Teaching Matters Most

Who'll Stop the Rain

In a recent Eduwonk post,  guest blogger Robin Chait recommends that hard-to-staff urban schools "develop programs that are designed to deal with the reality of high teacher turnover by recruiting high quality candidates to work for short periods of time." While Chait recognizes that these schools also need to simultaneously work to improve teacher retention, she also contends that “given reality and limited resources, short term recruitment and training programs targeted to specific areas of need may be a good option.  If you cannot stop it from raining at least you can develop a better umbrella.”

The Center for Teaching Quality maintains regular dialogue with accomplished teachers in hard-to-staff schools from across the nation through our Teacher Leaders Network. In a recent discussion about the impact of No Child Left Behind, Amy, a 32-year teaching veteran in a high-needs high school, described the reality of her school’s revolving door of educators:

"My English department lost four out of seven teachers last year, including all of our freshmen level English teachers. School started with three of those positions still unfilled. As a curriculum coach, I spend a lot of time training teachers in research-based techniques but what happens? We lose 25 percent of our staff. That creates a constant need to re-train the new teachers coming in. Then, if the test scores are still too low, we throw those techniques out completely and start all over again."

Now, if you ask Chait, this sounds like an acceptable situation for accomplished teachers like Amy. In short term recruitment and training programs, “veteran teachers would have to play a greater leadership role in such schools. But that’s good for them because it opens up more professional and leadership opportunities that do not mean a full-time departure from the classroom.”

While we certainly support the notion of hybrid roles for teacher leaders, we do not believe expecting veterans to constantly re-train novices cycling in and out of high-needs schools to be a good, intentional use of human capital. Why not utilize their skills instead to develop and sustain mentoring programs specifically designed to increase the likelihood of teacher retention? Or what about providing time for them to plan collaboratively with their peers and share best practices? How about offering these teacher leaders opportunities to share in decision-making responsibilities for areas such as hiring and budgeting with their administrators?

Yes, some novice teachers in hard-to-staff schools will inevitably leave these schools or the profession entirely.  Years of “rain” in these schools will certainly not end easily or quickly, but the umbrella solutions should at least be designed with the potential to succeed and last.  We should not ask educators to work in schools that have resigned themselves to a continued forecast of rain and the need for new umbrellas every year.

Accomplished teachers, like Amy, have much to say about how to develop systematic approaches to attracting and retaining teachers to high-needs schools. Instead of investing money in short term solutions, policymakers should listen to those on the front lines. They know what it will take to “stop it from raining” in hard-to-staff schools. It’s time that somebody listened to them.

Posted by Melissa Rasberry

Listening to Teacher Voice in California

A new study  from a survey of nearly 2,000 California teachers indicates that teacher working conditions have significant influence over both teacher retention and student achievement.  A recent article from the LA times (requires registration)  highlights many teacher working condition trends from the California study that CTQ has reported from similar studies in states across the country.

“The real issue is working conditions, which are the flip side of a student's learning conditions,” said Ken Futernick, who directs K-12 studies at the Center for Teacher Quality at Cal State Sacramento.

The statement might sound familiar to individuals familiar with CTQ research on the topic, as the perspectives of teachers on working conditions, and the correlations between working conditions and teacher retention are proving remarkably similar in California, Nevada, Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio and North Carolina.

CTQ research on the perceptions of educators about conditions of work in schools across the country indicates some very common themes.

Leadership - Areas of strength for school leadership efforts oftentimes include communication and shared vision.  Shortcoming most commonly include effectively empowering teachers, enforcing consistent rules for student conduct, providing feedback, and sustaining efforts to provide teachers with additional time.   Also, school leaders and teachers have significantly different perceptions of key working conditions within their respective schools. 

Empowerment - Teachers feel somewhat empowered to influence the instructional, grading and assessment practices and their teaching techniques within their own classroom. However, the vast majority of teachers feel they have extremely limited roles in shaping school and building level decisions that also impact their experience in schools.  The result of shortcomings in empowering teachers is an overall lack of educators feeling trusted to make important decisions and being centrally involved in decision. 

Facilities and Resources - Teachers are relatively happy with facilities and resources relative to other working conditions.  Teachers do need more access to instructional technology and considerably more training to effectively use technology.  There is also greater variation across schools in satisfaction with facilities and resources than other working conditions. 

Professional Development – Educators are generally positive about the professional development they do receive, and educators’ stated professional development needs are remarkably similar across states.   However, most educators do not report receiving PD that aligns with their most pressing needs.   This is most likely influenced by the finding that Educators have strikingly limited input on the professional development they participate in. 

Time – Educators express serious concerns with available time.  Lack of non-instructional time drives teachers to work many additional hours beyond the typical school day.  Also, extremely limited opportunities exist for collaboration with peers.

These are the issues that matter most for keeping teachers.  CTQ believes that salary is necessary for attracting and keeping teachers, but completely insufficient, as professional decisions are most influenced by conditions of work.  Based on his research, Ken Futernick agrees that salary issues pale in importance to working conditions for teacher retention.  More policymakers, researchers and states across the country should come to the realization that the best mechanism for understanding how to keep teachers is asking educators themselves what motivates them to leave a school and then responding with reforms to improve the issues most likely to drive teacher turnover.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Teacher Leaders + Meaningful Data = Powerful Advocacy Message

Over at the Tempered Radical, Bill Ferriter has an important post today regarding the belief expressed in the recent TeacherSolutions report that we must move away from blanket rewards that treat all degrees and professional development activity the same regardless of quality or relationship to the needs of students being served.

Bill and the TeacherSolutions report call for traditional systems of rewarding teachers to be reworked so that educators have a much greater incentive to participate in continuing education experiences that develop the most important knowledge and skills for classroom teachers.  The idea is certainly significant and noteworthy on its own accord, but the data points and the process Bill uses to make his argument are almost equally significant.

Bill provides a description of his personal experiences on the topic and the wasted hours he has spent in basic computer classes despite his level of proficiency.  He follows up his anecdotal evidence by citing statewide longitudinal data from his colleagues in classrooms across North Carolina highlighting the continued disconnect between the professional development needs of teachers and the training they ultimately receive from their schools and districts.  In every state where CTQ has conducted a working conditions initiative to date,  educators have expressed a need for more assistance in differentiating instruction for special need students, limited English proficient students and closing the achievement gap.  Unfortunately, the disturbing trend across states participating in the research indicates PD offerings are simply not aligned with these needs.

