wealthier fellow students across the US.  I can't not be aware of the necessity of this to help them realize their dreams---individual American Dreams---in all their myriad variations.