Advancing the Teaching Profession

Can We Combine Teaching and 'Senior Leadership'?

This past weekend Bob Herbert of the New York Times offered a glimpse into how new generations of education leaders for America’s public schools might be developed. In his op-ed piece, Herbert offers a refreshing description of the Harvard Graduate School of Education's new doctoral program (the first in 74 years):

The three-year course will be tuition-free and conducted in collaboration with faculty members from the Harvard Business School and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. The idea is to develop dynamic new leaders who will offer the creativity, intellectual rigor and professionalism that is needed to help transform public education in the U.S.

What's refreshing is the new program's perspective that 21st century schools will require administrators who know how to manage like a MBA while still having knowledge of teaching and telling. That's just common sense, some might say. However, for the last decade the conventional wisdom has been those who run school systems do not need to know much about pedagogy.  Kudos to the Wallace Foundation for investing in Harvard’s more balanced approach to preparing senior leaders for school systems, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.

As the leader of an organization committed to making accomplished teachers full partners in school reform, my next thought is: Where is the high-profile approach to developing senior education leaders who still teach students? My New York City colleague Ariel Sacks, a young teacher in our Teacher Leaders Network, explores this same question in her blog On the Shoulders of Giants, drawing on the example of her father, a doctor who combines health research and consulting with a small patient practice "to keep it real." As is so often the case, Ariel's post has attracted thoughtful comments from her blog readers and from within our TLN Forum discussion group.

Ariel, by the way, is one of 12 talented teachers working on a book about the future of teaching to be published by Teachers College Press next year. Read Ariel’s blog and consider the possibilities of developing a cadre of "teaching leaders" who work in hybrid roles (in less hierarchical school systems) and are able to lead from within and without the classroom.

We Need to Dispel the Myths about Effective Teachers

If you want to reflect for a moment on education half-truths and the imprecise diagnosis of teaching quality problems, take a look at two articles published in the October 18th edition of the Los Angeles Times — one on value-added teacher evaluations and the other on challenging education myths.

Both pieces raise important issues related to the role of teacher education as well as student test scores in developing and identifying effective teachers. But in addressing those issues, the journalist-authors actually embellish current myths rather than dispel them — and may send us down the wrong policy road.

Myth: Teacher tenure rules make it impossible to get rid of poor teachers.

Fact: A recent study by the New Teacher Project clearly shows that the difficulty in removing ineffective teachers has much more to do with poorly trained administrators who have few skills and inadequate tools to distinguish between excellent, average, and poor teaching. Another report, from the Center for American Progress also concluded that poor evaluation procedures, not tenure, are most likely to account for a school district’s inability to fire poor performers.

Myth: Teach for America, a rapid-entry alternative certification program designed to recruit bright young people into teaching, produces more effective teachers than traditional university-based programs.

Fact: Nationally, the Teach for America program produced about 4000 new teachers this school year, a very small contribution given that U.S. public schools need to hire about 250,000 new teachers annually. Studies show that TFA recruits tend to produce student achievement gains only slightly better than comparison teachers — and only in math, not in reading. Most importantly, the comparison groups in these studies tend to be teachers in the same or similar schools who have even less formal pedagogical preparation than TFA recruits. Why? Because the high needs schools in which TFA’ers teach often have to rely on substitutes and other poorly qualified individuals. Studies also show that more than 80 percent of Teach for America recruits, much like other recruits who enter with little formal training, leave the classroom by their third year of teaching, becoming part of the revolving door of novices who pass quickly through high-needs classrooms. This does not mean that tradtional teacher education has it right. It doesn’t. But less is not more in preparing teachers for high needs schools.

Myth: Standardized tests now in place are always the most accurate means of assessing student progress and teacher effectiveness. Scores from these tests should be the primary metric for evaluating teachers and increasing accountability.

Fact: Today’s “value-added” systems for measuring teacher effects can provide useful information, but the data are not always reliable for making high-stakes decisions. Assessments based solely on scores from tests currently in use are not designed to help teachers become more effective. Also, recent studies show that most value-added student academic gains are attributed to teacher teams, not individuals. Drawing on very sophisticated analyses, these studies reveal that the most powerful predictor of student achievement over time seems to be whether small groups of teachers are learning from each other as they teach. This suggests that policymakers should not just focus on replacing the “bottom 6-10%” of ineffective teachers, but devise strategies so that “teachers raise their games when the quality of their colleagues improves.”

Policymakers and practitioners do need to think much differently about assessing teachers and transforming teacher education. But that new thinking will not be productive if we cling to the educational equivalent of urban legends about what makes for effective teachers and successful students.