The personal anecdote from a Teacher of the Year matters because it comes from a current and successful classroom educator with a highly nuanced understanding of challenges inherent for teaching in the reality of today’s modern classroom.  While the anecdotes should matter for all readers and policymakers, longitudinal statewide data on the same topic is equally important.  The greatest classroom teachers in the country are still limited to the perspective of their own unique context in their school community.  Because teaching and professional development needs and offerings in Wake County are simply different than those in a high poverty rural district like Hoke County, this comprehensive look at data remains absolutely essential.

What’s so important about a report like that offered by TeacherSolutions and the post from Bill is that they are coupling the personal insights and experiences of successful teachers with the most recent and reliable data available regarding performance compensation and in this particular case, professional development needs of educators.

Reliable research, including the data CTQ has collected in the last year from more than 250,000 educators across the country regarding teacher working conditions should be a powerful tool for informing policy discussions.  The personal insights and ideas of our best teachers around policy topics of the day should be an equally influential way to better inform education policy.  And the best and most recent data and research for our best and brightest educators to consider and react to, within their own frame of reference for effective teaching, represents the best possible mechanism for fixing what ails public education.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Working Toward Rigor in High School Reform

“We are working toward a paradigm shift to make people understand that hard work on rigorous curriculum leads to meaningful achievement.”
-Principal at a small redesigned high school

Helping students attain the skills necessary to compete in the 21st century marketplace requires a challenging curriculum for all students.  Achieving the learning objectives of high school redesign is dependent on schools ensuring sufficient attention to, and awareness of, whether students are actually reaching the rigorous set of new learning expectations described by redesigned and early college high school educators and reformers. 

All of the participating early college and redesigned schools articulated the goal of providing students with accelerated coursework.  In the early college high schools, students finish their high school career with both a high school diploma and two years of college credit (the equivalent of an associate’s degree).  All students in the redesigned schools were enrolled in honors-level classes as a consistent minimum standard.  The honors-level courses and high expectations were intended to create an academic foundation for all students to become life-long learners.  One teacher described the goal of providing rigorous coursework for students to become ready for, “not only college, but for living in this world” by developing “habits of mind and workplace skills” that many educators in these schools believed to be at least as important as academic learning. 

Based on the recommendations of NCNSP, one redesigned school “de-tracked” their curricula.  For example, all students take Algebra for honors level credit.  Every student in the school scored proficient or above in math last year, and 65 percent were proficient in writing – the highest percentage in the district.

Some educators reported that because rigorous curriculum challenges students in new ways, parental support proves absolutely necessary to help students face difficulties inherent with such a challenging course of study.  The principal at Dewey High School noted that after the first few weeks of school, a barrage of students found the work load overwhelming and wanted to give up.  The principal firmly believed that taking time to help parents understand what to expect in the first few weeks of school was absolutely necessary to keep students from leaving the school.  This year the principal at Dewey ensured that a detailed explanation of rigor and expectations was a consistent and strong refrain when meeting with parents prior to the beginning of school.  The school did not lose a single student from the 2006-2007 freshman class, and the principal believed this could be credited largely to the informed support of parents.

Another school used adult business leaders to help ensure rigor in students’ project delivery and presentation.  A local business council sent representatives to watch and evaluate the presentations and progress of students on project-based learning initiatives.  Students received meaningful feedback from area business leaders regarding how their presentations would be received in a real-world work environment.

Two participating schools spoke to plans for developing more comprehensive evaluation measures to assess where students stood relative to the complex learning goals the schools aspired to achieve.

Newfound Health and Life Sciences High School is developing its own evaluation structure by putting into place a self-evaluation that includes peer review and teacher-reflection guided by an assessment rubric.  The assessment rubric focuses on the degree to which students demonstrate mastery of complex concepts the school considers necessary for achieving learning goals for all students.  The rubric remains in its developmental stages; however, great strides have been made.  While teacher and student assessments began at somewhat divergent ends of the measurement scale, by the end of last year (the first year of implementation) the difference between teacher and peer reviews was less than .5 point on a 1 to 5 scale.

Providing the rigor cornerstone of high school reform requires teachers with sophisticated knowledge of their field, new curricula and instructional delivery strategies, and new mechanisms for measuring the mastery of complex skills needed to succeed in 21st century life.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Establishing Relevant High School Learning Opportunities

“We try to help students see the relationship of the classroom to the world.”
-Teacher at an early college high school

Relevance in the classrooms of reformed high schools requires changes in the ways educators teach and students learn. The teacher working conditions of redesigned and early college high schools contributed to the development and implementation of relevant instruction in a variety of ways.

An uncompromised commitment to student learning was described by teachers and administrators as an essential component of their school vision and mission.  A full 94 percent of teachers in the reformed high schools agreed that “the faculty are committed to helping every student learn,” compared to 78 percent of all North Carolina high school teachers.  Knowledge of students’ needs and implementation of related strategies to meet those needs both proved critical in providing relevant instruction to help every child learn.

At case study schools, regular times to meet oftentimes included a clear focus on providing relevant student learning opportunities and promoted continued engagement of teachers as instructional leaders.  At one school, faculty and administrators met weekly for 90 minute “Teaching and Learning Meetings.”  The amount of time dedicated to these meetings was not markedly different from the typical high school faculty meeting.  The distinction was in the focus on student learning and the collaborative approach of teachers and administrators in making instructional decisions that met the needs of the students in the school.  One teacher described these meetings as “the biggest thing we do” to accomplish schools goals, noting that learning new strategies for teaching and learning make the meetings “different from a regular staff meeting.”

Strong ties to other community resources enhanced the relevance of coursework as well. Particularly in career-themed high schools, student work-studies and internships with local businesses were (or were planned as) a core part of the curriculum.  In many of these schools, a staff member served as a liaison for seeking out work study opportunities for students and assuring sound placements and successful community-based experiences.  At one health science school, the teachers themselves had prior health services careers and brought strong knowledge of health science applications to their classrooms. 

At one redesigned life sciences high school, project-based learning was the foundation for accomplishing 21st century learning goals. At this school, large blocks of time were dedicated to project work, during which teachers served as facilitators and resources for the students.  The goal was to have students engaged in independent learning during 70 percent of instructional time. Students worked on projects in a large open room with work tables in the center and three walls of computers around the perimeter.  The principal noted, “Access to and use of the Internet is key to our project-based learning efforts... Instructional technology has become a useful tool for completing projects.  Our kids find ways to use technology beyond anything we imagined.”

