Building the Teaching Profession

Sound and Trusted Education Trust Solutions

Recently I pointed to Education Trust and several of their problematic "highly qualified" teacher policy proposals — most notably their overemphasis on value-added assessments in identifying highly accomplished teachers. However, they also recommend “better tools for teachers and administrators” – which are most needed in the No Child Left Behind reauthorization. For example, they call for a “new $750 million curriculum fund for states to develop high-quality, high-level curriculum materials linked to their standards and assessments, and to provide teachers with professional development in using the new materials.” They also call for “$400 million annually in continued federal support for state assessment development so that states can improve the quality of their assessments, with special attention to improving assessments for English-language learners and students with disabilities.” They also call for, like I did several years ago, to invest at least $100 million in state data systems so administrators, teachers, and policymakers can have better information for both policy and practice. I must tip my hat to the Education Trust. Now it is time for us also to invest more in teacher education so all teachers — even before they enter teaching — know how to take advantage of the new curriculum materials, use the innovative assessments, and better serve special needs and second language learners. These proposals also need to be in the reauthorization of NCLB.

Do You Want Good Teachers? Then Listen to the Experts, Not the Policy Wonks

Today the Education Trust offered up a number of problematic "highly qualified" teacher policy proposals with its recommendations for the reauthorization of NCLB. While the organization calls for more diagnostic assessments, it proposes to "evaluate teacher performance based primarily on objective measures of growth in student learning and to use those systems to evaluate professional development activities and to reform policies governing teacher compensation, assignment, and tenure."

With its recommendations, Education Trust refuses to own up to the enormous technical problems (identified by the RAND Corporation and many other scholars) associated with using value added methods (VAM). The proposals also ignore the gross misuse of tests and the errors testing company continue to make. For example, the Chicago Sun Times just reported that state achievement tests being given this week in some public elementary schools contain more than a dozen mistakes – which will invalidate a number of analyses that could be made regarding both student learning and teaching effectiveness. The scholarly community - including the RAND assessment experts - has made it clear that “the research base is currently insufficient to support the use of VAM for high-stakes decisions.”

This most recent round of NCLB proposals fly in the face of expert teachers, like those in our TeacherSolutions team whose report on Performance Pay was also released today. These teachers - who include national, state, and district teachers of the year, National Board Certified Teachers, winners of the Milken National Educator of the Year Award, and Presidential Award recipients - offer more well-grounded recommendations.

The TeacherSolutions team believes that standardized test scores have a place in our educational accountability systems, and can be part of a comprehensive framework for paying teachers more and differently. But they do not, in and of themselves, provide a fully accurate measure of teacher effectiveness. Large-scale standardized tests are designed to give a snapshot of student performance at one moment in time, and testmakers remind us that no one test is broad enough to measure the full extent of student knowledge in any area. The problem is compounded when we consider that most teachers cannot be evaluated using the high-stakes standardized tests required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) because their subject areas or grade levels are not tested.

The TeacherSolutions members argue that teachers should be paid more not only when they produce student-achievement gains on standardized tests, but when they can demonstrate individual student progress through credible data from their own classroom assessments. Their system also hones in on rewarding small teams of teachers who raise student achievement (measured in multiple ways) together. Unlike many Inside-the-Beltway policy wonks, these experts know schools and what can work well in designing systems to identify and pay effective teaching. 

Highly Qualified Teacher or the Highly Expert Teacher

Researchers continue to surface the fact that teachers are the most important predictor in determining whether or not students will learn in school. However, research also demonstrates that qualified teachers - those who are prepared and experienced - are the most inequitably distributed school resource. Students in our nation’s high-priority schools are far less likely to be to be taught by the most expert teachers. This is why one of the most important aspects of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is its demand that states ensure a "highly qualified” teacher for every child.

However, a recent federally funded study has found that teachers who meet their states’ definitions of "highly qualified" under the NCLB Act do not necessarily teach in ways that will allow their students to meet rigorous academic standards. This should come as no surprise: NCLB’s "highly qualified" teacher provisions focus primarily on whether or not teachers know their subject matter and/or if they have passed minimal state licensing standards. At best NCLB calls for "minimally” – not “highly” – qualified teachers. Recently, The Commission on No Child Left Behind recommended that “it is time to ensure that all teachers demonstrate their effectiveness in the classroom rather than just their qualifications for entering it.” The Commission, like a number of other reform groups, calls for standardized tests to be the primary measure for identifying effective teachers.

A number of reform groups, like the Education Trust, are calling for teachers to be identified as highly effective when they generate gains on standardized achievement tests – period. Granted, the focus on student outcomes, rather than teacher quality inputs, makes sense. However, solely or primarily using student standardized tests as the arbiter of teaching effectiveness may do more harm than good.

First, these standardized tests only measure a small fraction of what teachers need to do in order to help all students meeting 21st century learning standards. Second, specific standardize tests (usually in math and reading) can only be ascribed to maybe 30 percent of America’s teachers. Third, even using more sophisticated value-added measures, statistical errors limit the use of the data in making high stakes personnel decisions. Finally, teachers of English language learners and special needs students, who have special testing needs, cannot be fairly judged by most standardized tests used today.

Instead a measurement system — consisting of multiple measures of student learning, teacher performance assessments and teaching practices evaluations — must be combined with the “right” incentives and supports to effectively staff high-priority schools with the “right” teachers. Teachers report that they learn more from their colleagues than anyone else. Perhaps, we need to begin thinking about defining highly expert teachers (HET) – those who can demonstrate growth in student learning and who can effectively spread their teaching expertise to others. More to come.

Staffing and Supporting High Needs Schools

Policymakers continue to seek ways to recruit and retain qualified and effective teachers for high-needs schools. Some researchers have shown that working conditions matter as much or more than money in recruiting teachers to high-needs schools. Other researchers have found that negative labels from high-stakes accountability systems encourage qualified teachers to move to a higher performing school or quit altogether. Still more have discovered that local economic and demographic conditions often preclude some high-needs schools, especially those in isolated, rural areas, from competing at all in the larger statewide teacher labor market. Their only hope to recruit “good” teachers is to “grow their own.”

What is clear is that a one-size-fits-all approach to recruiting accomplished teachers to high-needs schools will not work. Most importantly, it is clear that policymakers need to start listening carefully to the real experts on how to staff and support schools who need highly accomplished teachers. The real experts are accomplished teachers themselves. Go to our Teacher Leaders Network website and read how one of these highly accomplished teachers, Bill Ferriter of North Carolina, addresses the issue of recruiting and retaining qualified and effective teachers for high needs schools. It is about time to hear from the horse’s mouth — especially when the horse is a thoroughbred.

NCATE or TEAC

Controversy continues to brew on how to best judge universities who prepare teachers. The latest example comes from Maryland where “teacher colleges may get an option on accreditation.” Until a few years ago, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) was the only agency sanctioned to accredit universities that prepare teachers. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Education recognized the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) established as a competitor. To be sure, both share the goal of improving teacher preparation – but there is a major difference.

Universities must meet NCATE standards – which are externally developed by consumers (administrators, teachers) and regulators (policymakers). However, under the auspices of TEAC universities can make up their own standards. This cannot be a good thing – especially given the demand from the federal government that every teacher be ‘"highly qualified. " Why should a university have a choice when it comes to meeting standards? Can you imagine hospitals getting to choose whether or not they have to meet standards? Or getting to choose the standards they are expected to meet?

As noted in the recent new article (cited above), Edward Root, Maryland state board of education president, complained about NCATE's "burdensome" overemphasis on content: "It requires too many courses in math, physics or chemistry that the teachers do not teach in high schools." Is that not what the USDOE has pushed with its "highly qualified" teacher provisions?

This issue is worth exploring. Hmmm.

Getting Closer to Getting It Right: How Teaching Quality Matters

In the February 28th issue of the TQ Bulletin, published by the National Council on Teacher Quality, Kate Walsh and crew offer a somewhat insightful, if not totally on-point commentary on recent teaching profession news and research. Kate critiques the Commission on No Child Left Behind for its spurious and ill-informed proposals to turn NCLB’s "highly qualified" provisions into "highly qualified effective" specifications — a shift that would be driven primarily by standardized test scores. The Commission proposed that all teachers, in order to be considered meritorious, must perform in the top 75th percentile of teachers who demonstrate student learning gains and receive positive evaluations among their peers statewide. Those who are ranked in the top quartile get raises. Those who cannot, over 8 years that include "guaranteed, quality" professional development, get out of the bottom group get fired. Kate asks: “Who is to say that the 25th percentile is the right cutoff and not the 38th or the 16th? Shouldn't we first define what it means to be effective and apply that standard to all teachers regardless of what percentile they fall under?”