Public Attitudes about Teaching: The Details Matter

 Yesterday, Phi Delta Kappa released its annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. The 2009 survey surfaced some surprising sentiments held by the American people about teachers and teaching.

The must-read findings reveal, for example, that almost three-quarters (73%) of those polled believe teachers should be paid on the basis of their students’ test score improvements. But even more (81%) believe that teachers should be paid on the basis of advanced degrees.

The dilemma for policymakers, of course, is to determine how to use test scores to assess teachers in reliable and valid ways, as I’ve written about recently. In the matter of paying for advanced degrees — that practice has long been a part of the “steps and rows” salary schedules of most school systems. What hasn’t been addressed in any large-scale or meaningful way is how we ensure that the advanced degrees teachers earn have a measurable impact on student learning and achievement.

The public’s opinion about teacher tenure — often a contentious issue between school reformers and union leaders  — is intriguing. If the pollsters asked the American people about tenure by defining it as a “lifetime contract” then very few (26%) approved. But if the pollsters defined tenure as “a formal legal review before a teacher could be terminated,” a sizeable majority (66%) approved.

The details matter when we set out to accurately gauge public opinion on teacher and teaching issues. They also matter in devising new ways to assess and reward teachers.  Watch for the launch of our New Millennium Teacher Leaders Network next month — where some of our nation’s most outstanding young teachers will focus on the future of teaching, how they should be judged and paid, and how they will take policy actions in their local communities.

Bushaw, William J. & McNee, John A. (2009, August 26). Americans Speak Out. Are Educators Listening? Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 91, No. 01, September 2009, pp. 8-23.

Peering into the Future of Teaching

I spent the three days recently working with our TeacherSolutions 2030 team at the North Carolina home of CTQ. With support from the MetLife Foundation, 12 expert teacher leaders from across the nation are defining how their profession must look in 20 years to serve students well in the 21st century.

Over the last nine months we’ve been involved in a lot of study and conversation -- mostly online in our 24/7 virtual community. We’ve  explored teaching’s historical roots, assessed the ongoing debate over how to recruit and retain new talent to the profession, and considered how emerging realities can transform teaching for 21st century learning.

We’ve discussed how web-based tools and newly designed statistical techniques will generate once-unthinkable ways for teachers to collect and analyze formative assessment data on student learning — and in doing so, inform policymakers and the public about a new brand of accountability. We’ve also talked about the role that teacher-preneurs (or pedagogical entrepreneurs) can play in spreading teaching expertise in a 24/7 environment and committed ourselves to ensure a future profession where students are known well by teachers – and teach much more than algebra to struggling 9th graders.

No doubt advances in cognitive science and the Kurzweilian vision of nanomachines will give teachers new tools to improve academic achievement. But we cannot ignore the continuing role of teachers like Keith Yow – who teaches woodworking in my hometown of Hillsborough — in assuring a meaningful future for our children. Policymakers, who are trying to figure out the whole strategic management of human capital thing, must not forget the lessons taught by shop teachers and the successful students that Keith and so many other teachers nurture. They understand that “highly effective” teaching has many dimensions, and some of the most important are not captured – yet – on the annual state assessment.

Altered Perceptions of Evaluation and Tenure

In a recent Newsweek op-ed column, Jonathan Alter, one of our nation’s most respected journalists, blames the poor state of public education on teacher unions that use tenure to prevent administrators from “figuring out who can teach and who can't.”

Dan Brown, a Teacher Leaders Network member, takes Alter to task with a sharp rebuttal at The Huffington Post — calling on the columnist and other policy pundits to “stop scapegoating teachers and their right to have a collective voice, and to start stepping into living classrooms.” Dan, who teaches at a high-needs charter school in the District of Columbia, combines both research evidence and the grounded reality of everyday classroom practice to challenge Alter's tabloid-style opinion piece.

If Alter would like to begin preparing for a front-lines journalism adventure, he might add to his summer reading list the recent report on teacher evaluation and tenure from the Center for American Progress (CAP), an organization not known for treading lightly on ineffective teaching.

Writing for CAP, Joan Baratz-Snowden’s analysis points out the ills of the archaic tenure system. She also explains that under the protocols current in most school districts, teacher evaluation is the responsibility of administrators who are often not competent to assess teacher performance or to provide advice and support when teachers need to improve. In such circumstances, why should we be surprised when even our best teachers are reluctant to abandon tenure rights?