Also critical to project-based learning was the pursuit of relevant, interest-based topics that centered on “real world” health science topics.  Students selected topics based on their personal interest for the cross-disciplinary projects that they designed, researched, and presented to their school and to members of the broader community.  One student, for example, completed a project on the public health risks and costs of smoking.  “My dad was a smoker and I know it’s dangerous and expensive, so my project is looking at the risk factors for smoking… I think this is a good way to learn.  It’s more difficult, but it’s interesting.  It’s easier for me to do this kind of research and use the Internet to find information I am interested in.”  The principal of the school agreed, “The number one way for us to differentiate instruction is based on kids’ interests.  When a kid is in charge of selecting his/her topic of interest, they are driving their own learning.”

It hardly takes an expert in teaching and learning theory to realize that students learn more when they consider their work relevant to their interests and future plans.  But recognizing a need for relevance in the classroom is much easier than dramatically reforming instructional practices and organizational structures to fundamentally change the way educators teach and students learn.  The schools described here have made necessary adjustments to conditions of work and teaching practices, and should serve as models for high school reform efforts.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Relationships are the Foundation for Successful High School Reform

“You have got to have that relationship and trust before other things are going to come…You have to work together as a team.  You have got to build that trust.”
- Principal, redesigned high school

Comments like these were heard, over and over again, in schools we studied as part of our research on working conditions in redesigned and early college high schools.  Strong, productive relationships among faculty, students, parents and community are the foundation of successful high school reform.  And working conditions prove essential in promoting the development of those relationships.  Important school working conditions for building trust include committed leadership and time for teachers to collaborate with each other and community partners, and opportunities to interact with students outside of class.

Principals committed to building trust ensure that teachers are involved in school decisions.  Professional learning communities (PLC) and School Improvement Teams (SIT) provide mechanisms for involving teachers in school decision-making.  Regularly scheduled meetings of PLCs and SITs that include time for discussion of school level issues and include a mechanism for sharing feedback with school leadership keeps teachers involved and builds trust among all school staff. 

Creating time for teachers to interact with students outside of regular classes is also critical for establishing strong supportive relationships within a school.   Some schools make efforts to ensure that students maintained consistent contact with the same educators throughout their high school years.  For example, a Personal Learning Period allows for one teacher to work with the same students for all four years.  PLP teachers help students with their schedules and are responsible for maintaining communication with parents and guardians.  One teacher in a redesigned high school described the PLP this way, “The Personal Learning Period for scheduling has fostered relationships and positive interactions.  It’s so much more than an advisory period.  Students never would have come to me before when something was wrong, and I never would have known to ask.”

The small size of redesigned and early college high schools is also a key factor in developing strong relationships.  In a small school environment -- oftentimes including shared office space -- collaboration occurs naturally.  Teachers see more of each other and have more opportunities to interact with each other and students than teachers in a large comprehensive high school. 

Yet, while small school size contributes to creating strong, positive relationships, success in reforming high schools requires more fundamental changes in the way schools work.  For any school, small or otherwise, to create the type of meaningful relationships the high school reform movement strives for, teachers must become involved in school decision-making and must have sustained collaboration with colleagues, students, and parents.

Posted by Cynthia Reeves 

Working Conditions for High School Reform

Everyone who is anyone in education reform these days will tell you that the American high school experience needs to be reinvented to ensure that all students graduate with the ability to produce, analyze and communicate knowledge necessary for success in the 21st century.

While the diagnosis for high school reform is commonplace, concrete strategies for changing the institution are less readily available and examples of successful high school redesign are even harder to find.  Reformers consistently voice a refrain concerning the need to bring rigor, relevance and relationships to American high schools.  These calls for reform should be supplemented with evidence of what effective high school reform actually looks like from the field.  Yes, high schools should be smaller learning communities that support more meaningful relationships between teachers and students, students and communities, and students with their peers.  But we need to provide guidance on how teaching and learning looks different in redesigned high schools.  Small schools alone are not enough, we need teaching and learning environments that dramatically change the way educators teach and students learn.

The degree to which the rigor, relevance and relationship foundations of high school reform are actually realized remains highly dependent on the teaching and learning environments present in high schools across the state.  With support from the North Carolina Business Committee for Education (NCBCE) and the Center for 21st Century Skills, the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) has recently evaluated teaching and learning environments in redesigned and early college high schools across the state.

The resulting report, Teaching and Learning Conditions Improve High School Reform Efforts, indicates that redesigned and early college high schools in North Carolina vary in terms of design, organization, and instructional practices.  However, each is fundamentally committed to a common vision of creating meaningful relationships with students, providing students with relevant instruction that prepares them for the realities of the world around them and ensuring rigorous learning opportunities that help them excel in college and the workforce.

The report and related recommendations should inform school practices and policy decisions for supporting high school reform in redesigned, early college and traditional high schools across North Carolina.  The recommendations provide specific details regarding how high schools can benefit from:
1) Focusing on not only the quantity, but also the quality of non-instructional time for teachers;
2) Reviewing current standards and assessments to align with 21st century skills;
3) Building partnerships to improve instruction, make learning relevant to the real world and improve access to and utilization of technology;
4) Empowering teachers to influence more school-based decisions; and
5) Concentrating on a common vision for success.

Over the next two weeks, CTQ will run a three part blog series highlighting the insights of teachers, principals and administrators in successful redesigned and early college high schools in North Carolina.  The voices of these educators and related recommendations will focus on how specific working condition interventions can improve 1) rigor; 2) relevance and 3) relationships.

Considering Recent State Education Scorecards

The Center for American Progress and US Chamber of Commerce recently released education scorecards ranking all 50 states on nine factors.

The good news is that CAP and the Chamber have focused attention on a set of critical factors that matter for measuring educational excellence in the 21st Century.  The report grades states on:
1. Academic Achievement
2. Academic Achievement of Low-income and Minority Students
3. Return On Investment
4. Truth In Advertising About Student Proficiency
5. Rigor of Standards
6. Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
7. 21st Century Teaching Force
8. Flexibility in Management and Policy
9. Data Quality

The report is considering the right issues with an eye toward the future and whether or not all students are being prepared to succeed in the 21st Century.  While the report gets the issues right, it falls regrettably short on the attempt to accurately measure the topics.

For example, the report is spot in its diagnosis of needs for teaching quality.  The report reads, “Dramatic increases in student learning will require better teacher preparation programs, well-designed professional development opportunities, good working conditions, and the creation of nontraditional teaching paths.”

But then the actual measurements for the “21st Century Teaching Force” are only tangentially related to the teaching quality factors that matter most.  From a diagnosis with great promise comes a measurement tool focused on 1) whether states require incoming teachers to pass basic skills tests; 2) whether they require high school teachers to pass subject knowledge tests; 3) whether states have alternative certification programs; and 4)  whether these programs require alternative route participants to demonstrate subject matter expertise.

