Advancing the Teaching Profession

What American Policymakers Can Learn From Finland

At last year’s International Summit on the Teaching Profession, I watched and listened to a serious dialogue among the ministers of education and union chiefs from many of the world’s top-performing nations. I was enthralled with the nuances of the convening, who sat where, who talked, and who delivered what messages. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was there. So was Henna Virkkunen, his Finnish counterpart.

The differences in how these two nations approach child development and student assessment as well as the teaching profession are legion. Let’s begin with student results. On the 2009 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), Finland’s students consistently outperformed ours in reading, math, and science. In reading, Finnish students were ranked third; we were fourteenth. In math, they were third; we were thirty-first. And in science, they were first; we were thirty-seventh.

Here are a few more stark clashes in teaching and learning policies, which Pasi Sahlberg has helped bring attention to lately through his book Finnish Lessons:

Policy Clash #1: Finnish Teachers Are Very Well Prepared. The Finns not only recruit top students into teaching, but they also insist that every teacher have a master’s degree in education, fully paid for by the government, before they enter the profession. There is no such thing as Teach for Finland.

Policy Clash #2: Finnish Teachers Teach Less and Learn More from One Another. In 2007, Finland's teachers taught just under 600 hours, while their American counterparts taught more than 1,000 hours. Finnish teachers spend approximately 10 to 20 hours a week on joint professional development focused on understanding why students are learning or not.

Policy Clash #3: Finnish Teachers Are Responsible; They Are Not Held Accountable. Unlike in the United States, where teachers are held accountable to externally developed, high-stakes tests, well-prepared Finnish teachers use their own assessments to gauge their students' progress. The Finnish public trusts its teachers to assemble evidence and report to them on who is learning or not, and why.

Why are these Finnish lessons so difficult for America’s top-level policymakers to learn? I have some ideas, most of which have more to do with politics and less with substance. No surprise. But perhaps our policymakers have not been taught by some of our nation’s best teachers how to apply these powerful lessons in the American context.

This year, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has invited CTQ to work with 16 state teachers of the year, who will attend the summit (March 14-15 in NYC) and weigh in later with their own TeacherSolutions. I hope you join me in looking forward to hearing how our teachers learn from the Finnish lessons and their own pedagogical experiences to help us reshape our teaching policies.

Transforming Teaching in California

By Anna Martin & Barnett Berry

Education reform typically follows an unfortunate pattern. Politicians and pundits drive the agendas, while students and teachers live out the consequences.

To better address our schools’ needs, reform efforts must be led by those who work with students every day. At an event in Sacramento last month, teachers like Anna Martin offered practical recommendations for improving teaching quality in California.

Anna entered the profession eight years ago as a Teach For America recruit—and she’s still teaching at the same high-needs school. She’s a member of the  New Millennium Initiative (NMI), a national network of forward-thinking teachers supported by the Center for Teaching Quality.

At the event in Sacramento, Anna and her NMI colleagues shared findings from their new report, “Many Ways Up, No Reason to Move Out.”

What follows is a chat between Anna and Barnett Berry.

Barnett:  Anna, you’ve seen many early-career teachers leave the profession. In high-needs schools, 50 percent depart within three years. Why?

Anna: Our NMI team cares deeply about such statistics—we’ve all seen it happen. Some teachers are overwhelmed: they haven’t been prepared or supported adequately for the challenges they face. Others are frustrated by the one-track nature of the profession.

Barnett: What do you mean by “one-track”? 

Anna: In most cases, the only options are to remain a classroom teacher—or leave the classroom for an administrative role. Many teachers, like myself, want to be challenged, show leadership, and have an impact beyond one classroom. But we are also passionate about teaching. We don’t want to leave the classroom entirely.

Barnett: It sounds like you’d advocate for more teacherpreneurs who split their time between teaching students and leading efforts to improve schools.

Anna: Absolutely. Our NMI team’s new report proposes radical changes in how we prepare, promote, and retain teachers. That includes developing more hybrid positions that make the most of teachers’ expertise. We hope talented teachers will stay in the profession longer and become the leaders of our education system.

