Future+of+teaching

**AERA 2009**
This paper briefly maps out the challenge that we face in education. The current model of schooling--designed for an earlier era-- is not working and is not likely to work without significant transformation. Suppose we start over with a design team and remake schools to fit the world we currently live in. This vision starts with a few basic assumptions--1) that students are a value and largely untapped educational resource for their community and can make significant contributions, 2) that learning is a social activity and as such there is a still a call for having students work in community settings, 3) Teachers need to be actively engaged in deep learning for them to be effective role models for students and 4) schooling will involve much more differentiation of the role we know think of as a teacher. This paper creates a new design for teaching in the 21st Century which is compatible with 21st century learning.
 * Abstract**

(April 14 download files for the most current... page will be udated soon-- under active construction....)



The Challenge: Transforming Schools
At the beginning of the 20th century, schools were undergoing a dramatic shift in the structure. Moving from one-room schoolhouses to graded classrooms was a fundamental change in the “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin 1994). This graded school would increase teaching efficiency by grouping students of similar ability and provide an education program matched to their group needs. This system also created a competitive environment though which it will be easier to separate those students that have the aptitude from intellectual work and those that will be left behind to fill the large number of jobs that did not require a college degree. At the turn of the 21st century, the Department of Education formulated a new and bold function for American Education. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandated that every child achieve at grade level throughout school leading to universal preparation for higher education. This dramatic change in the function of schooling unfortunately left the structure of schooling untouched. And so schools struggle with a 20th Century structure that is, at best, at odds with and, at worst, directly contradictory to this newly formulated function of universal high quality education for all children. The intent of this paper is not to raise the issue of the conflict between structure and function of schooling as this has been done by others (DeShano, Silva, Huguley, Kakli, & Rao 2007). Rather it is to present a plan for changing the structure of schooling that would make this new mandate of universal high quality education attainable. Information and communication technology along with changes in the way we engage students in the learning process is what can make this new function possible. The development of digital technology has recently undergone a seismic shift from personal to participatory tools. It is this shift that can support but not cause the change in school structure. To change schools we will need to change the way people work together-the social infrastructure. Adding a technology infrastructure to a school structure that is unstable does not support the knowledge building that is needed to transform learning. At the heart of the problem is the current structure of one teacher with a group of students for extended periods of time in “private practice” with little supervision, oversight or assessment. The closed classroom door locks many students out of the their chance to be successful. Behind these closed doors teachers often hide their deficits without effective ways of developing and evolving their teaching skills. If the classroom is not a place of learning for the teacher, it will not be an effective place of learning for the students. Students in this generation will need to know how to work in groups. They participate in a culture where the prevalent role models are no longer the "lone ranger" or "superman" individuals like Dr Kildare or Perry Mason. Today’s television programs reflect a shift that has taken place in our society. The long range has been replaced by cross-generational multi-racial, and diverse teams such as ninja turtles, Grey's Anatomy doctors, and CSI detectives who solve complex problems in teams. Only schools persists in stand alone teachers working in isolation with increasingly complex problems. Even when teachers try to introduce collaborative learning into the classroom the model of the isolated teacher who is not engaged in learning with peers sends a hollow message to the students.
 * The Aim of Education for Students**

A second and equally critical deficit of the current model is that teaching is a flat occupation with little opportunity, support, or recognition for teacher learning. For the first half of the 20th Century with restricted career opportunity for women, teaching attracted the most intellectually talented of half the population. But since that time to the present, teaching has not been able to compete with the range of occupational options available to both women and men. More importantly, teacher does not attract nor satisfy individual with a thirst for intellectual challenge, conceptual understanding and theoretical reflection. If a high achieving student professes a desire to be a teacher, it is not uncommon for them to receive advice from professors and parents to set their sights “higher” than a teacher. If schools are not attracting the most talented and then creating a context that fosters their skills, many children in our schools will be left far behind. Schools need a level of change that is large and comprehensive. The plan proposed in this paper is directed to solve the intersecting problems of poor teaching hidden behind classroom doors and the lack of investment in the human and social capital of school teachers. Without a system that supports life-long intense learning of teachers, it will be difficult for schools to be places that inspire the life-long learning of their students. The model for schooling outlined in this article changes the way teachers teach and students learn. Beginning with the concept of learning communities for teachers and students, it suggests a synthesis of some of the benefits of the one-room community approach to schooling of the 19th century and the graded competitive classes of the 20th century creating collaborative learning communities that strive to create the most compelling conceptual artifacts. This work of building knowledge and knowledge products has demonstrated an approach to learning that creates the level of intellectual engagement that is needed to drive the interrelated global systems that our current technology support.
 * Developing the Capacity of Teachers**