Kate also asks: What about teachers whose grade-level or subject areas are not tested? As I noted in my previous blog, appropriately scaled standardized tests are available to assess teaching performance for, at best, about 30% of elementary teachers and perhaps 10% of high school teachers. Neither the Commission on NCLB nor NCTQ recognizes the many problems with the standardized tests being used to judge and rank teachers. They also fail to address the need for multiple measures to effectively assess teachers. To do so requires sound evaluations of qualifications, performances, and practices.

Then Kate goes on to own up to the fact that teacher certification may make a difference for teaching quality. Drawing on the latest research from economists Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, NCTQ claims additional evidence has surfaced — proving that students of certified elementary school teachers outperform their counterparts taught by uncertified and alternative certification teachers. The findings were built from “combing” through 10 years of data and were particularly robust in math (but not reading). The North Carolina study also found that National Board Certified Teachers added even more value to their students’ learning. I guess Kate is right: this new study will make “teacher certification critics a tad worried.”

Finally, Kate laments how the the National Science Board Commission on 21st Century Education calls for higher teacher education standards for future math and science teachers — given that the field is already “littered” by standards posed by INTASC, NCATE, and the like. But a point is missed: The problem is not the standards, but the lack of sound assessments needed to enforce them, as well as the currently absent time for expert teachers to spread their expertise and hold their peers accountable.

It seems that more and more researchers and policy wonks of varying stripes are beginning to build some consensus on how teaching quality matters. We are not there yet — but perhaps getting closer. This is good news for children — who are the beneficiaries of the teaching profession we at the Center for Teaching Quality seek to build.

Tests Testing Teachers

In the February 14th issue of USA Today, Greg Toppo reports (fee required for full article access) on growing interest in defining "highly qualified" teachers primarily by how their students perform on standardized tests. Toppo's article focuses on an exemplary first grade teacher, Zakia Sims, a National Board Certified Teacher who teaches 6-year olds in the DC public schools. However, Ms. Sims may not qualify for "highly qualified" status because standardized tests measure only a very small part of the content she teaches and largely ignore the kind of personal care and social services she provides her students. Drawing on the recent report (PDF) by the Aspen Institute blue-ribbon panel, Mr. Toppo describes the growing momentum for standardized, multiple-choice tests -- administered only once a year to students -- to serve as the primary means for identifying effective teachers.

Mr. Toppo's analysis missed several important points that need to be made. In most states and school districts value-added student achievement data from appropriately scaled standardized tests is likely available for, at best, about 30% of elementary teachers and perhaps 10% of high school teachers.

Even then some of the tests used are not very reliable and cannot accurately gauge how well individual teachers improve their students' achievement test scores. And consider the 5th grade math teacher working with immigrant children who enter her classroom 3 years behind on grade level math (i.e., performing initially 2nd grade level). In one year, this highly skilled and qualified math teacher helps her Spanish speaking students advance to 3rd grade math. However, there are not enough questions on the 5th grade test that measure 2nd and 3rd grade math skills to account for the students' progress. Consequently, the skilled math teacher who helps her non-English speaking students enormously would be identified as a failure, and according to the recommendations of the Aspen Institute panel, may lose her job. Other achievement tests -- often made by teachers themselves -- provide more accurate pictures of how students know and how much they grow.

In a system for assessing teacher effectiveness, three kinds of evidence should be considered in combination with one another:

• Contributions to growth in student learning and other student outcomes (from classroom assessments and documentation as well as standardized tests, when appropriate);
• Performance on teaching assessments that measure standards known to be associated with student learning (including  teacher performance assessments and standards-based teacher evaluations);
• Evaluation of teaching practices that are associated with desired student outcomes and achievement of school goals (through systematic collection of evidence about teacher planning and instruction, work with parents and students, and contributions to the school).

Under the system Mr. Toppo describes, terrific teachers like Ms. Sims would not be identified as "highly qualified." And that would be too bad for her young students and their specific needs.

Teacher Pay: Fact Check

Recently the The Manhattan Institute, a New York conservative think tank known to open criticize public schools and the teaching profession, released a report claiming that teachers across the nation earned an average of $34.06 per hour in 2005, which was $8.98 more than the average non-sales, white-collar worker. I guess the policy wonks at the Manhattan Institute got nervous when they learned that more business leaders, policymakers, independent researchers, and education economists increasingly agree that teachers need to be paid more and differently. The institute's findings were released the same day that Iowa’s Gov. Chet Culver, a former teacher from Des Moines, called for $70 million more to help increase average teacher pay in his state from 40th to 25th in the nation.

Here are the facts: According to a 2005 report the average salary of today’s teacher ($46,597 per year) is far less than those of the full professor ($94,606), engineer ($78,023), computer systems analyst ($73,269), retail buyer ($64,813), and accountant ($56,102). Over the past decade, the purchasing power of teachers has dropped as well. For example, between 1994 and 2004, for every real $1 increase in average accountant pay, teacher pay rose only 19 cents.

The cherry-picking data analyses of the Manhattan Institute relies on governmental data that calculates teachers’ work hours by examining union contracts or school district employment rules. The vast majority of teachers work more than 49 hours a week, with many after-school hours of lesson planning, parent conferences, home visits, school events and meetings with colleagues. In addition, in any given year approximately 25 percent of America’s teachers attend summer education programs to improve their skills or learn new content. Unlike what is found in most professions, teachers often pay for their own professional development. About 42 percent of America’s teachers also teach in summer school to supplement their salaries.

The institute’s analyses of the work life of teachers is naïve, at best. In 2004, the distinguished members of The Teaching Commission, chaired by former IBM chief executive Louis V. Gerstner Jr., recommended that the nation invest an additional $30 billion per year in teacher compensation, giving every teacher a 10 percent increase and providing a 30 percent increase to the “top half.” More later on what Gerstner calls for in paying the top half of teachers a lot more. Indeed across-the-board teacher pay increases are NOT the panacea for improving teacher supply, quality, and retention. However, the Manhattan Institute teacher pay conclusions are way out of step with both the research data and our nation’s business elites

Florida Pay Plan Archaic, Not Pioneering

A few days ago CNN.com blared a headline that read: “Teachers union challenges Florida's pioneering bonus-pay plan.” However, a quick look at the article and one clearly can see that the plan is not pioneering at all. At best it is archaic. The ill-conceived Florida program reminds me of merit pay plans of the past (déjà vu all over again) and the news blast represents yet another example of sloppy, sound bite journalism. The headline should read: “Unions, teachers, administrators, and parents should question Florida’s new merit pay plan program.” Why? Here are just a few reasons:

1. The program solely uses narrow standardized test scores that only measures the performance of a very limited number of teachers on just 2 subject areas (those who can have standardized test scores attached to them) ;
2. Florida’s accountability system does not measure student growth very well (e.g., consider a 5th grader who, because of language and other issues, reads on a 2nd grade level but must “measure up” on a 5th grade test that cannot identify teachers who help him move from the 2nd to 3rd grade literacy level);
3. The program’s merit bonuses of $2000 are small and inconsequential – with no evidence that the amount is sufficient for motivating teachers to teach more effectively;
4. The program does not reward teachers to use test data and spreading their teaching expertise;
5. The program does not address the core issues of teaching lower-performing students and staffing under-performing schools;
6. The program does not address at all the under-prepared and out-of-field teachers Florida hires because policymakers are not willing to address the real reasons (e.g., working conditions) behind the teacher shortages in the state;
7. The programs does not reward small teams of teachers working together producing meaningful results for students and their families over time; and
8. The program does not involve professional teachers in its creation.

TeacherSolutions, a new intiative of our Teacher Leaders Network, is the answer. Next month we will release the inaugural report of TeacherSolutions – a select group of accomplished teachers who have studies, considered, and weighed in on the complex policy problem of professional compensation.