Where is any consideration of the distribution of highly effective teachers, the professional development opportunities and working conditions the group so rightly mentioned as areas of need?  There are states taking tremendous steps to assess and respond to teacher working conditions across the country.  There are states making significant investments in recruitment and retention incentives to improve the distribution of teachers into traditionally hard-to-staff urban and rural schools.  Why not report on the progress of states on these important areas of teaching quality?

Instead the report remains narrowly focused on subject-matter expertise at the expense of a more nuanced measurement of whether states are making meaningful investments in teaching quality. 

While many organizations have become increasingly critical of the NCLB standards for “highly qualified” and most education stakeholders agree that highly qualified does not represent highly effective, the CEP/Chamber report builds a TQ rating system that closely mirrors the NCLB TQ provisions.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Ed Sector Half Right on Teacher Professionalism

On February 20th, The Education Sector released, 'Eight for 2008: Education Ideas for the Next President.'

The most important of the eight ideas is 2) American teachers deserve a New Deal that treats them like true professionals.  The spirit of the idea is absolutely aligned with what needs to be done to support and improve the teaching profession in this country.   And most of the recommendations for action would represent positive steps to build the profession.

But the biggest problem is that the entire Ed Sector plan for “treating educators like professionals” is created with no mention of how educators themselves could contribute to, inform and buy into any of the proposed strategies.  We absolutely need to pay teachers differently based on outstanding performance – demonstrated with multiple measures.  We absolutely need to provide additional incentives for teaching in hard-to-staff schools and subject areas.  We absolutely need greater investments in mentoring, induction, peer review processes and school leadership training.  These recommendations from Ed Sector certainly represent part of treating educators like professionals, but creating these strategies in concert with our best and brightest educators is an equally essential element of professionalism that will prove necessary for any of these reforms to succeed.

Ed Sector is right that TQ dollars should not continue to go toward only class size reduction and traditional professional development.  They are correct that some of the proposed reforms represent a hard sell with teacher unions.  But reform-oriented union interests will not be “won over” by funding as Ed Sector supposes.  Union interests and broad overall teacher support can only be won over if and when the proposed strategies for preparing, developing, evaluating and compensating teachers are effective and represent the realities of teaching in the field.

For example, CTQ is currently working with a representative national team of highly accomplished teachers to hone in on the advantages and disadvantages of using different professional compensation models, defining how different models are most likely to recruit and retain accomplished teachers—including teachers for low performing, hard-to-staff schools in both urban and rural settings—and how to best use a variety of student learning results to validly and reliably support school improvement, teacher learning and professionalism.

These educators will not “fight tooth and nail against differential pay,” these exemplary teachers will fight hard for compensation systems that accurately reflect real teaching ability and reward teachers accordingly.  And there are tremendous educators across the country  with essential insights for improving and implementing every reform strategy proposed by Education Sector.  The key is that reforms are undertaken with quality educators and not done unto educators as often proposed by policy wonks.

Finally, Education Sector should also consider two other essential reforms to throw into their TQ reform mix.  Any discussion of recruiting and retaining more effective teachers in challenging schools must include a hard look on the increasingly national movement to assess and improve working conditions for teachers (http://www.teachingquality.org/twc/whereweare.htm).

And Ed Sector should support improvements to all types of teacher preparation, not only the alternative routes to the profession which they favor.  We should recognize that the greatest variance in the quality of preparation exists within respective routes into teaching and not across – a fact where both sides of the traditional vs. alternative preparation debate can and should agree: http://www.letsgetitright.org/blog/2007/02/more_unexpected_synergy.html

Posted by Scott Emerick

Recognizing Excellence in Teacher Working Conditions

Analysis of teacher working conditions data from across the country provides compelling evidence that teacher working conditions are student learning conditions and also have a significant affect on teacher turnover.  School leaders that can empower teachers, create safe school environments and develop supportive, trusting climates will be successful in promoting student learning. 

While the cumulative research evidence from working condition initiative across the country is significant, it is equally important to document and disseminate best practices from schools that get working conditions right and support teachers with environments conducive to success for educators and students.

Last Thursday, Governor Easley recognized 10 schools for excellence in both teacher working conditions and student achievement by naming them Real DEAL (Dedicated Educators Administrators and Learners) schools. 

In addition to a full report for the state detailing six primary findings and recommending four specific actions to improve working conditions Governor Easley and TWC initiative partners also released a new interactive website profiling these aforementioned North Carolina Real DEAL schools from across the state.  Of the 1,985 schools in the state that reached the minimum response rate (40 percent) necessary to have valid working conditions data, these schools represent the very best examples of how school conditions can support educational excellence.

For example, a recent editorial in the Star News Online recommends that schools and educators visit Parsley Elementary school in New Hanover County to see how positive working conditions are helping educators teach and students learn at a high performing school.

Educators and education stakeholders should follow the advice of the editorial and look to Parsley Elementary and other Real DEAL award winners and finalists for strategies and practices to improve working conditions.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Teaching on Film

The January 19th edition of the New York Times contained a provocative op-ed piece on the movie Freedom Writers, and more generally the crop of teacher as savior/martyr movies that Hollywood seems so fond of. The author, Tom Moore, is a 10th grade history teacher at a public school in the Bronx, which based on his writing, could very well serve as the set for next year’s touching teacher movie. But as Moore so eloquently explains, teaching is not easily translated into cinema, and Hollywood directors and the popular audiences they feed miss the big picture of teaching.

We all know the scene and the plot. We see big-screen teachers shed tears as they contemplate whether they can reach their students, while sacrificing any glimmer of a personal life; we see students transform from indifferent observers of classroom absurdities to suddenly eloquent social commentators virtually overnight; and we see their instructors for one year at the most largely contained within the walls of their insular classrooms.

What we don’t see are the less-than-superlative in-service meetings, hours of grading and IEP write-ups that steal away slim “free time;” what we don’t see are students whose crippling lack of basic skills disables them from writing (and thinking) critically; and we don’t see the slow and steady development of expert teachers over years of experience, trial and – yes – even failure at times.

But this is after all the movies, and we American audiences have shown with our box office receipts that we like happy endings and clean plots without too many nuances. The problem is that teaching and learning are inherently complex activities. This is why education needs an alternative to cinematic history, a repository of teachers in action that – over time – may help to counteract popular misconceptions about what actually occurs in a classroom. Ultimately, this type of resource could open the eyes of policymakers about teaching realities and provide educators with resources for furthering their own practice and professional growth.

Many organizations, including our own Center for Teaching Quality, create a wide range of publications about matters related to teaching. However, when was the last time the public, or even most educators themselves, had the opportunity to see an expert teacher in action? When can policymakers view the classroom as it exists in reality, instead of through the glossy lens of mass media?