Snowden goes on to challenge the either-or thinking about teacher effectiveness (you’re great or you’re terrible) that so dominates education politics. This thumbs-up/thumbs-down outlook is ludicrous, of course, but it continues to be perpetuated by ill-informed observers of America’s teaching profession, including — I’m a bit surprised to learn — Jonathan Alter.

 Joan Snowden’s analysis is refreshing, and it’s encouraging to see the Center for American Progress beginning to take teacher professionalism seriously by calling for progressive evaluation and tenure systems that “reflect the complexity of teaching and learning.” The well-positioned DC think tank proposes assessments that draw on multiple data sources, not just standardized test scores. CAP and several other influential policy shops are also drawing overdue attention to research from the nation’s most respected measurement experts, explaining how and when standardized tests can be valid and reliable in assessing student learning and teacher effectiveness — and when they cannot.

Instead of pitting teachers against principals — or unions against school districts — the CAP report points out that “too often systems of evaluation and dismissal are imposed on teachers rather than developed with them.” That's a quote worthy of celebration by teacher leaders everywhere. Fireworks and flag-waving — and not just for the Fourth of July.

Paying attention to teacher working conditions

Fueled by our own research and the insights of educators in the CTQ-sponsored Teacher Leaders Network, we've been calling for any and all education enterprises that measure teacher and teaching effectiveness to pay attention to working conditions as well as student outcomes. There's a close relationship between the two. The new CAP report raises this same issue, stating that while it is “absolutely essential that teachers present evidence of student learning” to be tenured, any credible system of evaluation must also take into account evidence of the teaching and learning environment.

Snowden points out the accountability mechanism involved:

Effective teaching and learning is a product not only of individual behavior, effort, knowledge and skill, but also of the learning conditions where teaching and learning takes place. Requiring such information when considering promotion and dismissal provides incentives for school administrators to assure that necessary tools and conditions support teachers’ efforts to educate children.

This recent report from the Center for American Progress is a must read. Jonathan Alter should peruse it this summer, as he prepares to take Dan Brown’s advice and spend some actual reporting time in the institutions of which he writes. He might even visit Dan himself. Or some of the thousands of other quality-minded teachers in the greater DC metro area. We’d be happy to provide a contact list to get him started.

I’m guessing that if Alter does opt for a substantive school outing, his future writing on the teaching profession will pass muster. A little evidence can go a long way.

Three Bullets for EduWonk

Over at EduWonk, teacher-tenure and teacher-union bashing continues. Much needs to be changed about teacher tenure, but many policy pundits ignore (for whatever reason) that union leaders do not solely construct nor are they in charge of a school district’s employment contract. Every contract is  negotiated between administrators and unions.

With this in mind, the folks at EduWonk might want to ask some additional questions:

• Are ineffective teachers in DC (and elsewhere) not fired because of archaic tenure rules, or because of incompetent or ill-trained or overloaded administrators who do not have the skill or time to evaluate teachers effectively? And if it's some of both, how much of each?

• How many ineffective teachers teach poorly because they were ill-prepared in the first place (think lousy teacher education or short-cut alternative certification programs) or forced to teach out of field?

• How often do we give our best teachers the opportunity to assess their colleagues? Evidence suggests that in school districts with peer review programs, far more teachers are removed than in locales where only administrators are in charge of teacher evaluation.

Considering these questions and issues can get us out of the either-or thinking and impulsive action that so beset education politics and reform.

Getting Real About Teacher Experience and Its Effects on Student Achievement

The debates continue to rage over the merits of school districts recruiting younger, less experienced (and cheaper and potentially more compliant) teachers, versus those who are older, more experienced (and more expensive and empowered).

Policy pundits and journalists have few qualms about calling for any seasoned teaching veteran to be put out to pasture. They aren't really interested in whether the teacher is effective, ineffective or "we don't know." These pontificators, single-minded as donkeys, tend to rely on research showing that teacher experience beyond three years does not matter much for standardized test scores. However, their interpretation of the teacher-experience data sets is rather limited, perhaps reflecting more about their ideology than any substantive understanding about teaching and learning in complex school environments.

NYC blogger Aaron Pallas recently noted how researchers miss the mark on the experience issue by ignoring the difference between a teacher’s total years of experience versus how much time she has taught a particular grade or subject. Aaron shows how NYC’s teacher workforce is not as seasoned as one might think.

Our case study research into teacher working conditions (funded by the Ford Foundation) is helping surface even more nuanced issues around teaching experience and student achievement. For example, in the more high-achieving schools we are finding what matters most is the collective experience of relatively small teacher teams who have learned how to work together and embrace doing so.