To increase productivity, today’s management experts tell us, you must listen carefully to the advice of high performers in your workforce. Yet the insights of our most successful teachers are rarely solicited when school and teaching policies are under development. Even though teachers are not often invited to the policy table, they are frequently labeled as obstructionists when they decline to endorse “bold new plans” or point out flaws in policies that they know from experience will not yield the intended outcomes. Keep your eyes and ears peeled.

Teaching Quality or the Iraq War

I hear often that our nation does not have the financial wherewithal to fully invest in the teaching profession and ensure that all students have access to caring, qualified, well-supported, and effective teachers. As we all know the most vexing teaching quality problem facing public education is the gross maldistribution of accomplished teachers. Granted states do not have the dollars on hand to pay teachers more for teaching in high need schools but also offering them the preparation and support they need to be effective. Linda Darling-Hammond and I have written about the need for a Marshall Plan for Teaching that includes federal funding for: (a) service scholarships for preparing teachers to teach in high need schools, (b) recruitment incentives and workplace conditions to entice them to teach there, and (c) special mentoring and coaching supports to keep them once they get there. Linda writes eloquently about the Marshall Plan in the latest issue of Education Week, suggesting that America could create “aggressive national policy on teacher quality and supply for less than the 1 percent of the more than $300 billion (now $350 billion) spent thus far in Iraq.”

And once we take care of a good teacher for every child we can take care of other critical education needs. The National Priorities Project estimates that $350 billion spent in Iraq could have easily been spent on funding universal pre-school, expanding health insurance to children, funding public education, providing college scholarships, and building safe and affordable public housing — all issues that must be addressed to close America’s student achievement gap.

Betsy Rogers and the True Measure of an Expert Teacher

On December 29, 2006, the Christian Science Monitor published an article on one of America’s terrific teachers, Betsy Rogers of Brighton Elementary (Alabama) who was the 2003 National Teacher of the Year (TOY) and is a National Board Certified Teacher. After finishing her National TOY tour of duty, Ms. Rogers, as described in Education Week, “decided to practice what she preached” by choosing to teach at one of Alabama’s “neediest schools” as a curriculum coach.

Gigi Douban, author of the CSM article, hones in on Betsy’s efforts to turn around one of her state’s lowest performing schools — and raises important issues related to America’s most vexing teaching quality problem — how to get good teachers into high need schools. Although CSM labels Brighton as a “failing school” (in the article’s title), the author actually speaks more boldly to the endemic problems of turning it around. These include Brighton being beset by a dizzying array of complex problems like inexperienced and underprepared teachers, “classroom snake infestations,” and children who arrive at school without ever having experiences on “playground swings.”

Ms. Douban writes: “When Rogers arrived at the school, she wasn't as warmly received as she might have hoped. The school had become a revolving door for teachers, administrators, state intervention specialists, and consultants, so to many on staff, Rogers was just another outsider coming in to point out what they were doing wrong.” Turning around a low performing school like Brighton is not a simple matter that can be addressed by expert teachers dropping in or by conventional solutions such as private school vouchers that offer parents choice, merit pay that pays teachers more for raising standardized tests, or Teach for America recruits who have high SAT scores and elite college experiences but no serious preparation for teaching high need students.

I was pleased to see Checker Finn’s January 4th Gadfly recognize Betsy’s accomplishments. Indeed, some factors like offering more parental and student choice, paying teachers much differently, and attracting non-traditional recruits are part of the equation. However, these solutions, even the most thoughtful versions of them, will have little impact on Brighton. The real answers to turning around low performing schools can be found in Betsy’s blog on Teacher Leaders Network where she describes her journey.

She writes beautifully in a May 2005 blog entry:

“I have learned you have to be realistic about having a failing label and accept accountability for the academic needs. Brighton teachers are asked to work long hours and adapt to new programs and schedules with little input. Brighton teachers have to be extremely flexible as our school is in a state of constant change to find the best practices that work. Brighton teachers are often called on to defend our school and the longtime unjust reputation. Brighton teachers have to strive to maintain high expectations and not yield to the negative culture of poverty and failure. Brighton teachers have the awesome responsibility of being a stable force in the lives of Brighton children.”

What helped turn Brighton around? The answer is multi-faceted and includes at least the following:

• Creating a working environment where teachers are expected to learn from one another and present at professional conferences;
• Using high quality curriculum materials and “balanced” reading strategies;
• Promoting the standards of the National Board;
• Recruiting well-prepared teacher education graduates (including those from Samford University where Dr. Rogers teaches future teachers);
• Making more financial investments in the school (including removal of snakes), creating greater connections between teachers and community members; and
• Drawing on an expert teacher who knows how to coach her colleagues and grow teaching expertise within the once troubled school.

Betsy writes all about these issues in her blog— except the latter one because she is way too modest to recognize her extraordinary expertise. Indeed, her writing does express a true measure of an expert teacher and also defines the complexity of what it takes to turn around an underperforming school.

The Gadfly blog simply claims that for her “next act,” Betsy should “convince more teachers to follow in her footsteps.” Well it is a bit more complicated than that— and requires a sea-change in attitudes among reformers, greater investments in children and their families, the promotion of excellence in teaching by highly accomplished teachers (like those who are National Board Certified), and cultivation of trust among teachers, administrators, and community members. The latter variable — trust — has been well documented as a key lever for improving underperforming schools.

Granted I am biased. Betsy is a friend who also serves on the Board of Directors of the Center for Teaching Quality – which I founded eight years ago. She also is a founding member of Teacher Leaders Network where the voices of expert teachers like Betsy will continue to be heard.

TeacherSolutions and TeacherPay

Of late the media has reported on growing numbers of current efforts to pay teachers differently. This is good news. Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single salary schedule has served its purposes, met its goals, and outlived its usefulness. If our nation is going to recruit and retain the teachers needed for 21st century schools then paying them all the same is an idea whose time has passed. However, current merit pay “reforms” — like the ones reported on by ABC news this week — remind me of the catch-phrase, “déjà vu all over again.”

Educational historians have documented well the graveyard of past teacher compensation efforts — landing the words “merit pay” in the sordid section of the school reform lexicon. These past efforts floundered, in large part, due to unresolved technical and political issues. In some cases, student test scores could not validly and reliably measure teacher effectiveness. In other instances, poorly trained administrators could not produce useful and trusted teacher evaluation results, or union leaders resisted merit pay plans that focused on individual performance and ignored the importance of teamwork in increasing student achievement. Often, teachers were not adequately involved in the development of the performance pay plans and/or policymakers did not fulfill all of their obligations.

Granted new technologies in statistically linking teachers to student test score improvement pave the way for much needed changes in how teachers use data to improve teaching. However, much of the merit pay conversation and actions of late, like in Houston, focus on individual teachers earning “big” bonuses if they raise student scores. The Houston plan assumes money alone will motivate teachers to produce higher test scores, and $3000 bonuses are enough to do so.

Eighteen of our nation’s extraordinary teachers know otherwise. With TeacherSolutions — a signature initiative of Center for Teaching Quality and its Teacher Leaders Network — these highly accomplished teachers will outline both a thoughtful diagnosis of the teacher pay problem and a comprehensive solution. Their report, to be released early next year, will push dedicated elected officials and education reformers as well as policy pundits to consider several questions:

Will the new pay system attract talented and dedicated individuals to teaching careers? Will it focus primarily on authentic measures of student learning (and not just the 22 percent of teachers who can have student standardized test score results ascribed to their name)? Will it fully support new teachers on the path from apprentice to master teacher? Will it encourage every teacher to grow professionally throughout their career? Will it reward teachers who work together and achieve success for all of the students in a school? Will it be designed to encourage teachers who work with our most challenged students and recognize the conditions that help these students succeed? Will it encourage teachers to lead partnerships between school, family, and community? Will it be founded on the principle that every student deserves a quality teacher?

No other policy reform, if done right, can do more to transform teaching into a real profession where accomplished teachers are identified, utilized, and paid more for spreading their teaching know-how among students, other teachers, administrators, parents, and the policy community. But let’s do it right — and one clear path will be to open opportunities for teachers to pave and lead the way. Keep tuned.