While the method that politicians have constructed to assess learning is schools is well intended, it fails to accomplish it goals. Worse than that, it drives a form of teaching to tests that undermines the quality of learning. Teachers are pressured to abandon good practices to take short cuts that inflate test scores. The end result is that students perform well but learn little. But schools must take responsibility for the problem. They were not assessing students. They did not know if students where learning and they were not collecting or using evidence of student learning to drive education. If they had been doing this, the forces outside of schools would have been unnecessary. Schools do not have structures in place to measure learning. This is another sign of the dysfunction of the current model. So a new model, a model of schooling in the twenty-first century, would need to address these three linked problems: 1) The need for students to learn how to be successful learners and problem solvers in multi-generational, multi-ethnic, cross-gender teams. 2) A diversification of the roles of teaching in schools that places teachers in rich learning opportunities throughout their career 3) A learning community where assessment is not high stakes testing but a integrated part of the learning community approach to schooling. A final comment before this elaboration of the new model: while full implementation would require a massive change affecting all levels of society, that doesn’t render it impossible. The shift to graded classrooms required huge shifts in schooling and it is possible for this to happen again. But we have to understand the stakes. This model does not assume an increased financial investment in school, although hopefully the benefits to the community of such a model might result in a willingness to fund schools at a higher level.
 * Assessment and Success**

The challenge here is to create a model that works with the current level of funding of schools and with the current physical structures of schools and school districts. They can change but they change more slowly. This is a workable model and it is easy to point to places were all of the pieces of the model are working but not in a single setting. The closest, current model is High Tech High in San Diego. In the original development of this idea (Riel, 1995), a projection was made into the future with the participants explaining how this change occurred. In this paper I offer the ideas a blueprint to plan the change. While charter schools have provided excellent models for changing schools, the unit is too small for the systemic change envisioned in this model. We need charter districts. This model will be explained from two perspectives-- from the perspective of the student learner and form the perspective of the teacher learner—and addressed the problems of assessment. First broad strokes will be presented and then a more detailed focus on how the parts of the system work together as a whole. Drawing on the strength of the one room school house and the efficiencies of the graded classrooms, the Learning communities in this model are cross-age groups of students who stay in the same group for three years and move together though a sequence of learning centers every 10 weeks. One of the defining properties of a learning community is high value on intellectual diversity unified by a shared goal (Riel & Polin, 2003). This represents a definitive move away from the efforts to homogeneously group students by age, skill, gender, and knowledge and instead to recognize the value in bringing diverse skills into a system of collaborative synchrony. So in this model, students and educators participate in learning communities the description of the learning context for students is very similar to the learning context for teachers. In this way, teachers model the learning process by the way they work as well as in the structure of their lessons. The Learning Community: Cross-Generational Teams Assume a learning community of sixty students, twenty students of each of three grades. Later, the physical arrangements of the learning centers will be described. In this model there are different types of educators, some educators will stay with the students in community over multiple years and others educators who work with students for shorter periods of time. The community is a cross-generational team made up of learners made up of a learning team of students who spans three years. Students have shifting roles as entry, mentor and master learners as the move through the levels. Birth to 5 - early learning community Years 6-8 (grades 1-3) primary learning community Year 9-11 (grades 4-6) elementary learning community Years 12-14 (grades 7-9) middle learning community Years 15-17 (grades 10-12) high learning community This same structure of expertise that defines student learners, define the career of their teachers who are also entry, mentor and master teachers (this career path will be describe later). Cross cutting the career trajectory, there are two parallel strands in teaching. One strand is community teachers who focus on learning process and assessment of learning in their preparation and development of expertise. The second strand are learning Center Teachers who specialize in two content areas. All teaching positions are twelve-months appointments. However there is a nine-month paraprofessional role called learning guides. Learning Communities each have a learning guide and a community Mentor with roles, responsibility, preparation and certification are very different from those of the educators currently in schools. The community (a group of sixty students spanning three years, their learning guide and community teacher) go to learning centers for 12 week sessions where center and resource educators complete the educational team. The make-up of the teaching team in the learning center is as follows:
 * A Charter District: Learning Community Model of Schooling**