While written publications can help spread important commentary and data, they can’t compete with the experience of actually seeing phenomenal teaching and learning. As new tools and technologies emerge, educational research institutions and school themselves should utilize these resources to open a window into the classroom and encourage transformative educational policies. The video libraries at the George Lucas Educational Fund and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform are wonderful starting points for this work, but we still have a long way to go if we are to replace the image of a breathless, tear-stained Hilary Swank with real-life examples of the passion and expertise of teacher leaders.

Posted by Alice Williams

NCTQ Database Makes News

NCTQ recently made news by releasing its new database of collective bargaining agreements for the 50 largest school districts in the country.

The database currently provides users with access to searchable full text of teacher contracts, salary schedules, and annual calendars.  In the future, NCTQ says the database will also include access to information about teacher benefits, dismissals, grievances and class size.

Greg Toppo of USA Today ran a story about the database on January 4, 2007, including reactions from NEA and AFT representatives.  NEA and AFT comments amounted to warnings about potential misuse of the database if users fail to recognize the complexities involved in collective bargaining arrangements, such as the balancing of individual district negotiations with local or state law requirements.  Teachers’ already-stretched schedules may now have to make room for Sally’s mom inquiring why Lazy County teachers work an hour less per day than their colleagues in Productive County, when the issue is actually settled by local law.

Eduwonk and others in the education blogosphere weighed in with predictably harsh criticism for what they see as the shortsighted nature of the response from both unions, and instead advocated transparency in all forms.

If anyone at NEA or AFT was or is denying the potential value of bringing greater transparency and public awareness to issues related to teachers’ work and collective bargaining agreements, than I would consider the criticism from Eduwonk and others well-grounded.  However, I think this would severely misrepresent the comments from both unions on the database. 

We should not assume that union warnings about the need for complete and comprehensive information regarding the rules governing teachers’ work somehow translate into a fight against the NCTQ database and its potential use.  The unions aren't asking to obscure teacher contracts, but rather to see them plainly as what they are: the end products of a complex collective bargaining process involving teacher unions, school administrations and school boards elected by the public.  Drawing conclusions from a cursory review of parts of a bargaining agreement does in fact present the potential for misunderstandings.  But recognizing this potential should not be considered an argument against the database or transparency as Eduwonk claims.  In fact just the opposite, it should represent a call for more transparency about the conditions in which teachers work and children learn.

I hope that Eduwonk and other education observers would recognize that more input and influence from teacher unions on such a database would be a tremendously positive step.  To its credit, NCTQ recognizes that “AFT and NEA have provided us with useful feedback and will continue to do so…. We believe that fostering positive relationships with unions and district leaders is essential to the strength and integrity of this database.”

CTQ also hopes that NCTQ will consider and incorporate lessons learned from other ongoing and related data campaigns to present an even fuller portrait of daily classroom activity.  For example, The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) is a national, collaborative effort to encourage and support state policymakers to improve the collection, availability, and use of high-quality education data, and implement state longitudinal data systems to improve student achievement.  And CTQ’s own efforts to document teacher working conditions, with statewide surveys of teachers, sheds another bright light on the actual conditions of work in the schools governed by the contracts and provisions highlighted in the NCTQ database. 

NCTQ makes an important distinction that their database focuses on the policies in place and not practices in schools.  Our work picks up where the NCTQ database leaves off, by considering the conditions teachers actually practice under every day, in terms of facilities and resources, professional development, leadership, time and empowerment.  We believe our working conditions research is another important resource to consider along with the emerging NCTQ database.

Assessing Needs and Resources to Create More Time for Teachers

Creating Non-instructional Time for Elementary School Teachers:
Strategies from Schools in North Carolina – Part 3 in the Series

The problem of finding time for teachers is considerable as evidenced by working conditions data collected across the state (www.northcarolinatwc.org).  The data indicate that more than half of North Carolina educators receive three hours or less of non-instructional time in an average week.  The problem is particularly acute at the elementary level, where 63 percent of teachers receive less than three hours per week.

Acknowledging the difficulties in creating school schedules that incorporate sufficient non-instructional time, the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Advisory Board, in collaboration with CTQ, recently convened a meeting of nine elementary school principals to learn how they create and protect non-instructional time for teachers.  These nine schools were selected based on responses to the time-related items on the 2006 Teacher Working Conditions survey.

This third blog installment of the series considers the way high performing schools assess their needs and available resources for creating more time for teachers.

The nine principals stressed that schools are not alike in their needs and access to resources.  Therefore, to create the most effective schedule for their school, they identified teachers’ most pressing time needs and took inventory of the time and personnel available during the instructional day.   

While the needs of teachers varied by school, as well as within schools, a common theme emerged -- the desire for large blocks of uninterrupted time.  One principal commented, “What teachers really want is large uninterrupted blocks of time, some sanity in their schedule so they are not pulled in so many different directions, and some planning time every day.”

A common approach to creating large blocks of time was to provide a duty free lunch backed by the physical activity period and specials classes.  Schools with full-time specials teachers are often able to use those teachers to provide individual teacher planning time as well as collaborative time for grade level teachers.  Schools with half time specials teachers must be more creative.  These schools could not rely solely on specials teachers to provide non-instructional time and duty-free lunch for teachers.  They used administrators, teacher assistants, lunchroom monitors, and community members.  One principal, who regularly covers classes for teachers said, “I tell the teachers that there is nothing I won’t do that I would ask you to do, inclusive of teaching classes if that’s what you need to collaborate with your colleagues.”  Teacher assistants were used primarily to cover the lunch period and the physical activity.  One elementary school brings in members of the community for monthly programs for students.  These programs increase community involvement with the school and provide additional time for grade level teachers to collaborate. 

Another elementary school needed more grade level planning time.  To create that time, specials classes were blocked to provide three days of grade level planning as well as one day of staff development with the instructional specialist.  For six years, the staff have worked together to continually modify and improve the school schedule to meet teachers’ needs for sufficient time to plan and collaborate.

We know that high-performing schools are finding ways to involve teachers in scheduling decisions, to ensure that planning time is used efficiently and to assess a range of resources and supports with the potential to create and improve instructional time.  The considerable challenge remains taking these practices to scale in schools across North Carolina and the nation.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Principals Finding Time for Teachers – Part Two

As educators head toward some well deserved time off during the thanksgiving holiday, we thought it was a good time to revisit our ongoing series on strategies for principals to find additional non-instructional time for teachers.

We recently introduced the series, with a description of how high performing schools across North Carolina are using teachers to help develop the schedule for the school day. 