Teaching for the 21st Century

Time Magazine’s latest on-line edition blares with its cover story on how to build a student for the 21st century. Indeed, while business leaders, like Mike Askew from UPS, call for students who are "global trade literate, sensitive to foreign cultures, conversant in different languages," our schools and curriculum continue to be organized much the same way they were in the earlier part of the 20th century. All of a sudden business leaders are questioning No Child Left Behind and its unidimensional focus on standardized tests that narrow curriculum and pushes teachers to teach in pedantic and unimaginative ways. Yes, basic skills are the necessary building blocks but they cannot be emphasized at the expense of "portable skills" — critical thinking, making connections between ideas and knowing how to keep on learning.”

The Time Magazine hits these issues hard (albeit its focus on schooling for global economic development rather than schooling for global civic development). However, what seems to be missing is the system of teacher development that can ensure that every student becomes a life-long adaptive learner, — creating new knowledge and evolving new skills to solve problems we cannot even imagine. These teachers do not emerge by just eliminating teacher certification bureaucracies or by relying on the vagaries of the free marketplace to find and keep those who can teach through Wikis and Podcasts more so than lectures and textbooks (which BTW can still have their pedagogical place).

The Time Magazine article honed in on several terrific examples, including Charles Dershimer's science class at the Henry Ford Academy, a public charter school in Dearborn, Michigan. Students in Mr. Dershimer's class draw on concepts from earth science, chemistry, business and design in assessing Nike's efforts to develop a more environmentally friendly sneaker.

Systematically developing and supporting teachers like Mr. Dershimer means going beyond the current debates over certifying versus deregulating teaching as an occupation, and begin to think about strategic investments that draw on tools from those promoting professionalism and the marketplace to find, keep, and reward teachers. Early next year a terrific group of some of our nation’s best teachers, from our Teacher Leaders Network, will offer advice and framework for paying teachers more and differently for the 21st century. Watch and listen carefully. Our most accomplished teachers have much to say and others have much to learn about the future of teaching and learning.

More on the Good and Big Life of Tom Mooney – from the Fordham Foundation

I was pleased to read this week’s Gadfly, published by the Fordham Foundation, and the deep respects the conservative newsletter paid to Tom Mooney. Written by Terry Ryan, Fordham Vice-President for Ohio Programs & Policy, the Gadfly honorably paid Tom and his family much deserved reverence and admiration. Mr. Ryan writes eloquently: “Tom believed in the power of good teachers to do right by children and fought to give them space and support” and his “passing leaves a void in Ohio's education policy arena--a territory seldom marked by his level of intellect, passion and strategic acumen.” Mr. Ryan noted that while “Tom was a fierce critic of charter schools and school vouchers,” he also “lived by his beliefs, he conducted himself honorably and he had a serious impact on education, first in Cincinnati and then statewide.” Let me add that Tom had a huge impact on education nationwide, and as I noted earlier, was following in the footsteps of Al Shanker as a progressive union leader who promoted teacher professionalism in ways that best served students and their families. Tom led a good and big life and his legacy, like Al’s, will continue. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I will miss Tom as well.

Sad News: The Passing of Tom Mooney

Yesterday my friend and colleague Mark Simon was the first to send me the very sad news. Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers and a long-time advocate for professionalizing teaching in the best interests of students, had passed away suddenly. Tom died at the age of 52 of a heart attack, just when he was hitting his peak as educator and activist. Tom, to me, was to be the next Al Shanker, so able and willing to create a broad vision for how teacher unions must serve 21st century public schools.

Tom never backed off his principles. He could articulate and lead efforts to promote teacher unions while working to transform them. Tom was a founding member of the Teacher Union Reform Network, and has been critical to the development of the Institute for Teacher Union Leadership, founded by our mutual friend, Mark. He also could lead and manage conversations with those opposed to professionalizing teaching — pushing them to reconsider their positions in ways no one else could.

Tom was also a director of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. I had the honor and pleasure to visit with him of late at a Directors’ meeting where I gave a talk summarizing the research on the effects of NBCTs on student achievement and the future of NBPTS. We had a terrific time considering how new social networking tools, like Wikis and “augmented reality devices,” could spread teaching expertise and change the role of teacher unions in leading school improvement. I will miss his voice and humanity — and so will the teaching profession he served so well.

Teacher Education & Certification Effects Redux

Once again a group of researchers have laid claim that teacher education and certification have little positive effect on student achievement. In a study published by the Hoover Institute, Tom Kane, Doug Staiger, and Jonah Rockoff found that while traditionally prepared and certified teachers produce higher student achievement scores at first, alternatively certified and uncertified teachers catch up by end of year three. In a slanted news story, published yesterday by the New York Sun (November 21, 2006), researchers claimed that policymakers should worry less about teacher education and certification and more about firing ineffective teachers in their first few years of teaching. However, what was not noted was the following:

1. By the end of Year 3 alternative certification teachers, if they remain in teaching, actually have been trained in “how to teach” and have earned a master’s degree from schools of education;

2. Most of the alternatively certified teachers had left by Year 3, after proving less effective with their students for the two years they taught; and

3. The much higher attrition of alternative certification teachers leaves most students with a revolving door of new and untrained novices, and in doing so, reifies gross inequities in the our public school system.

In a previous study, drawing on the same database, researchers concluded that there was more variation within the traditional and alternative pathways into teaching than between them. This means there are effective multiple ways to prepare teachers. However, these studies do not at all suggest that teachers do not need extensive preparation before they begin teaching. And these studies do not reveal the horrific working conditions teachers often face — especially in New York City — rendering fruitless whatever preparation they received. The Hoover-funded researchers called for “getting rid of teachers who perform badly during probationary periods.” Yet, their data actually suggest that policymakers should find out what kinds of teacher preparation and induction supports novices need and make deeper investments in them.

Teacher Pay - Redux or Revision

This week the US Deparment of Education announced that its Teacher Incentive Fund will get off the ground, “handing out money for teachers who raise student test scores.” An initial $5.5 million grant was awarded to Ohio, with an additional $42 million to be granted to other states and districts later this month.

Indeed, it is time for America’s teachers to be paid as professionals and go beyond the single salary schedule. Steps and columns have outlived their usefulness (much like the dusty chalkboards that many teachers still have to use in our nation’s many under-resourced schools).

A few years ago The Teaching Commission claimed that all teachers’ salaries need to be considerably higher. In 2005, the Commission, chaired by former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner, argued that America needed to spend about $30 billion more on teachers’ salaries, with each teacher earning 10 percent more while the “top half” would receive a 30 percent increase. These dollars would begin to mirror the salaries other professionals who are similarly prepared and who possess like-kind skills. This makes sense.

While I am heartened that policy leaders increasingly are embracing financial incentives as a means to attract more-qualified teachers to the schools and students who need them most, it is imperative, however, that the voice of teachers not be left out of the discussion. Our Teacher Leaders Network has launched an effort where 18 highly accomplished teachers are studying the issue of professional compensation — taking into account the history of merit pay, the research evidence on accountability, testing, and pay systems, and their own experiences as classroom experts. Their TeacherSolutions report on professional compensation will be out early next year.

Similar to professors in higher education, America’s best public school teachers are ready to be paid for the differing qualifications and expertise they bring to the job. They also believe strongly in pay for performance both individually and in teams. I have learned a great deal more from these teachers on the importance of collaboration and the proper use of value-added assessments.

These teachers are NOT shrinking violets when it comes to being paid more for helping students learn — but they also are not willing to be compensated in the simplistic ways often proposed by the policy wonks and researchers who clamor for merit pay. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of teacher merit pay are university-based labor economists who never would consider that their salaries be based on how well their college students perform on some standardized test that someone else designed.

Stay tuned.

Thanks to MetLife and Their Support of the American Teacher

Last week the 2006 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Expectations and Experiences was released by the venerable insurance company, well known for capturing and revealing much needed information on the status of the nation’s teaching profession. The 2006 survey examines teachers’ expectations as they enter the profession and the factors that define their career satisfaction. The survey also draws on the views of principals and education leaders on what it takes to prepare new teachers and support them once they begin teaching. In its press release, Sibyl Jacobson, MetLife Foundation President and CEO, summarized the 2006 results aptly: "The degree to which teachers are prepared for the realities of the classroom affects their likelihood of remaining in the profession….This survey should be a wake-up call about what it takes to prepare, support and retain teachers."