The time that these educators are not with students, they are engaged in a number of other roles, and positions some of which are funded outside of the school budget. School educators, like university professors, do not spend all of their time teaching. It is one of the many activities that they engage in. In this model, no one teaches all day, every day.
 * A group of students across three years (roughly 20 students in each of the years)
 * 1 Learning Guide (with student all day and across three years)
 * 1 Community Educator (with students 60-80% of the day and stays with the same student for a span of three years)
 * 2 Center Educators (with students from 60-80% of the day and stays with students for ten weeks)
 * 5-10 Resource Educators (with students for 5-35% of the day and stays with students for the length of a projects)

**Differentiated Role for Educators**

 * 1) Para Professional Learning Guides**

Learning guides are para-professionals whose primary goal is to supervise the learning activities that are enacted by center and community educators. These individuals are skilled in working with students, but not as focused on the conceptual and design functions of teaching. Guides helps with technical or resource problems as students work on their projects, and provide a supportive caring environment to celebrate the accomplishment of students. This is a nine-month position, requiring an AA or BA degree and learning guide certification. The role involves the supervision and facilitation of independent and group work by students, but guides do not design curriculum, or plan lessons. Since they stay with the same community of students as they all move through the Centers, the learning guides develop personal relationships with the students and create a consistent set of expectations for appropriate Center and community behavior. While being a learning guide can be a career, it can also be a role that young people assume for short periods of time between college and the next phase of their life. This is the only nine-month job in the education sector. Learning guides work with the school administrator matching learners to resource teachers and to keeping the overall schedule of projects and learning activities. They supervise students in outdoor activities and during lunch time.

Learning Communities Mentors are professionals who have a deep knowledge of the learning sciences and develop expertise in diagnostic teaching strategies. The mentor of a learning community is responsible for the quality of learning and the quality of the teaching that occurs as the learning community moves through the different learning centers. Community mentors do not have a focus on specific curriculum as much as expertise in processes that help them assess learning in all areas. They work closely with the content educators but their role is to create a learning profile for each of the sixty students in their community. While this may seem a large number, the students stay with them for a number of years so that each year they gain only 20 new students while graduating 20 students to the next learning community. This educator knows each learner and can help with the interchange of the students with the Center educators, interceding where there are issues of misalignment of a students learning needs and the teaching styles of the content educators. This role requires a minimum of a Master of Arts degree in learning science and assessment. It is a 12-month position with 75% of the year spent in the classroom, and 25% working with school, district, state and federal programs of student assessment. The career advancement for this position is school district and state learning community evaluators. The school level mentor spends the time out of the classroom working with the other school level community mentors creating a profile of learning at the school. The mentor works with other district and state evaluators to create a learning profiles of students, communities, and schools to understand learning trajectories at the state and national level. Their work replaces massive national and state testing programs. By using diagnostic teaching and databases, educators work with and compare learning profiles to help advance the learning sciences. There are validation studies from time to time to calibrate the learning profiles across schools and states, but these involve testing a small random sample of students and determining the validity of the school assessment data. They are also the primary interface between schools and universities. Educational research partnerships work through community mentors.
 * 2) Learning Community Mentor**

Center educators design the education context for the learning community students. While the Community Mentor and Learning guide are nomadic moving with the students, the Learning Center Educators are grounded in their centers. Assume a classroom space equivalent to three current classrooms that is shared by two center teachers. Center Educators are curriculum specialists. Center educators hold teaching certification in areas that combine a skill area with two disciplines such as writing, Literature, and the Humanities, or Problem Solving, Math, and the Sciences. They work to design the space to tailor it for type of learning adventures that will take place in the center. The centers have themes and center educators work hard to build lessons that are consistent with the larger theme.
 * 3) Learning Center Educators**