Barnett:  You mentioned that some early-career teachers leave because they weren’t adequately prepared. What needs to change?

Anna: We ask too much of our newest teachers and too little of our veterans. Our team proposes a three-year apprenticeship model. Novice teachers would be paired with master mentor teachers. Over time, the novice teachers would take on more responsibility—similar to the medical residency model. 

Such a system would help prevent early career burnout. Novice teachers would gain practical experience and develop critical teaching skills before taking charge of their own classroom. And veteran teachers would have opportunities for leadership and influence. Most important, students would benefit from these changes. 

Barnett: In other top-performing nations, most administrators teach something, sharing leadership. And in Singapore, some accomplished teachers’ salaries are higher than their principals’.   

Anna: Right now in California, teachers earn more primarily by staying on the job longer. We’re proposing a model that ties salary increases to increases in demonstrated skill, responsibilities, and impact. This new career ladder will allow teachers to specialize and follow different leadership, mentoring, and specialization tracks. So they’ll continue to teach—but also can take on different kinds of roles that help schools better serve students. 

Barnett: Blurring the distinction between those who teach in schools and those who lead them!

Anna: Yes. And improving what we can provide to students. Better using our schools’ human capital would help us to attract and retain the talented professionals our students need and deserve.

Barnett: I think Californians are ready for these transformative changes. In a recent statewide poll, most Californians (77 percent) rated teachers favorably. And 64 percent said they were willing to pay more in taxes to increase school funding.

Anna: Yes, Californians realize today’s students will be the workers and leaders of our state tomorrow. They also know that teachers—not politicians, administrators, or reformers—are the people most likely to help their children succeed. They should expect and demand that California attract, prepare, support, and retain talented teachers.

Barnett: So, as a teacher, you’re saying it’s time for big, bold changes?

Anna: Absolutely. We can’t be satisfied with isolated reforms. It’s time to transform California’s schools by transforming the teaching profession.   

A Principal Steps Back So Teachers Can Lead

By John Bernia

John Bernia is the principal of Oakview Middle School in Oakland Township, Michigan. Before becoming the principal, he worked as a school custodian, teacher, and assistant principal. He blogs at The Principal’s Principles and tweets via @MrBernia.

When President Bush signed No Child Left Behind ten years ago, the federal education reform movement that began with the "Nation At Risk" report became more public than ever before.

The reform era, along with the rise of technology, has fundamentally transformed our profession. Never before have our challenges been more pressing, our work more visible, or our opportunity to advance public education greater.

To make the most of these opportunities, we must build education systems within our schools to maximize the potential not only of our students, but of our teachers. Long lasting, meaningful growth for educators cannot come from a top-down mandate; it must be the result of true collaboration among educators with formal and informal leadership roles.

At Oakview Middle School, we're doing our best to foster teacher leadership. While we’re not "there" yet, we’re making progress through staff efforts to decentralize control of many initiatives and decisions at our school. 

A few months ago, I was approached by two members of our teaching staff who had specific ideas about how to use our building’s Professional Development Day. I was reluctant at first; after all, planning PD is “supposed to be the principal’s role,” as many would say. But I took a step out of my comfort zone and let teacher leadership win out. 

Teachers planned our agenda for the day; teachers led sessions on state reporting, collaboration, and a staff culture survey. Others planned and led team-building activities, and many teachers assisted in the planning and execution of a successful and meaningful professional development day. While I have a bias, it was the best building PD day I have ever participated in.

We’ll continue to seek opportunities for teachers to lead PD sessions and opportunities for those with formal leadership roles to take a step back. This week, I’m meeting with a group of teachers to plan a series of screencasts and embedded PD opportunities for staff members about harnessing the power of technology for instruction. The planning, facilitation, and learning will be done by teachers and for teachers—with a goal of making resources available for anytime learning.

Efforts like this are the only way we can increase accountability and educate a generation of children who have lived their entire lives in the digital age. There has never been a better time to be in education. 

By focusing on the emerging realities shared in TEACHING 2030 and blurring the lines between formal and informal leadership roles, we can transform public education. Let's work together so that years from now, when our students are teachers, they will have a better profession to meet their own emerging realities.