I encourage all readers to dig deeply into the full report as well as a PowerPoint available online. CTQ, the non-profit I founded 8 years ago, is now conducting large-scale working conditions studies in 5 states and our findings resonate with those of the MetLife survey:

1. The lack of principals’ support puts teachers at risk of leaving (p13).
2. Many teachers feel shut out of decision-making (p15)
3. Mentoring help keep teachers in the profession (16)

In light of Art Levine’s highly critical report on teacher education it is interesting to note the Metlife findings, which are far more sanguine. First of all, new teachers now report that compared to veterans they are better prepared for their first teaching position. In addition, the survey findings suggest the lack of preparation drives teachers to leave. Also, 57 percent of the principals report that new teachers entering the profession are far better than those hired in the past – reflecting that teacher education must be doing something right. Only five percent of the principals report new teachers are worse.

These findings fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that teacher education is THE teaching quality problem. This does not mean that teacher education does not need to improve. Not at all. In fact, 89 percent of the principals surveyed want new teachers to know more about how to differentiate instruction. Over 67 percent believe new teachers should have two semesters of student teaching before they begin teaching. MetLife offers a huge service to our nation’s teaching profession by surfacing the opinions of teachers and the administrators who must support them. The survey suggests the need to invest further in teacher education. The question now is how to do it. Perhaps we should ask accomplished teachers?

Administrators and Teaching Quality

In a recent “Reality Check,” Public Agenda has identified that “local school leaders seem to operate on a very different wavelength from many of those aiming to reform public schools” and “even when they see the same problems, they often seem to strive for different solutions.”

Most administrators see their schools in “pretty good shape.” A number of teacher critics often argue that what ails the teaching profession is the lack of control that administrators have over who gets hired and fired. However, the Public Agenda opinion poll reveals that most administrators are that “very satisfied” with their teaching staffs. The majority of administrators believe “the quality of new teachers coming into the profession has improved in recent years” – contradicting Beltway pundit claims that teacher education schools are failing miserably. Granted administrators, understandably so, are unhappy with the current system for training and certifying new teachers. The vast majority of administrators — 86 percent of superintendents and 81 percent of principals — assert that traditional certification guarantees only "minimal skills" or "very little;" and most also report that traditional teacher education is out of touch with the realities of the classroom. However, administrators clearly believe that inadequate teacher education and certification are not reasons for abandoning these quality control mechanisms. Take a look at this finding: Just 4 percent of both groups think more reliance on alternative certification would be "very effective" at improving teacher quality. These results are statistically significant at the “wow” level.

Sound ideas on how to improve teacher training and certification — like increasing preparation in the science of teaching reading and math, more opportunities to learn how to teach second language and other diverse learners, knowing more about child development, cultivating skills in differentiated instruction, and investing in more valid and performance-oriented teacher certification exams — could be implemented. However, too many policymakers have not been willing to make the necessary investments. Why not?

TMAO and Teacher Education

Once again, TMAO (Teaching My Ass Off), 27-year old accomplished teacher from California has done it again. Another one of his must read blogs on teacher education was posted a few weeks (and unfortunately I just got around to reading it). In response to Arthur Levine’s knuckle-cracking report, TMAO, while recognizing the need for teachers to be prepared, points out for the most part, “teacher training sucks.”

I love his spirit and his mind when he writes: “Th(ere) is a difference between being able to recite Maslov's hierarchy of needs, and knowing what to do with 33 kids who aren't filling up level one of their need-pyramids. The difference between being well-versed in the value of a progressive classroom management system, and understanding the importance of being the show in the classroom, bringing out your inner silverback guerilla, the necessity of owning student behavior as a fundamental professional obligation.”

TMAO has some good ideas about a new kind of preparation program – a multi-year version that co-mingles the development of content, pedagogical, and clinical training. His ideas, in some ways, flesh out additional detail regarding the kind of preparation John Norton and I posited in our recent Edutopia article, “Learn from the Masters.” Go read his blog entry and consider the BIG question: “Who will pay for such an teacher training enterprise?” There are those who do not demand this kind of TMAO-type teacher education because of the cost. If you expect teachers to know more and be trained more before they take over a classroom of their own, then they must be paid more.....hmmmm.

Educating School Teachers: A Critique

Just recently (September 18, 2006) the former President of Teacher’s College, Arthur Levine, released a report, Educating School Teachers. As Education Week noted in a September 20th article, Levine’s findings paint teacher education “as a troubled (field) in which a majority of aspiring teachers are educated in low-quality programs that do not sufficiently prepare them for the classroom.”

Levine’s well-written, hard-hitting thesis is timely given that “the nation is deeply divided about how to prepare large numbers of high-quality teachers.” Drawing on a range of data I have suggested previously that “this rancorous debate (often) becomes a contest between those who want to protect the current teacher education monopoly owned by university faculties, and those who want to jettison the traditional teacher preparation provided by slow-moving colleges of education and out-of-touch professors.” Levine agrees, noting that “there is a schism over the how’s and when’s of teacher education between those who believe teaching is a profession like law or medicine, requiring a substantial amount of education before an individual can become a practitioner, and those who think teaching is a craft like journalism, which is learned principally on the job.”

For the most part, Levine’s findings are on point. Built on four years of case studies, surveys, and the extant research literature, he claims that teacher educators “lack agreement” about what they should produce, and programs at the 1200 colleges and universities often consisting of a “confusing patchwork.”

He briefly offers equally harsh words for the proliferating alternative certification programs that place new recruits into high need schools and classrooms without the necessary preparation. The federal government’s push for Teach for America-like on-the-job training ignores both “quality ceilings and floors.”

Granted, Levine’s recommendations — like measuring teacher education by focusing on student achievement, turning teacher preparation into a clinically based, rigorous 5-year enterprise, and closing failing programs — are noteworthy. But they are nothing new. All one has to do is read the 20-year old reports of the Holmes Group or even James Conant’s 40-year old book, The Education of American Teachers.

However, the report’s controversy rests on two conclusions — education schools must recruit more academically-abled students and the current system of professional accreditation is so flawed that it needs to be discarded. Both conclusions warrant some discussion.

First, education schools have grave difficulties, at no fault of their own, in attracting the highest-scoring students. They instead often attend competitive universities that can cost as much as $180,000 and open doors into any number of high paying professions and fields. As any economist would claim, with a starting salary of less than $30,000, teachers cannot afford the high price of an elite education. Levine, in an earlier essay published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, poignantly paints the real picture on what keeps academically-abled students from becoming teachers: “Education schools do not determine the salaries, the status, or the working conditions of teachers. Only states, localities, and school systems can change the pool of people entering the education profession.”

Second, Levine’s report claims that elite universities do not seek professional accreditation from the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, and as such, the field should not require it. However, unlike in other professions, teachers do not have to graduate from a professionally accredited school in order to practice their trade. Levine’s report ignores the stark fact that education schools volunteer to have their programs examined externally, and now can choose among two different varieties (adding more confusion to the field). Also, Levine sidesteps the fact that of top five education schools he cited as exemplary, three are NCATE accredited. Professional accreditation in teacher education is clearly not a perfect quality control mechanism, but the process has enforced standards. Last Spring 23 percent of the colleges who tried to meet NCATE standards failed to do so. Research cited by Levine shows that graduates of NCATE institutions are more likely to stay in teaching longer, and thus generate higher student achievement gains over time.

Like Levine I am smitten with Deborah Ball’s (education school dean at the University of Michigan) “lucid and compelling explanation of (the) teacher education curriculum” — one that includes an “enriched” major with a specialty in teaching content to diverse learners. I would add a complementary residency designed and adapted to the diverse recruits (traditional and alternative) needed to effectively staff our nation’s schools. NCATE, if made mandatory, could play a major role in the quality control. The federal government and states could play an even more important role by ensuring that those teacher education recruits who pass muster are paid substantially more. Then we might find our way to guarantee a caring, qualified, well-supported, and effective teacher for every student.

Getting the Merit into Merit Pay

The Baltimore Sun recently reported that Maryland, with leadership from Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., intends to offer teachers “financial rewards for those who take on tough assignments and produce gains in test scores.”