Resource Educators, provide special work in a particular subject area (chemistry) or for a particular group, (bilingual students) or with special equipment (multi- media). They come from the teaching core but also from school leadership, museums, universities, and from diverse sectors of the society. Planning the Learning Center environment means coordination of expertise in academic disciplines, knowledge of the student community, and integration of resources both local and distant. Center and resource educators follow a career path from Assistant to Full and then Master Educator. They are also engaged in professional work inside and outside of the classroom. The goal is for educators to have a multiple roles that can inform their teaching and use what they learn within classrooms to develop the profession. No educator teaches all of the time., and everyone the school system teaches in some capacity. Teaching is only one aspect of a complex career in education. The goal is for all educators to have time - time to think, time to reflect, time for collaboration with others to make the important decisions that set the stage for learning.
 * 4) Resource Teachers**

When a community of student arrive in the Learning Center, they are encouraged to take responsibility for their projects and activities. This makes it possible for educators to work with smaller groups while students are working under the supervision of learning guides. Some demonstration or performance lessons are designed for the whole Learning Center but most lessons take place with groups of different size. Each day at the Learning Center, students engage in a variety of activities and projects. Some kids, for example, may be experimenting with different ways to convert salt water to fresh water, while another group is working on a play they wrote. Older students help younger students and everyone is working toward clearly specified goals. The students know what skills they have to accomplish and they have projects that will need to be completed by deadlines. At the end of every period in a center, there is an exhibition open to the community where they share their work with family and friends. The students have responsibility for their learning profile and can check it on the computer at any time. Students who fall behind in their profile will have to attend intersession skill building programs. Students who move ahead will gain more freedom in constructing their learning program. Students can schedule computer skill tests whenever they are ready. Assessment: Assessment is no longer used to sort students according to their "intellectual skill" or to test student memory for content information. Instead, four measures intersect to assess student learning: self-assessment, feedback from the community during exhibitions, educator evaluations, and national standardized skill assessments.
 * Changed Role of Students**

The first form of evaluation is the students' yearly written reflection on their accomplishments and success in reaching their goals. They compare the goals they set for themselves with their accomplishments. Then they set new goals. They are engaged in a study of their mind and their progress. Also built into the assessment process is time for students to showcase their learning. This is done through “exhibition” where parents, families, and community members come together to see what students have accomplished after a twelve period in a learning center. Students participate in tournaments, games, plays and demonstrations. Parents can see how their child's work compares with other children. The exhibition gives students the chance to teach others including their parents and educators. Students understand the role and practice of developing expertise. The third measure is a process report from the educators. Computer technology plays an important role by providing an efficient way for educators to make, store, and share observations about students. Using the security of microchips on these pocket assistants, educators can make quick notes that are automatically added to student observation files. Educators, parents and students themselves can assess different parts of the cumulative folder and develop an understanding of the student progress. Students have to master skills based assessments that are on the computer. They can schedule these when they are ready and take them multiple times. The goal is to master the content. Some students will learn the content away from the computer and come to the computer only for assessment, other students might use the computer as a tutor to help learn the content.

The change in social infrastructure needs to be matched by the development of technology infrastructure that gives “site lines” (Hamilton) into school learning, extends the classroom into the world, and brings human and informational resources into the classroom. Technology is shared minds made visible. It is the stored and shared problem solving that others have offered to extend our senses and mediate our actions. Using the technology, students teach and learn from one another and from their local and global communities. Educators teach and learn from one another and from their participation in these larger educational communities. Rather than focus on mechanistic devices that some fear will dehumanize education, in this model, technology are tools for extending the reach of students and educators ideas and sharing the results of their participation.
 * Technology**

Technology makes possible changes that will result from increased partnerships among educators, students, librarians, museum curators, publishers, developers, scientists, and researchers both near and distant and at all levels of school leadership. It makes it possible for educators to work in positions that are external to the school without having to leave the school based business center.

References DeShano, C., Silva,D., Huguley, P., Kakli,Z., & Rao, R. (2007) The Opportunity Gap: Achievement and Inequality in Education. Cambridge: The Harvard Educational Publishing Group, Cambridge. 320.

Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in he service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge University Press. Tyack, D., and W. Tobin. 1994. The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal 31(3): 453-479. 312.