As we consider and design research, we need to pay attention not only to an individual teacher’s aggregate years of experience but how groups of teachers have used their combined knowledge over time to change the working culture of their team (or department or grade level), share teaching expertise among themselves and with others, and connect more closely with their students and their families.

Meredith, my wife and a seasoned special education teacher with over 25 years of experience, has taught me a lot about this issue. For the past nine years she has learned a great deal from a close-knit group of teachers on her EC (exceptional children) team. After so many years of close collaboration, their individual expertise has been magnified in powerful ways. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the data. For the last several years, over 80 percent of their EC students have routinely met state standards on North Carolina’s End-of-Grade tests — compared to about 33 percent of EC students in their district and 21 percent statewide.

Other scholars are discovering how teachers' professional interactions within learning communities over time can best explain whether school reforms take hold. Policy pundits might have a different take on the role of teacher experience in improving student achievement if they:

(1) examined more than a simple R-squared from a simple-minded study;

(2) stepped out of their quiet, climate-controlled offices inside the Beltway; and

(3) looked carefully inside of America’s public schools where a wide range of teachers are working together to make a difference in the lives of students.

And I challenge any of the DC pundits to convince Meredith (or any other highly successful teacher) that teaching experience beyond three years does not matter for student achievement. They would receive a higher-order lesson in “get real.”

Photo: Teacher Meredith Berry with Walter and Henry, who have not yet attained pundit status.

Ending the Battles over Teaching

The Teacher Union vs. Teach for America debates are getting more and more tiresome — and seemingly not very productive. Over at the blogs of Mike Antonucci and Andy Rotherham (EduWonk) the teaching quality turf battles continue.

Maybe if we first clear a few things up, we can get closer to striking agreement.

Several studies have found that some highly selected entrants who receive most of their university training after they begin teaching in high-needs schools do as well or better than other teachers who teach in the same schools -- where those teachers are not highly selected or well-prepared themselves.

Researchers have noted, however, that highly selected new recruits (from routes such as Teach for America) are generally less effective when compared to fully prepared teachers until they themselves gain experience and certification. When they do show up as more effective, the results for students are typically not very significant (in educational, not just statistical terms).

The bottom line is that more than 80 percent of TFA recruits leave the classroom by the end of their third year. In other words, just as they are becoming more effective, they depart through a revolving door and make room for new and typically under-prepared teachers.

Andy Rotherham is on point when he says many administrators “clamor” for TFA recruits. They have few other alternatives. If they did have other promising options, the clamoring would die down.

I just returned from two very high-needs schools in Florida (in different school districts) and found that administrators there would much rather be able to recruit well-prepared teachers who know the kids in their school communities and would stick with their schools for at least 5-8 years (and hopefully longer). Administrators really want those teachers who know how to teach effectively to persist in their jobs.

And there’s more research to consider: Several new studies have found that entrants from strong teacher education programs both stay in teaching significantly longer and achieve greater student achievement gains than those of either alternative route entrants or weak traditional programs.  

One recent study points to the importance of substantive internship or residency experiences to ensuring later teacher effectiveness (as measured by value-added gains). Also check out the teacher education effects data in Louisiana where graduates of NE Louisiana-Monroe outperform other recruits, including those from TFA, the New Teacher Project and traditional graduates from the state's R1 institution – LSU. Like so much other research, this study found that there is more variation within different types of routes into teaching than among them.

One fact is certain: Poorly prepared teachers, from whatever source, who exit the profession quickly leave their students to be taught by the next round of novices who routinely replace them. In high-needs schools (where much of this quick-exiting takes place) those coming in are likely to be as ill-trained as those going out. Any program that produces this kind of result is inadequate to resolve the very real inequities in teaching quality that students in these schools suffer.

This does not mean that high-quality alternative certification should not be part of a long-term strategy to recruit and retain effective teachers for high-needs schools. Not at all. But it is time to cease the either-or debate over TFA versus traditional teacher education. It’s a policy cul-de-sac. It’s also time to stop defending the morass of teacher education and state licensing procedures and requirements that get in the way of recruiting and preparing the right mix of talented individuals to teaching. It’s indefensible.

Let’s move on to some fresh thinking, including rethinking teacher FTEs and how we organize teacher leadership in schools. Let’s consider restructuring so that high-minded but less prepared recruits (who may not stay very long in teaching) can work under the tutelage of experts who will.  At the Center for Teaching Quality we are working with TFA colleagues in North Carolina to see if we can make this happen.