The devil is always in the details. However, reviewing news article surfaces several vexing issues, prompting my own hard-hitting questions for which I would like to see answers.

1. The program will allocate only $800,000 for incentives. How much do policymakers believe is necessary to “motivate” teachers to teach for effectively? Why do policymakers believe that small bonuses for gains in test scores will achieve the results they seek?
2. The news articles suggested that the proponents of the plan believe that it “is common sense to reward employees for good performance.” I would agree. However, I wonder why these proponents rarely cite the evidence revealing that ineffective teaching is most often chalked up to lack of preparation (for classes and students taught) or inadequate resources?

Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley has got it right: "What I find is that there are many teachers who are attracted to schools that are in challenging neighborhoods when they have good leadership," he said. "I think the better incentive for teachers is good and strong leaders. That allows them to use their talents to the fullest where it is the most needed. I have yet to see a merit pay system that looked workable."

This does not mean policymakers should not help craft performance pay plans that reflect the complexity of teaching. However, let’s get real: Paying teachers differently or for performance and merit is not a new educational idea. Efforts from years past—including those in the 1920s, 1950s, and 1980s, failed to resolve a variety of technical and organizational issues. Today’s policymakers and education reformers are likely to repeat the merit pay mistakes of the past by:

• using invalid, untested, or poorly designed measures of teacher effectiveness,
• neglecting to train administrators who could produce useful and trusted data,
• refusing or forgetting to involving teachers in developing plans and programs, and
• ignoring the importance of teamwork in increasing student achievement.

There are some interesting and thoughtful approaches to paying teachers more and differently. But the examples of Florida and Texas, described in the Baltimore Sun article are not good examples at all. They both focus on paying a limited number of teachers a limited reward for individually raising student test scores a few points. Let’s hold policymakers accountable for doing the right thing when it comes to rewarding teachers for what makes a difference for their profession and the students they serve.

NCLB and the Highly Qualified Teacher

In a recent and typically hard hitting Education Week story, Bess Keller describes the dysfunctional disconnections between the federal NCLB "highly qualified" teacher provisions and the realities of ensuring caring, qualified, well-supported, and effective teacher for every student. Keller, in quoting Andrew J. Rotherham, who worked in the Clinton White House, nailed down the problem: The Bush people “are stuck here enforcing a policy they don’t believe in, and it shows.”

Although most states appear to be complying with the federal law, no one outside the USDOE, according to Ms. Keller, believes the state HQT efforts amount to much.

To be sure the highly qualified teacher provision offers a critically important standard to ensure equitable student access to quality teachers – a standard that can be met with the right supports. Yet here are issues with the “highly qualified teacher” provisions – in particular, the rigidity of the content requirements for teachers of multiple subjects and the inadequacy of supports for developing an adequate supply of teachers. I am also concerned that the law allows – even encourages – teachers to be declared “highly qualified” if they have just entered rather than finished an alternative certification program, without yet having learned anything about how to teach. The HQT process may be identifying a whole slew of false positives and false negatives.

As I have mentioned time and time again (and in Ms. Keller's article) “the (teaching quality) problem needs addressing on the scale of the post-World War II Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe.” Perhaps it is now time to vote policymakers into office who will and encourage voters to hold them accountable if they do not.

Charters, No, and Teaching Quality, Yes

Yesterday’s NY Times (8/27/06) offered up a scathing editorial, “Exploding the Charter School Myth,” drawing a hard line in the sand with policy pundits who seek to dismantle public education. While public school choices for parents and students need to be part of the school reform equations, current charter (and voucher) proposals promoted by the federal government are not justified at all by the evidence.

The most recent study, drawing on data from 2003 on students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, found that “charter school students significantly behind their non-charter-school counterparts,” and that students in the free-standing charter schools were way behind the proverbial academic 8-ball. The editors reach a conclusion that comes as no surprise to me (and my colleagues at the Center for Teaching Quality): “The quality of the teacher corps is more crucial to school reform than anything else.”

But much more needs to be done to get serious about our nation’s teaching quality issues. The NY Times editorial only has it half-right — by just implementing the current No Child Left Behind teacher quality provisions will not come close to cutting it. Instead, the federal government needs to launch an aggressive national teacher quality and supply policy, on the order of the post-World War II Marshall Plan. The plan should include (1) a substantial, sustained program of service scholarships and forgivable loans, (2) an expansion of model new teacher induction programs with a focus on supporting new teachers in hard-to-staff schools, and (3) a comprehensive effort to remove unnecessary interstate barriers to teacher mobility. More later.

Polling on Public Education & the Teaching Profession

Today Phi Delta Kappa and the Gallup Organization released its 38th annual poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. The findings are sanguine, reflecting the fact that the American people have a great deal of faith in and hope for its public schools. Despite the usual bashing of schools and the teachers who serve them (from Beltway policy pundits, uninformed journalists, and political hacks), the 2006 PDK/Gallup Poll reveals how much the public values public education and understands the complex challenges educators face in educating growing numbers of diverse students.

Several top-line findings are worth mentioning:

Since the poll was first taken 38 years ago the public ratings of their local schools are near the top of the range. There is very strong support for the idea that many of the problems facing the public schools cannot be fixed by administrators and teachers alone.

The public’s strong preference is to improve the existing public schools, not divert tax dollars from them. The percentage of respondents favoring vouchers dropped from 38% a year ago to 36% this year, while opposition grew from 57% to 60%.

More of the public believes policymakers emphasize far too much on testing students as opposed to teaching them. However (and I would agree), the public does not reject testing (e.g., 63% favor requiring students to pass a qualifying exam in order to graduate from high school). However the vast majority (67%) believes that the current high-stakes accountability systems force teachers to “teach to the test” and even more (75%) believes that this fact is a “bad thing.”

Although the poll asks few direct questions about teacher quality, one item queried the public on why teachers leave teaching, revealing their respect for and concerns about the profession. Each one of six possible responses revealed how strongly the public feels about the lack of supports teachers receive.

• Lack of support from parents (96%),
• Lack of support from administrators (93%), and
• Working conditions in the public schools (92%)…..

….top the list of reasons why the public believes teachers leave the profession. However, their sentiments were almost as strong when it came to the:

• Lack of respect for the teaching profession (89%),
• Low teacher salaries (88%), and
• Lack of appropriate teacher training (84%).

Now is the time to invest more in teachers – in how they are prepared and supported by administrators and parents alike.

Check out the poll and the pulse of America. Election season is rolling around and I suspect it is time for Americans to vote into office policymakers who reflect their sentiments about their public schools and the teachers who serve them.

Wisdom from a Teach for America Recruit

In a recent blog “TMAO” – a Teach for America recruit who continues to teach at age 27 — reveals the stark and often ironic realities of our nation’s high acclaimed program to attract smart young people to high need schools. Reflecting on an essay by Avi Zenilman* in the Washington Monthly, TMAO proudly describes how TFA has transformed teaching into a “national service” and a “status symbol” for “the hard-chargers from Cambridge and New Haven.” But he also laments that the program continues to denigrate teaching by downgrading the need for professional preparation and promoting a revolving door of young whippersnappers for the students who need the most accomplished teachers.

To be sure TFA fills a bit of a void as our nation’s high need schools struggles to find teachers. (TFA will fill less than 1% of all new hires needed for our nation’s schools.) But, TFA also drains resources and attention from the kind of robust teacher policies demanded by our most challenged public schools and the children of poverty and color they serve. TMAO laments that TFA has become “an insular community of incredibly talented individuals who refer to teaching as something they "finished," as if there were no longer any children in need of powerful educators.”

Many talented young people recruited and prepared for teaching should not be expected to stay for a career. But when new recruits teach our most vulnerable students they need to be prepared and supported so that they stay long enough to make a difference. Granted, I could not agree more that much of what most folks would call traditional teacher education is in need of much overhaul. But go to Stanford University, Bank Street College, and UCLA and one can find powerful examples of how bright young people can be recruited into teaching and prepared as well. As TMAO poignantly asserts: “Enough with the ‘achievement gap.’ No such chasm exists. The only gap worth closing is the one that exists between the kind of teachers we are and the kind of teachers they need us to be.”