The problem of finding this time for teachers is considerable as evidenced by working conditions data collected across the state (www.northcarolinatwc.org).  The data indicate that more than half of North Carolina educators receive three hours or less of non-instructional time in an average week.  The problem is particularly acute at the elementary level, where 63 percent of teachers receive less than three hours per week.

In our focus group with nine elementary principals from schools across the state with the highest scores on non-instructional time measures, a consistent theme was the importance of the quality of the non-instructional time that was available.  Principals said it was absolutely necessary to “develop mechanisms that ensure non-instructional time is used effectively.”

Principals said they work to ensure that time is used to improve instruction and support student learning.  In one large urban district, the quality of planning time has become a more important issue for teachers than the amount of planning time available. As the principal explained, “We have a lot of planning time because of available specialists, but the question we asked is whether we were using this planning time effectively. We put teachers into groups and asked if the planning time is actually effective for helping improve student learning. We attend meetings to make sure that teachers are really talking about students during planning time. We are trying to create more meaningful dialogue among teachers about how they are working with and reaching students.”

Other principals attempt to provide more structure and guidance to teachers so that they can more effectively direct their own planning meetings. One principal said, “There needs to be some guidance on planning time ... and we (principals) need to do more to help ensure that time has value.” Yet, the principals described the challenge of bringing some structure and accountability to planning time without stifling the potential for innovative and authentic meeting time. Principals want a degree of knowledge about how teachers are using their non-instructional time but also wish to respect and honor the professionalism of teachers.

One principal said that he does not directly monitor the progress of meetings but does have an expectation for deliverables that help ensure quality. He reported, “We have two things that every teacher must do in planning: keep a notebook to keep track of what happens in meetings and follow a meeting agenda. The key to success in planning time for teachers is to be organized. We expect teachers to have their stated objectives in an agenda ... for every meeting.”

Posted by Scott Emerick

Principals Finding Time for Teachers

The Salt Lake Tribute recently ran a very important and insightful piece regarding the extreme lack of time that many schools and teachers have in attempting to reach increasingly high academic standards. The lack of instruction time and planning time for teachers is becoming a consistent theme in all the states where the Center for Teaching Quality is currently conducting Teacher Working Conditions initiatives.

Acknowledging the difficulties in creating school schedules that incorporate sufficient non-instructional, the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Advisory Board, in collaboration with CTQ, recently convened a meeting of nine elementary school principals to learn how they create and protect non-instructional time for teachers.  These nine schools were selected based on responses to the time-related items on the 2006 Teacher Working Conditions survey.

The insights of these highly successful school leaders regarding strategies that work for creating time for teachers will be shared with schools across the state in a formal report later this year.  But I wanted to use this blog to share a series of the most essential themes from the conversation over the next few weeks.   

One of the most consistent themes was the value of involving teachers to develop the school schedule.

In each of the nine participating schools, principals pointed to the essential role that teachers have played in creating and refining the schedule.  While principals use a variety of mechanisms to collect the input of teachers, they recognized teachers as the most qualified individuals to inform the development of the school schedule.  One principal explained, “It’s all about listening to the teachers and the plans they bring forward because they are going to come up with the best plans available for using and creating time.”

For some schools, the School Improvement Team (SIT) was the primary mechanism for giving teachers a voice in the process of creating time.  Principals indicated that the SIT has helped to define and set expectations for the amount of planning time available to teachers, including the amount of collaborative available.  One principal explained, “In our SIT, we look with teachers at the areas we want to target.  We saw the need for more grade level planning and decided that all teachers need at least one hour per day of planning time.”  Another principal reported that the impetus for their schedule changes and current model for planning time came directly from a young teacher presenting a new schedule to the SIT.

The results of engaging teachers in creating the school schedule have been tremendous.  One administrator talked about how the teachers have created additional time without additional resources, “We have more planning time secured now than we ever had.  And, it did not come through additional resources.  It is simply on the good planning of teachers.”

Other principals have lightened their work load by engaging teachers in scheduling by seeing that teachers assume responsibilities for schedules that most directly influence their own work.  One principal stated, “As an administrator, I don’t do any scheduling.  They [teachers] sit down and work out their own schedule.  We work it, and work it again, and sometimes have to work it again.” 

At one participating elementary school, teachers are encouraged to attend School Improvement Team meetings and present their ideas for improving the school.  The current school schedule was presented at an SIT meeting by a young PE teacher.  In accordance with her proposal, the school adopted a 4+1 block schedule that provided a 45 minute planning period for every teacher. 

There are lots of ways to engage teachers in the scheduling process, the lesson for school leaders is to make sure they can find some way to do so that makes sense for their school context.

Over the next few weeks, we will discuss more themes regarding time which emerged from our conversations with these talented principals.

Posted by Scott Emerick

NCLB Reauthorization and Teaching Quality

The Alliance for Excellent Education recently held their highly successful annual high school policy conference to consider the Federal role in supporting much needed high school reform across the country.

The conference benefited from an impressive line-up on experts related to teaching quality, turnaround schools, data use, and standards and accountability.  Have a look at highlights from the conference here.

As one might expect, the most significant trends for teaching quality at the high school level are related to the pending reauthorization of NCLB.  From all accounts, it appears that NCLB will take center stage early in 2007 when the new Congress makes reauthorization one of its first major orders of business.

One promising trend for experts and Congressional staffers present at the Alliance meeting last week was a nod toward the possibility of reconsidering both the standards and the nomenclature of the “highly qualified” teaching requirements of NCLB.  While many observers have pointed toward the inherent value of trying to create a minimum bar for teaching quality and applying it with equity for teachers serving all students across the country, there has been increasing recognition and outcry that the bar created by NCLB is not sufficiently well-defined or adequately high for actually improving the quality of teaching in our nation’s classrooms.  The good news is that even supporters of NCLB seem to recognize that the “highly qualified” designation of the law does not relate to “highly effective” classroom practice and there seems to be potential for considerable movement on this front in the reauthorization process.

Another potentially promising trend from the conference regarding teaching quality was the increasing level of awareness and agreement on the extreme value and need for high quality mentoring and induction practices as a means for stemming teacher turnover and dramatically improving instructional practice of novice educators.  From the MetLife survey of educators, to every panelist on the Alliance’s teaching quality panel, a basic agreement on the need to bolster and improve mentoring and induction seemed a consistent theme. 

However, there was limited conversation about how NCLB reauthorization might do more to ensure, or at least incent and support more comprehensive and effective mentoring efforts.  The law currently calls for alternative route teachers to enroll in “high quality” mentoring efforts, but does precious little to define quality elements of mentoring efforts or do anything to monitor and respond to the effectiveness of induction efforts in place across the country. 