At the beginning of the 20th century, schools were undergoing a dramatic shift in the structure. Moving from one-room schoolhouses to graded classrooms was a fundamental change in the “grammar” of schooling (Tyack & Tobin 1994). This graded school would increase teaching efficiency by grouping students of similar ability and provide an education program matched to their group needs. This system also created a competitive environment though which it will be easier to separate those students that have the aptitude from intellectual work and those that will be left behind to fill the large number of jobs that did not require a college degree.

At the turn of the 21st century, the Department of Education formulated a new and bold function for American Education— The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 which mandated that every child achieve at grade level throughout school leading to universal preparation for higher education. This dramatic change in the function of schooling unfortunately left the structure of schooling untouched. And so schools struggle with a 20th Century structure that is, at best, at odds with and, at worst, directly contradictory to this newly formulated function of universal high quality education for all children.

The intent of this paper is not to raise the issue of the conflict between structure and function of schooling as this has been done by others (DeShano, Silva, Huguley, Kakli, & Rao 2007). Rather it is to present a plan for changing the structure of schooling that would make this new mandate of universal quality education attainable. Information and communication technology along with changes in the way we engage students in the learning process is what can make this new function possible.

The development of digital technology has recently undergone a seismic shift from personal to participatory tools. It is this shift that can support but not cause the change in school structure. To change schools we will need to change the way people work together-the social infrastructure. Adding a technology infrastructure to a school structure that is unstable does not support the knowledge building that is needed to transform learning.

At the heart of the problem is the current structure of one teacher with a group of students for extended periods of time in “private practice” with little supervision, oversight or assessment. The closed classroom door locks many students in without the resources that are essential for success. Behind these closed doors teachers often hide their deficits without effective ways of developing and evolving their teaching skills. If the classroom is not a place of learning for the teacher, it will not be an effective place of learning for the students. Students in this generation understand how to work in groups. They participate in a culture where the prevalent role models are no longer the "lone ranger" or "superman" individuals. The watch cross-generational multi-racial, and diverse teams such as the ninja turtles, Grey's Anatomy doctors, CSI detectives solve complex problems in teams. Only schools persists in stand alone teachers working in isolation with increasingly complex problems.

A second critical deficit of the current model is that teaching is a flat occupation with little opportunity, support, or recognition for teacher learning. When there was restricted career opportunity for women, teaching attracted the most intellectually talented of half the population. At present, teaching does not compete with the range of occupational options available to both women and men and more importantly, does not attract nor satisfy those individual with a thirst for intellectual challenge, conceptual understanding and theoretical reflections. If a high achieving student professes a desire to be a teacher, it is not uncommon for them to receive advice from professors and parents to set their sights “higher” than a teacher. If schools are not attracting the most talented and then creating a context that fosters their skills, many children in our schools will be left far behind.

Schools need a level of change that is large and comprehensive. The plan proposed in this paper is directed to solve the intersecting problems of poor teaching hidden behind classroom doors and the lack of investment in the human and social capital of school teachers. Without a system that supports life-long intense learning of teachers, it will be difficult for schools to be places that inspire the life-long learning of their students.

The model for schooling outlined in this article changes in the way teachers teach and students learn. Beginning with the concept of learning communities for teachers and students, it suggests a synthesis of some of the benefits of the one-room community approach to schooling of the 19th century and the graded competitive classes of the 20th century creating collaborative learning communities that strive to create the most compelling conceptual artifacts. This work of building knowledge and knowledge products has demonstrated an approach to learning that creates the level of intellectual engagement that is needed to drive the interrelated global systems that our current technology support.

A final comment before this brief elaboration of the new model: while full implementation would require a massive change effecting all levels of society, that doesn’t render it impossible. The shift to graded classrooms required huge shifts in schooling and it is possible for this to happen again. But we have to understand the stakes. This model does not assume an increased finantial investment in school, although hopefully the benefits to the community of such a model might result in a willingness to fund schools at a higher level.


 * A Learning Community Model of Schooling**

The challenge here is to create a model that works with the current level of funding of schools and with the current physical structures of schools and school districts. They can change but they change more slowly. This is a workable model and it is easy to point to places were all of the pieces of the model are working but not in a single setting. The following is an outline of the major elements that will be designed in more detail in the paper.