After reading other blog entries by TMAO (aka “teaching my ass off”) I am thrilled that he ended up learning to teach and remains committed to students and teaching — the profession that makes all others possible. More can be learned from this bright young man.

* BTW, Zenilman totally blows off the real findings of the “Teacher Policy Research” project which actually found that TFAers only perform as well as traditionally prepared teachers from the City College of New York only after they completed a master’s degree in education

Getting the Story Right on Teacher Education

Jay Mathews, usually a sharp education reporter, missed a beat or two in his August 6th Washington Post article, Learning from the Masters. He tries to make the point that “some of the best” teachers do not learn their lessons in education schools and university professors ignore what award winning-teachers, like Jason Kamras, have to offer. Mr. Kamras, the 2005 National Teacher of the Year with a masters degree in education from Harvard University, uses a number of successful “tricks of the trade” – seemingly not taught in education school courses. After only a few telephone calls to unnamed professors, Mr. Mathews leaps to the spurious conclusion that education schools do not help future teachers learn from experts (like using Mr. Kamras’ strategy of “marking of just a few homework questions helped raise test scores by enabling him to cover more lessons without getting bogged down in grading papers.”). Mr. Mathews complains that education schools teach research-proven methods at the expense of teaching the “practical” but “unorthodox” teaching methods of award-winning teachers.

Mr. Mathews should have also featured in his article Betsy Rogers — 2003 National Teacher of the Year. Betsy, a National Board Certified Teacher from Alabama, returned to teach in 2004 to one of her state’s lowest performing schools, Brighton Elementary. Betsy is an extraordinary teacher (and now curriculum coach) whose teaching experiences and methods have been chronicled in Education Week and in her blog on the Teacher Leaders Network.

Betsy is also a clinical professor at Samford University where she helps prepare new teachers – who have been recruited to work with her at Brighton. A few weeks ago Betsy told me how she and her Samford professorial colleagues are using scientifically-based approaches to reading with their teacher education students — and this has been the key to soaring student test scores of the Samford graduates who are now teaching with her at Brighton. And now last eve,
Betsy informed me that Brighton, just two years after her arrival, made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as prescribed by No Child Left Behind.

Samford University, like all high-quality education schools, draw on K-12 teaching experts to prepare the next generation of future teachers. Education schools are needed more than ever to help future and practicing teachers learn how to teach in increasingly challenging schools. The best ones draw on proven theories of how to teach literacy and math as well as how to design lessons for second language learners and to reach out to parents and family members. The best education schools also draw on lessons from the masters like Mr. Kamras and Ms. Rogers. Mr. Mathews should be a bit more diligent and precise in gathering data for his stories.

TOP TEN for TRANSFORMING TEACHING (continued)

A few days ago I crafted four of my “top ten” list for transforming teaching. Here are three more.

5. MAKE SURE EVERY NEW TEACHER HAS A REDUCED TEACHING LOAD. A recent study estimated the costs of replacing new teachers who leave at between $8000 and $48,000 each, depending on whether student learning costs are considered. These figures swamp the amount it would take to offer new teachers more time to learn in their first year or two of teaching. Other nations with whom we compete economically routinely offer reduced teaching loads to its novice teachers. In Japan, first-year teachers have a reduced teaching load, work closely with mentor or master teachers, and receive considerable in-school and out-of-school training. Novices are never left to sink or swim on their own.

6. DEMAND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVEST IN TEACHING. An effort to bring in 40,000 talented recruits by offering them up to $20,000 each in service scholarships to support their preparation would fill nearly all of the vacancies currently filled with emergency teachers and would cost as little as $800 million a year – a cost less than one week of the U.S. presence in Iraq. A national teacher supply program should help to ensure that teachers receive appropriate preparation and mentoring in their early years. This could be accomplished through a targeted, matching grant program aimed at supporting effective state and local induction practices, including new teacher access to qualified mentors who have expertise in the relevant teaching field and time to coach beginners (see #6 above).

7. CREATE A VENTURE CAPITAL FUND FOR HIGHLY ACCOMPLISHED TEACHERS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SCHOOLS. We have so many terrific teachers across the nation. And, through our Teacher Leaders Network I am getting to know more of them. More and more they tell me about their ideas regarding how they would run a school and serve students and their families. These schools would be small and built on mutual respect among teachers, students, parents, and community members. And the principal would be a principal teacher. Technology would drive knowledge development and assessments as well as communications. Well give them the magic wand. Type in “entrepreneur teacher” in Google and all you get are some white male “suits” promoting MBAs. It is time that our National Board Certified Teachers and many other accomplished teachers (like those in our Teacher Leaders Network) are provided incentives and the time to truly create a 21st century school. And they would come up first when one types in “entrepreneur teacher” on Google.

TOP TEN for TRANSFORMING TEACHING

In the late 19th century teachers in America had to follow a Byzantine set of rules that included filling lamps and cleaning chimneys and whittling pencil nubs to the individual taste of the pupils. Female teachers who married or engaged in unseemly conduct would be dismissed while male teachers could take one evening each week for courting purposes, or two evenings a week if they went to church regularly. So over the last 100 years or so the teaching profession has made some progress. Right? Well, yes. But we have a long way to go. Teacher salaries are not competitive. Good teachers, other than National Board Certified Teachers in some places, are not paid more. Few incentives are in place for the most effective teachers to teach the students who have the most needs. Teachers cannot easily lead and teach students as well. Principals are no longer principal teachers. The list can go on and on. Well here is the beginning of my top ten for transforming teaching – early 21st century style.

1. ASK THE BEST TEACHERS. This has to be #1 on my list. Want to create a top ten list for transforming teaching, ask the best teachers, especially those from our Teacher Leaders Network.

2. RECRUIT & PREPARE THE 17,000 WHO DO NOT JOIN TFA. Recent news account claimed that Teach for America had over 19,000 recruits for the 2,400 teaching positions it has promised to fill in disadvantaged urban and rural districts across the nation. Let’s find out from 17,000 how many of them are really interested in teaching, prepare them, and get them into our nation’s classrooms. Chicago I hear still has 1000 teaching vacancies and school opens in a few weeks.

3. GIVE EVERY TEACHER A PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANT (usually abbreviated to PDAs). Our policymakers are expecting schools and teachers to produce 21st century learning. Well, they need the tools to do so. PDAs are omnipresent in all knowledge-based workplaces. But not in teaching. Professionals use them to organize their complex schedules and to keep up with their clients and communicate with them. Teachers have some of the most frenetic schedules and overwhelming numbers of clients and “business associates.” Consider the high school teacher with more than 400 clients — e.g., 160 students and over 300 parents and family members — with whom, at one time or another, serious communication needs to occur. Email would help. And if we really want teachers to use more authentic measures of academic achievement (i.e., more than a one-time a year standardized test) and to keep up with which student is learning what and when, then what better tool than a PDA with all kinds of storage space, calculating capabilities, and access to the Internet, intranets or extranets via Wi-Fi, or Wireless Wide-Area Networks (WWANs). (PLEASE NOTE: In our 2006 NC working conditions survey we found that in one of the state's under performing rural schools only 54% of its teachers agree they have sufficient office supplies - much less PDAs or the like. Our case study work found one teacher working in a trailer in the woods, considerable distance from the main office, with no phone whatsoever.)

4. VIRTUALLY CONNECT GREAT TEACHERS WITH PROMISING TEACHER EDUCATION GRADS. Promising teacher education graduates, who are more likely to commit serious years to the teaching career, also need serious mentoring and nurturing once they begin teaching. If supported they will stay in teaching more than a year or so. Maybe five years or more when they can begin to make a difference for student achievement. But they may not get the right mentoring and induction from their schools — for a variety of reasons. And their universities do not have the capacity to do so as well. Give them virtual access to great teachers – like those from the Teacher Leaders Network. (Okay, we are getting ready to launch an initiative with the University of Connecticut to virtually connect great teachers, like Nancy Flanagan and several others, with high potential novices. Keep tuned. More details to follow.)

Watch out for the continuation of my list. I welcome suggestions.

Paying Teachers Differently: A Good Idea, But More Data Needed

In one of the few empirical investigations on the topic, Charlie Clotfelter and colleagues have found that North Carolina’s high need school bonus pay program was beginning to make a difference for teacher retention.  View study here.  The program, which began in 2001, paid $1800 to certified math, science and special education teachers working in high poverty or academically failing public secondary schools.