We know what works for providing induction that actually improves teacher retention and student learning and there seems to be consensus that investments in such efforts are cost effective means for improving teaching quality and education outcomes.  NCLB reauthorization should include more resources and support for implementing effective new teacher induction, more teachers (including traditionally prepared and alternative route teachers) should be included as required participants, more must be done to assess whether educators are participating in induction efforts with quality program elements, and the law must be given more teeth for enforcing standards of quality induction.

These resource implications for mentoring and induction should be considered within the context of current Title II expenditures under NCLB’s teaching quality provisions.  If the Feds have a limited understanding of how Title II funds are being spent by school districts and most all districts admit that the vast majority of said funding is not being applied toward any innovative teaching quality recruitment and retention efforts, then some fundamental questions regarding existing funding structures, oversight and guidance must be answered during the reauthorization process.

Posted by Scott Emerick

School Facilities, Resources and Safety

The recent wave of tragic and deadly school shootings has understandably set off calls for reforms to school security measures.  The most dramatic response might have come from Wisconsin Republican Rep. Frank Lasee who suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel with guns as a safety measure and a deterrent.

Lasee plans to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons.  But before states consider such dramatic action in the name of improving school security, policymakers will do well to listen to educators about school safety concerns and respond in the most appropriate manner.

I have written in this space previously regarding our teacher working conditions effort in states across the country.  Among other measures like time, empowerment, leadership and professional development, the working conditions survey also considers school facilities and resources and related safety concerns.

Among other questions, the survey asks educators if “Teachers work in a school environment that is safe.”  Overall, the vast majority of teachers in most states agree that they work in a school environment that is safe, including 85 percent in Kansas; 84 percent in Arizona; 83 percent in North Carolina; 77 percent in Clark County (NV) and 69 percent in Ohio.  The fact that more than two-thirds of educators in all participating states agree their school is safe represents a positive trend, but the power of the data is having individual school reports on all of these measures.  Officials should begin immediate conversations with faculty in any school where less than a critical mass of teachers agree that their school is a safe place to work.

Regardless of whether states, districts and schools have access to or even interest in our working conditions data, the most significant need remains finding ways to actually listen to educators and students themselves about the safety of their own school.  The people most likely to understand when school designs and school policies are not conducive to safety are the students and adults who spend every day in the building.

It is understandable that observers want dramatic action to help protect students and educators; however, as is the case with most areas of education, we must do much more to ensure that those actions are informed by those who are most immediately effected by, and most deeply understand education and safety reforms – educators themselves.

The irrational and unpredictable nature of individuals capable of such evil and violence in the world makes complete protection from the cruel intentions of outside intruders nearly impossible.  A survey of teachers and subsequent conversations in schools where many educators do not feel safe will admittedly not protect every school from every potential act of violence.  But it does offer a logical and rational starting place for understanding and responding to safety concerns. 

Teachers can not teach and students can not learn in environments where they do not feel safe.  It is our responsibility to take every step possible to make educators and students feel safe in school.  Would most educators feel safer in their school if they knew that some school personnel were carrying concealed weapons?  Rep. Lasee should ask and listen to educators themselves to find out.

Posted by Scott Emerick

Eduwonk Wrong on Teacher Turnover

In one of his blog postings today, Eduwonk badly underestimates the negative effect of teacher turnover in schools across the country.  Eduwonk writes, “in discussions about TFA and novice teachers in general, "churn" is considered an inherently bad thing in education, but is it? In many cases excessive churn surely disadvantages kids. But you do want some churn. People leaving a profession they decide, or someone else decides, they're ill-suited for is not necessarily a bad thing -- on the contrary.”

The comment might have a shred of truth to it, except that it fails to recognize the severity of teacher turnover problems facing urban and rural schools across the country.  Until teacher turnover is reduced to approach acceptable levels of “churn” experienced in other professions, any comment downplaying the significance of the problem does a severe disservice to schools.

According to 2004 NCTAF data, the annual teacher turnover rate is about 15.7 percent nationally versus about 11.9 percent for other professions.  But even this rate of teacher turnover would be much easier to deal with if it was spread out evenly across schools and districts.  In reality, we know that turnover rates in poor schools are about twice as high as rates in wealthier school districts (see data reference in this Alliance for Education Report)  The result is many school districts losing less than 10 percent of their teaching force, with high-poverty districts consistently losing more than 25 percent of teachers every year.  Keep in mind that all the reported data we see on teacher turnover is calculated at the district level and does not even account for teachers moving to schools within their current district.

The cost for this turnover is huge in terms of both financial loss and impact on student learning.  Considering the human resources dollars spent on hiring and placing new teachers, professional development investments made and induction costs incurred, even the most conservative estimates for teacher turnover come out at $4.9 billion dollars per year. 

The costs for student learning are even more troublesome than pure financial losses if we stop to consider the impact of losing one-quarter of the faculty every year.  What does the revolving door of having one-quarter of a teaching force leaving every year do the climate and culture in these high-poverty schools?  Maybe a bit of churn is expected and good for bringing new blood and ideas into a school and maybe it even helps remove some who are “ill-suited for the profession.”  But Eduwonk’s argument only holds water for schools across the country losing between 5 and 10 percent of their teachers annually. Otherwise, he is wrongly glazing over one of the most significant challenges to improving education.

And the second theme of the Eduwonk posting is that TFA is not contributing to this teacher turnover at higher rates than other pathways into teaching.  The argument here has nothing to do with the relative merits of TFA or the impact of program participants on student achievement, another argument for another day.  And it should be recognized that TFA has higher retention rates than many less effective alternative route programs in place across the country.  Sadly, teachers prepared at traditional schools of education are also not staying in the profession at rates needed to stem attrition either.  In North Carolina, more than half of all teachers prepared in the state are no longer in the classroom five years later.  This includes more than 60 percent of all lateral entry teachers that have left the profession within the first five years.  There has been a 250% increase in lateral entry in North Carolina over the past seven years.  And the state currently needs to hire more than 10,000 new teachers every year.  This is not solely because of lateral entry, but it can be credited largely to overall teacher turnover rates within the state (about 13 percent statewide).

Does TFA place talented young individuals in classrooms that might otherwise lack such an educator?  It absolutely does and we should recognize and appreciate it as such.  But does the program in anyway begin to address the chronic turnover problems plaguing low-income schools?  It absolutely does not.  Does it build the notion that teaching is a life-long career pursuit and more than a noble short-term public service effort?  It absolutely does not.  Observers will debate whether the TFA program, or others like it, have ever billed themselves as an answer to these problems.  But Eduwonk should not claim that TFA helps address these problems and solutions are still needed.    

