Although not outright stated in each set of standards, a common theme among the 3 sets

of standards that we individually mapped is the commitment to student learning. These three sets

of standards primarily address what the teacher needs to do to be an effective teacher and it

makes perfect sense that a teacher who wants students to learn are more effective in the

classroom. Teachers who are indifferent to their student’s education are indifferent to their

student’s success and indifferent to their own teaching practices. I have seen teachers who have

not changed the way they teach or even the instruction material they use. These teachers believe

that instruction is not evolving although the world around us constantly is.

We know the same is true of student learning as is of teacher instruction – students who

want to learn or are committed to their own learning are more productive in the classroom.

Students who are indifferent to their own education are indifferent to their own success. Here we

see a cycle of indifference that can be ended through a committed teacher’s intervention or

possibly even through another mentor/supporter. From my own experience, students that care

about their own learning will more often than not participate in the classroom, be willing to do

what is asked, and work to succeed in and out of the classroom.

Another common theme is planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all

students. This theme, as opposed to the first common theme, can be seen in all three standards as

well as the CA Standards for Mathematical Practice. At Buena Park High, there is a saying

among administration when discussing lesson planning – plan to the edges. Because when we

plan to the edges, we not only ensure we accommodate those in the middle performing area, but

also those who may need more scaffolding than your average student. We know that when we

lesson plan we need to consider the needs of all students, especially those with an IEP, ILP, or
other accommodation plan. Therefore, it is clear why this theme is prevalent in all of the

standards.

When we collaborated to create our Math standards specific mapping, we added on the

California Standards for Mathematical Practices. The focus of these standards was not what the

teacher needed to do, but what the teacher needed to teach the students to do in a math

environment. Because these standards were subject specific, it was difficult to map these

standards and connect them to many standards from the original three standards that we mapped

that focused on standards for effective teachers. In my own opinion, the only continuity from the

original three standards to this set of standards deals with the planning and designing instruction

and learning for all. The reason being that those standards dealt specifically with the

mathematical skills we wanted them to have. When we lesson plan in mathematics, we must

attend to these skills because they are transferable to not only other mathematical disciplines, but

any problem solving where logic can be applied.

Thinking back to Module 1, I see that I build on my argument that effective

teachers/teaching is done by those who make a conscious effort to become an expert in the field

and consistently work to become better at what they do. When teachers are committed to student

learning and truly want to teach effectively, they care about their teaching practices and their

students holistically, not just how they are doing in their discipline. Teachers that do not work to

become better show indifference in their practice and lead to a cycle of indifference where

students also become indifferent in their own education. I also have the same argument in

Module 2, when I quote and back the NBPTS stating “educators demonstrate a strong

commitment to learning about curricular resources...”. When teachers are committed to

becoming better at their trade, student learning will also increase.

 After reading and connecting the standards individually and collaboratively with others in

my same subject, my thinking has definitely changed. The differences in how I previously lesson

planned and how my process will be moving forward have to deal with the considerations that I

kept in mind and attended to. Prior to the Master’s program, I did not attend to nor were I

familiar with the NBPT Standards for Mathematics or even the five core propositions. I had only

seen them because of my interest in potentially becoming National Board certified. The mapping

activities required I become familiar with what the standards required of me as a teacher. With

the knowledge of these standards now, I will be more cognizant of whether or not I am attending

to them and in doing so – become a more effective teacher.