Drawing on the strength of the one room school house and the efficiencies of the graded classrooms, the Learning communities in this model are cross-age groups of students who stay in the same group for three years and move together though a sequence of learning centers every 10 weeks. One of the defining properties of a learning community is high value on intellectual diversity unified by a shared goal (Riel & Polin, 2003). This represents a definitive move away from the efforts to homogeneously group students by age, skill, gender, and knowledge and instead to recognize the value in bringing diverse skills into a system of collaborative synchrony. So in this model, students and educators in a learning community range in age, skills, and functions. Everyone shifts between the roles of the teaching and learning. Before describing the learning centers where students go for learning, we begin with the changes in the people who work who work with students.

Assume a learning community of sixty students, twenty students of each of three grades. We start by defining the roles of the adults who work with the learning community over a period of multiple years and then focus on the educators who work with them for shorter periods of instruction.

The community is a cross-generational team made up of learners made up of a learning team of students who spans three years. Students have different roles as entry, mentor and master learners.
 * The Learning Community: Cross-Generational Teams**

younger than 5 - early learning community Years 6-8 (grades 1-3) primary learning community Year 9-11 (grades 4-6) elementary learning community Years 12-14 (grades 7-9) middle learning community Years 15-17 (grades 10-12) high learning community

This same structure of expertise that defines student learners, define the career of their teachers who are also entry, mentor and master teachers (this career path will be describe later). Cross cutting the career trajectory, there are two parallel strands in teaching. One strand is community teachers who focus on learning process and assessment of learning in their prepartion and development of expertise. The second strand are learning center teachers who specialize in two content areas. All teaching positions are twelve-months appointments. However there is a nine-month paraprofessional role called learning guides.

Learning Communities each have a learning guide and a community Mentor with roles, responsibility, preparation and certification are very different from those of the educators currently in schools.The community together goes to learning centers for 12 week sessions where center and resource educators complete the educational team. The make-up of the teaching team in the learning center is as follows:
 * A group of students across three years (20 students in each of the years)
 * 1 Learning Guide (with student all day and across three years)
 * 1 Community Mentor (with students 60-80% of the day and stays with the same community for three years)
 * 2 Center Educators (with students from 60-80% of the day and stays with students for ten weeks)
 * 5-10 Resource Educators (with students for 5-35% of the day and stays with students for the length of a projects)

The time that these educators are not with students, they are engaged in a number of other roles, and positions some of which are funded outside of the school budget. School educators, like university professors, do not spend all of their time teaching. It is one of the many activities that they engage in. In this model, no one teaches all day, every day.


 * Differentiated Role for Educators**

Learning guides are para-professionals whose primary goal is to supervise the learning activities that are enacted by center educators. These individuals are skilled in working with students not as focused on the conceptual and design functions of teaching. Guides helps with technical or resource problems as students work on their projects, and provide a supportive caring environment to celebrate the accomplishment of students. This is a nine-month position, requiring an AA or BA degree which involves the supervision and facilitation of independent and group work by students, but do not design curriculum, plan lessons. Since they stay with the same community of students as they all move through the Centers, the learning guides develop personal relationships with the students and create a consistent set of expectations for appropriate Center behavior. While being a learning guide can be a career, it can also be a role that young people assume for one three year period between college and the next phase of their life. This is the only nine-month job in the education sector.
 * 1) Para Professional Learning Guides**

Learning Communities Mentors are professionals who have a deep knowledge of the learning sciences and develop expertise in diagnostic teaching strategies. The mentor of a learning community is responsible for the quality of learning and the quality of the teaching that occurs as the learning community moves through the different learning centers. They do not have a focus on specific curriculum as much as expertise in processes that help them assess learning in all areas. They work closely with the content educators but their role is to create a learning profile for each of the sixty students in their care. While this may seem a large number, the students stay with them for a number of years so that each year they gain only 20 new students and then graduate 20 students to the next learning community. This person witnesses the interchange of the students with the educator and helps intercede where there are issues of misalignment of a students learning needs and the teaching styles of the content educators.
 * 2) Learning Community Mentor**

This role requires a minimum of a Master of Arts degree in learning science and assessment. It is a 12-month position with 75% of the year spent in the classroom, and 25% working with school, district, state and federal programs of student assessment. The career advancement for this position is school district and state learning community evaluators. The school level mentor spends the time out of the classroom working with the other school level community mentors creating a profile of learning at the school. The mentor works with other district and state evaluators to create a learning profiles of students, communities, and schools to understand learning trajectories at the state and national level. Their work replaces massive national and state testing programs. By using diagnostic teaching and databases, educators work with and compare learning profiles to help advance the learning sciences. There are validation studies from time to time to calibrate the learning profiles across schools and states, but these involve testing a small random sample of students and determining the validity of the school assessment data.