The answers for addressing turnover include significant, comprehensive, and yes, costly investments to improve teacher preparation across the board in both traditional and alternative settings.  Massive improvements must also be made in compensating teachers based on truly accurate, and multiple, measures of how well they teach.  And most importantly, schools must commit to efforts for dramatically improving teacher working conditions.  Governor Easley has led North Carolina in an effort to better understand and respond to the working conditions that force teachers out of the classroom and many other states are now following suit in one of the most important trends for reducing teacher turnover.

Much more remains to be done to retain the teachers we need in the profession for the course of a career.  Yes it is a complex problem as Eduwonk recognizes, but any claim that teacher turnover currently stands at a necessary or acceptable level is simply wrong.

Posted by Scott Emerick

How (Smart and New) Education Platforms Could Win Elections

Seems everyone who is anyone in the education blogosphere has commented on HBO’s award-winning drama The Wire and this season’s focus on the experience of middle school boys in Baltimore’s inner-city public schools. From what I’ve seen so far, the show is certainly worth checking out and the Quick and the Ed is even running a weekly analysis of the show and its implications for education reform.

During a recent mayoral debate on the show, a third-party candidate makes zero political headway in attempting to focus on education during the debate.  Alex Russo at This Week in Education says it was “the most telling and dispiriting moment of the season.”  Russo says that while “Voters say they care about schools, but politicians know better. They care about their children's school -- about which they're often surprisingly satisfied as long as the school is orderly -- but not so much about schools and kids on the other side of town.”

Russo is correct that politicians and candidates on both sides of the aisle have failed to make any real political headway on education issues.  And he is equally correct in his assertion that while just about every poll ever conducted has voters listing “education” as a top priority and interest, rarely does this unflappable yet indistinguishable “support” for education ever translate into meaningful and collective political will with the potential to influence either policy or elections – at the local, state or national level.

However, I very much believe that this disconnect between the public’s interest in improving education and the severe lack of political response and/or consequences is most related to the inability of politicians to respond on the issue with reforms that matter most for improving schools.  This, coupled with a disturbing trend of politicians using education rhetoric that is far-removed from the public’s interests and experiences in schools explains the lack of meaningful political activity on education.  The public’s support for education is real.  We simply need candidates that distinguish themselves by running on education platforms which improve teaching quality in ways that matter for helping students learn and also matter to voters.

It would be hard for anyone in the Bush or Kerry camp to claim that either side made any real headway in the 2006 campaign on education, despite the fact that the election came on the heels of one of the most important federal education efforts in American history in No Child Left Behind.   But rhetoric continued to focus on questions about sufficient funding for NCLB, which the public understandably failed to fully understand.  Complicated questions regarding the implementation of NCLB teaching quality and adequate yearly progress provisions remain to be answered.  CTQ and others have published volumes of research regarding the potential of NCLB, and the remaining shortcomings for the law to ever achieve its laudable objectives of helping all students learn at high levels.  However, the vagaries of funding and implementation questions will never fully resonate with the public.  The public is left with limited understanding of the law, a sense of some need for improvements and nothing to ultimately change the way they vote or engage in their own respective school communities.

The message for politicians must relate to deep and sustainable investments in what matters most for improving schools – better supporting our nation’s teachers.  Teachers are consistently ranked among the most respected professions by the American public and the majority of voters say they would be willing to pay higher taxes to better support teachers.  Teaching quality is where we can find an intersection between what works in improving schools and what the public actually understands and supports.

The messages for a candidate should be:
* Regardless of whether a child is in a suburban, urban, rural, public or private school, the quality of the teacher in the classroom is the single most important factor for whether students learn. 

* We have simply not done enough to sufficiently prepare, support and compensate teachers to help all students learn at their highest levels.

* It is a national imperative to invest in teaching quality at levels that ensure students learn the relevant skills they need to compete in the 21st century global marketplace.

* We are listening to educators themselves across the country to develop solutions to improve teaching and learning in every school for every student.

Then the solutions and strategies for reaching these objectives will prove numerous and must change to meet local context.  But regardless of local circumstances, solutions will need to dramatically revise new teacher mentoring and induction efforts; teacher compensation models that accurately reflect the abilities and efforts of all educators ; improved working conditions that create environments where teachers can thrive; and opportunities for educators to grow into the profession and develop leadership abilities and responsibilities that dramatically improve their schools.  These efforts absolutely must be informed by those that know schools best, educators currently teaching in schools.  Teaching quality solutions are simply impossible without considerable input and real buy-in from educators themselves .

The process for teaching quality reform will remain admittedly complex, will take a long time to implement and must account for the unique challenges of each local education community.  But the political message for the work in reforming schools is not nearly as complicated – Teachers matter most for improving schools and we must do much more to support the profession that makes all others possible. 

Posted by Scott Emerick

Housing to Keep Teachers

Imagine the pleasure I felt after recently conducting teacher focus groups with a fast growing public school district on the east coast and hearing that most teachers wanted to work and stay in the system.  But then feeling like I just walked into a thunderstorm on the 4th of July, I heard that teachers in this school system who want to stay, particularly many new teachers, simply cannot afford to live here.  During one of the focus groups, a teacher commented, “The cost of living is so much that if you want to work in this district you have to live further out and you have to fight the traffic.”

The inability of teachers to live near their place of employment is, unfortunately, not a new phenomenon.  However, the lack of affordable and available housing is a serious challenge for both rural and urban districts.  Teacher recruitment and retention strategies are much more complex than some solutions that only address financial incentives, such as pay raises, signing bonuses, and salary supplements. 

The News & Observer highlighted the effort of Hertford County, a rural district in North Carolina, which deeded nine acres to the Hertford Education Foundation to build 24 apartments with a no-interest loan from the State Employees Credit Union.  James Eure, chairman of the Foundation Partners for Hertford County Schools, said, “Hertford’s problem isn’t high rents, but lack of apartments that would appeal to teachers out of school.”  Unlike rural schools, urban districts do not lack available housing, rather they lack affordable housing. 

Just this year, New York City, began offering housing subsidies of $14,600 to attract new math, science and special education teachers to work in the city's most challenging schools.  In a recent Edweek article, Elizabeth Arons reported that by late July, the district found 95 qualified applicants for the 100 positions it expected to fill under the housing program for this school year. In Clark County, Nevada school officials will use land it owns not to build new schools, but for developing affordable housing communities for its teachers.

Teacher recruitment and retention is hardly ever about easy solutions.  Innovative housing programs are needed to ameliorate some of the difficulty of staffing schools, and cannot be left out of packages that address financial incentives and working conditions. 

Posted by Hadiyah Muhammad