Standard 1 Reflection

Standard 1 of Seattle Pacific University's Standards for Teacher Leadership states that teacher leaders “model ethical and moral behavior”.  The class EDU 6085 was one class that focused specifically on this standard.  Below is a reflection from reading “The Charged Classroom” by Judith Pace that demonstrates my understanding related to this standard.   

When considering “The Charged Classroom”, Judith Pace is primarily referring to the many challenges that both teachers and students face when encountering differences or potentially uncomfortable conversations within the classroom.  Many factors can contribute to a “charged” classroom, such as academic rigor and pressures that both teachers and students face, opportunities for discussion around conflicting viewpoints, or communicating academic standards and results.  While Pace highlights the many difficulties that can accompany a “charged” classroom, it is evident that such is unavoidable and can contribute towards a healthy learning environment if handled correctly.

When teachers are conveying their expectations to students, it is often easy to overlook students’ social emotional health and how that can be factored into student academics or their overall wellbeing.  We see this to an extent during the “Communicating Academic Expectations” chapter, when teachers used public occasions to communicate expectations around grades or assignments.  When teachers used these public occasions, students seemed more likely to share their results with the class.  These situations can be quite “charged” because it puts students’ personal information in jeopardy and shares with a large amount of people students’ academic identities.  Digging deeper into some of these classrooms allowed for the discussion around whether these increased academic expectations contributes to disengaged students, especially minorities in the education setting.  Also in this chapter, Pace quotes “It is the quality of relationship that allows for a teacher’s push for excellence”.  This resonates with me when bearing in mind the pacing that most teachers are pressured to keep up with right now in education.  While my district is supporting social emotional curriculum and acknowledges the benefits of taking time to build relationships within the classroom, our pacing is still rigorous.  I believe this can significantly contribute towards charged classroom environments in a negative light.

Handling controversial discussions is something that most teachers aren’t automatically equipped with, but is becoming more and more important in classrooms.  It is important that students learn how to communicate with others that have differing opinions than them.  The type of discussion structure that teachers use can be significant in facilitating discussions that are either teacher or student led.  Asking exploratory questions rather than following the “IRF” conversation model allows for students to express their own identities and understandings without as much teacher direction.  For the “F” part of the conversation, rather than interpreting the student’s comment for she or he, the teacher would further the student’s idea by asking them to expand their thoughts.

This reflection also relates to the current work that my district is engaging in regarding cultural competency.  Similar to the ideas helt by Pace, our district is encouraging educators to “lean in” to those difficult or “charged” conversations.  While this work takes time, self-reflection, and vulnerability; it is essential for creating an inclusive environment and important work as a teacher leader.

Pace, J. L. (2015). Charged classroom: Predicaments and possibilities for democratic teaching.