See my recent Education Week commentary for more of my thoughts about how we can end the battles over teaching.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

ABCTE, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Teaching Profession

Recently, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) released a very modest study suggesting that their certification process is “a valid predictor of teacher performance in the classroom.” As most teaching policy observers know ABCTE initially was designed to “certify” teachers cheaply, and in doing so, promote alternative certification programs while attempting to put university-based teacher education programs out of business. (See my April 24th blog entry, ABCTE and "Certified" Teachers)

ABCTE, which conducted the study itself, was barely able to find and draw upon 55 teachers in Tennessee, linking their exam scores to value-added test scores of their students. The press release noted that “veteran teachers who passed the ABCTE Multiple Subject Exam (MSE) and Professional Teaching Knowledge (PTK) Exam produce higher student learning gains in math, science and social studies, and significantly higher overall student achievement, than teachers who failed one or both of those exams.”

In reality the study is a yawner, and really does not tell us much good about the ABCTE process. In fact ABCTE officials may be making much ado about nothing.

• First, all of the study’s 55 teachers (13 passers and 42 failers) were professionally licensed so it is difficult to see to how ABCTE officials can use the findings to justify alternative certification programs.

• Second, while ABCTE “passers” did produce higher gains in math, their gains in science and social studies were not statistically significant.

• Third, as barely revealed in a footnote, a number of the 42 failers appears to have passed one of the ABCTE two exams. If so, which one, and what impact would it have on the study’s outcomes? I wonder if any of the passers took the test preparation course prominently advertised on the web?

In addition, the ABCTE officials quietly ignored that there were no differences in reading achievement of the ABCTE passers and failers. Hmmm. I wonder why? Remember, elementary school teachers were investigated. ABCTE is trying to convince policymakers that teachers do not need teacher education, including extensive preparation in how to teach reading. But, now they have a study that reveals that their exam cannot distinguish between teachers who produce value-added reading gains for their students and those who do not. Hmm.

What gets glossed over is that ABCTE represents a movement to deprofessionalize teaching. ABCTE suggests that in a couple of hours, taking a rather simple paper-and-pencil multiple choice test, anyone walking off the street (as long as they do not have a criminal record) can be identified as a qualified and effective teacher.

The work of ABCTE, flies in the face of the findings of the National Academy of Education on the future of teacher education, the National Research Council on the elements of effective teacher licensing tests, and the National Reading Panel on what elementary teachers need know and be able to do when it comes to teaching literacy, especially to diverse and disadvantaged students. All of the more expensive and rigorous exams of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) do just that. But NBPTS pushes for and represents a very different kind of teacher than the one posited by ABCTE.

“Bridging Differences” and the Teaching Profession

Much to write of late– but the most compelling may be the fantastic Education Week commentary (May 24, 2006) crafted by Debbie Meier & Diane Ravitch. Their eloquent essay, “Bridging Differences,” speaks volumes as to how two caring educators, with divergent views, can find common ground on so many different issues. Debbie is “a pioneer of the small-schools movement,” and a progressive educator of the nth degree. She is well known for transforming schools in East Harlem with more expert teachers, interdisciplinary teaching, more performance and authentic assessments, and strong connections to parents and communities. Diane is a well-respected education historian and often calls for “explicit, prescribed (core knowledge) curriculum” on which “national examinations would be based.”

Most notably both lament the inadequacies of standardized testing and their inappropriate uses in assessing student learning and teacher effects. In particular, both have disdain for the “test prep activities that have displaced good instruction in far too many urban classrooms.” Both are “dismayed by efforts in New York City to micromanage what teachers in most K-8 schools do at every moment in the day.”

Reading this essay reminded me that our goals to professionalize teaching are shared by a wide range of scholars, reformers, and the public. By this I mean teachers who are well prepared before they enter the classroom, supported significantly in their early years of teaching, reviewed and developed by expert peers, and offered opportunities for career advancement and significant financial and organizational rewards for both their contributions and performance. Only professional teachers of this ilk will have the skills and the confidence to push back on the increasingly crazed test-based teaching pervading our schools. Only professional teachers of this ilk can teach in ways envision by both Debbie and Diane. Only professional teachers of this ilk can lead the kind of public schools demanded by our society and economy. They write:

“We both recognize that wise teachers have always found ingenious ways to sabotage any and all demands for compliance. It is hard, if not impossible, to run a perfect lock-step system when professionals (if they really are professionals) expect to make decisions and exercise discretion.”

Our teaching policy debates need more of this kind of discourse and direction presented by Debbie and Diane.