Eligible schools either had 80 percent or more of students on free or reduced lunch or had 50 percent or more of students performing below grade level on the state’s end of course tests in Algebra and biology.  Over three years, 2000 teachers from 148 schools in 65 school districts received annual supplements. (The state has 2000 total schools and 117 total school districts).

Using longitudinal data on teachers, the researchers estimated hazard models that identify the impact of this differential pay by comparing turnover patterns before and after the program’s implementation, across eligible and ineligible categories of teachers, and across eligible and barely-ineligible schools.  Results suggest that this bonus payment was sufficient to reduce mean turnover rates of the targeted teachers by 12%.  This is good news for districts that often have 30 percent or more annual turnover rates.

However, the data suggest there is much more that needs to be explored to pay teachers differently in order to retain them in high need schools.  Middle school math teachers were more likely to be positively affected, but not their high school counterparts, nor those who taught science or special education.  Teachers with less than 10 years of experience were more likely NOT to be influenced by the bonus pay to stay in teaching.

However, the researchers discovered that the effect of the program may have been at least partly undermined by the state’s failure to fully educate teachers regarding the eligibility criteria.  However, the North Carolina database upon which the researchers drew was incomplete, and too little is known about which teachers, with specific qualifications, stayed and which ones left and why (and where they went).  Some teachers may have left for reasons well beyond the control of the school and whatever financial incentive may or may not be in place. The Clotfelter database could not distingusigh between different types of turnover. We also do not know about the extent of the impact of the $1800 bonus vis a vis the school’s working conditions, which we have found to have a huge impact on both student achievement and teacher retention.

I am in Chicago currently, participating in a small working conference sponsored by the Spencer Foundation and the CPRE, on developing new teacher labor market studies.  My colleagues here, mostly economists, are looking to conduct studies like the one conducted by Clotfelter and company.  But there was also a call for more case studies of comprehensive teacher development and distribution reforms like those underway in Charlotte, Chattanooga, and Mobile. My colleagues here at Center for Teaching Quality have already assembled compelling evidence from Mobile showing that bonuses of $4000 were instrumental in encouraging qualified teachers to move to the district’s highest need schools.  But the influence of money for the teachers paled in comparison to the influence of a good principal, a critical mass of like-minded colleagues, and additional professional development and resources needed to teach effectively in high need schools.  Paying teachers differently holds promise in closing the teaching quality gap.  However, pay while necessary, is not sufficient to recruit and retain teachers for schools who need them most.

Where Teachers Are Central to Improving Schools

This morning North Carolina’s leading daily newspaper, the News & Observer, published a front page story, capturing much of the focus of the Center for Teaching Quality, where teachers are central to improving schools. The article, Durham Learns Why Teachers Quit, portrays the importance of understanding the conditions of teachers’ work as the fundamental issue in ensuring they are able to teach effectively. With all the talk (necessary by the way) of teachers being "highly qualified," if the right working conditions are not in place then the student achievement gap will not be closed.

The front page story highlighted how our web-based, population survey in North Carolina (that we conduct and analyze for the Governor’s Office and in collaboration with the North Carolina Association of Educators) is being used in one of the state’s most complex school districts. Over the last several years the Durham Public Schools suffered from horrendous teacher turnover. Today’s news article revealed how teachers have felt “disrespected by their principals” and that district leaders “did not treat them as professionals.” The survey has helped elevate their voice. The article, I am pleased to note, expressed how the district, under new Superintendent Carl Harris, is using these data to make necessary changes in teacher working conditions.

In North Carolina, over 75,000 teachers (a 65% response rate) completed answers to key questions about their use of time, professional development, school leadership, empowerment, and facilities and resources. We link these data to indicators of student achievement and teacher attrition rates, and then also offer tools so that administrators, teachers, and community leaders can work together in ensuring that teachers are not just highly qualified but well supported. We suspect more front page stories like today’s will continue to surface and fuel the kind of thinking and action critical to the future of the teaching profession and the students it serves.

I am proud to report the Center I founded some eight years ago is now also working on working conditions in Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, and Ohio, with a number of states in the cue. In these states we partner with all the groups needed to pull together to solve the problems -- governors, business leaders, administrtors, teacher education leaders, and the National Education Association. Fortunately policymakers are beginning to understand that teacher working conditions are student learning conditions.

Public Schools Outperform Private Schools....and Watch the Scrambling

Whoops.

As just reported in Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education finally released a study showing clearly that public schools are on “par” with, and in some cases “outperform private schools.” Many inside-the-Beltway education wonks have claimed that private schools are far more effective in closing the achievement gap than the public schools. However, using NAEP data and appropriate statistical controls, researchers at the National Center for Education Statistics now have shown that this is not the case. Although no one study should be used to craft public policy the NCES research findings are similar to those surfaced by researchers at University of Illinois who used the same data base. The report was released just as the Bush administration revealed its $100 million proposal to offer private-school tuition vouchers, to the tune of $4000 each, to up to 28,000 students who are currently attending underperforming schools (as defined by the problematic NCLB criteria).

The Education Week article revealed that Russ Whitehurst, the director of the Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences, believed that while the report “will be useful for researchers,” it will have “little use for parents who are trying to make a decision about their children's education.” Hmmm. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings claimed that the study “was not an evaluation of how school voucher work.” Hmmm. I guess one could claim that rain is not wet.

I wonder why the USDOE is so reluctant to tout a study that has all the markings of their scientific-based approach to educational research. Perhaps, the findings are not to their liking. The Washington Post got in on the story, catching the Bush administion scrambling to justify its increasingly problematic privatization proposals. At the same time many hard working public school teachers and administrators are getting ready to start the new school year, and without the necessary support they need to serve all students and their families. The data are clear: If we want to improve schools the key will be greater investments in the teaching profession -- including higher standards, professional compensation, and dramtically improved working conditons for America's 3.3 million teachers.

More Questions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards....And Some Answers

Last week another study surfaced suggesting students of National Board Certified Teachers do not perform any better on standardized tests than their peers taught by non-NBCTs. I suspect that the friends of the National Board are fretting, after a spate of research reports affirming the positive influence NBCTs have in helping students achieve higher standardized test score results. Similarly, I suspect that the foes of the National Board are smiling, hoping to have any ammunition to derail efforts in this country to professionalize and empower teachers.

The most recent study, a well-thought out investigation conducted by Wendy McColske of SERVE (regional education lab in the Southeast), and James H. Stronge of William and Mary College, revealed there was little, if any, statistical difference between the teaching performances as well as the math and reading test scores of NBCTs and non-NBCTs in three North Carolina school districts. Before writing a post-mortem for the National Board, education journalists and the usual policy pundits may want to take a deeper look at the study itself.

Granted, the researchers went to great lengths to design a study that not only examined test score results but also the teaching practices of NBCTs as well as those of non-NBCTs who both produced high test scores and those who did not. But, the researchers offered several caveats to their readers — one of which was their small sample sizes. The research team sought to include all 5th grade teachers from 4 school districts (two urban and two rural), but only three could surface matched test data. The ensuing test score analysis, designed to measure gains of the teachers’ students from the 4th to 5th grade, could only be performed on 307 teachers, of which only 25 were NBCTs. One should not jump to too many conclusions from a quantitative study that draws on test scores data from just two dozen NBCTs. Dan Goldhaber, in his study that found students of NBCTs outperforming those of non-NBCTs, over 600,000 student and teacher records were examined over a three-year period, spanning multiple school grade levels.

To be sure, the SERVE and William & Mary study, went to painstakingly lengths to go beyond test score results by examining the quality of teaching (e.g, planning and assessment, time on task) and student assignments through interviews, surveys, artifacts, and observations. However, this part of the study also suffered from the difficulties getting sufficient numbers of teachers to participate. From the four districts only 51 teachers played a parted, of which 21 were NBCTs (and 16 were non-NBCTs whose students scored in the upper quartile and 14 were non-NBCTs whose students scored in the lower quartile). In interpreting the analysis of the teaching practices, very small sample sizes made statistical significance a remote possibility.

Nevertheless, the non-NBCTs looked slightly better on a range of teaching observations while the NBCTs consistently assigned students work that