Center educators design the education context for both individual and groups of community students. Assume a classroom space equivalent to three current classrooms. Some of these are credentialed educators who visit the classroom and others are resource educators that may work with students off site or through technology links.
 * 3) Learning Center Educators**

Center Educators are curriculum specialists. Center educators hold teaching certification in areas that combine a skill area with two disciplines such as writing, Literature, and the Humanities, or Problem Solving, Math, and the Sciences. Resource Educators, provide special work in a particular subject area (chemistry) or for a particular group, (bilingual students) or with special equipment (multi- media). They come from the teaching core but also from school leadership, museums, universities, and from diverse sectors of the society. Planning the Learning Center environment means coordination of expertise in academic disciplines, knowledge of the student community, and integration of resources both local and distant.

Center and resource educators follow a career path from Assistant to Full and then Master Educator. They are also engaged in professional work inside and outside of the classroom. The goal is for educators to have a multiple roles that can inform their teaching and use what they learn within classrooms to develop the profession.

No educator teaches all of the time. Teaching is only one aspect of a complex career in education. The goal is for all educators to have time - time to think, time to reflect, time for collaboration with others to make the important decisions that set the stage for learning.


 * Changed Role of Students**

Students in these Learning Centers are encouraged to take responsibility for their projects and activities. This makes it possible for educators to work with smaller groups while students are working under the supervision of learning guides. Some demonstration or performance lessons are designed for the whole Learning Center.

Each day at the Learning Center, students engage in a variety of activities and projects. Some kids, for example, may be experimenting with different ways to convert salt water to fresh water, while another group is working on a play they wrote. Older students help younger students and everyone benefits.

Assessment is no longer used to sort students according to their "intellectual skill" or to test student memory for content information. Instead, four measures intersect to assess student learning: self-assessment, community comments, educator evaluation, and national school standardized tests.
 * Assessment:**

The first form of evaluation is the students' written reflection on their accomplishments and success in reaching their goals. They compare the goals they set for themselves with their accomplishments. Then they set new goals. They are engaged in a study of their mind and their progress. Also built into the assessment process is time for students to showcase their learning. This is done through “exhibition” where parents, families, and community members come together to see what students have accomplished. Students participate in tournaments, games, plays and demonstrations. Parents can see how their child's work compares with other children. The exhibition gives students the chance to teach others including their parents and educators. Students understand the role and practice of developing expertise. The third measure is a process report from the educators. Computer technology plays an important role by providing an efficient way for educators to make, store, and share observations about students. Using the security of microchips on these pocket assistants, educators can make quick notes that are automatically added to student observation files. Educators, parents and students can assess different parts of the cumulative folder and develop an understanding of the student progress.

The change in social infrastructure needs to be matched by the development of technology infrastructure that gives “site lines” (Hamilton) into school learning, extends the classroom into the world, and brings human and informational resources into the classroom. Technology is shared minds made visible. It is the stored and shared problem solving that others have offered to extend our senses and mediate our actions. Using the technology, students teach and learn from one another and from their local and global communities. Educators teach and learn from one another and from their participation in these larger educational communities. Rather than focus on mechanistic devices that some fear will dehumanize education, in this model, technology are tools for extending the reach of students and educators ideas and sharing the results of their participation.
 * Technology**

Technology makes possible changes that will result from increased partnerships among educators, students, librarians, museum curators, publishers, developers, scientists, and researchers both near and distant and at all levels of school leadership. It makes it possible for educators to work in positions that are external to the school without having to leave the school based business center.

References DeShano, C., Silva,D., Huguley, P., Kakli,Z., & Rao, R. (2007) The Opportunity Gap: Achievement and Inequality in Education. Cambridge: The Harvard Educational Publishing Group, Cambridge. 320.

Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in he service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge University Press. Tyack, D., and W. Tobin. 1994. The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal 31(3): 453-479. 312.