Kamis, 09 Februari 2012
Focus On Developing Teachers, Not Simply Measuring Them
-----------------------------------------------
Amid the current flurry of state policy reform activity around teaching, I've been thinking about what's missing. My conclusion: A focus on teachers as learners....
----------------------------------------------
To read more, visit the TOP-Ed blog post.
Kamis, 19 Januari 2012
Baking Bread Without The Yeast
The opposite problem -- a lack of yeast -- is present in Michelle Rhee's recent op-ed in Education Week. In it, she limits her call to "rethink" teaching policy to "how we assign, retain, evaluate, and pay educators" and to "teacher-layoff and teacher-tenure policies." (And she casts the issue of retention purely as one about so-called "last-in, first-out" employment policies rather than about school leadership, collaboration or working conditions.)
The utter absence of any focus or mention of teacher development either in this op-ed or in her organization's (StudentsFirst) expansive policy agenda leaves me wondering if Rhee believes that teachers are capable of learning and improving. If Rhee indeed does believe that new teacher induction and career-long professional development have value, then why does she consistently ignore it in her public statements and in her organization's strategic priorities? The alternative, of course, is a view that teachers are static beings, incapable of improvement. They are either born effective or ineffective. "Mr. Anderson's value-added score is an 18, thus he is an ineffective teacher and should be fired because his inability to teach cannot be ameliorated." We, of course, know this not to be the case. This alternative view also involves a strategy of simply trying to hire and fire our way to success. From research and international exemplars, I think most of us understand such a narrow approach to be ineffectual, albeit politically attractive in some quarters, especially among the Republican governors that Rhee is assisting exclusively.
High-quality development opportunities for teachers are like the yeast that helps the bread to rise. Comprehensive teacher induction has been shown to accelerate new teacher effectiveness and increase their students' learning. Likewise, personalized and purposeful professional development also can strengthen teaching skills and classroom impact.
It seems to me that a stated policy goal should be to ensure that as many as teachers as possible successfully pass educator evaluations being developed across the nation. Too many advocates such as Rhee appear to be eager to fire more teachers rather than make investments and restructure schools to maximize their effectiveness. A critical role for policy then would be to re-define teacher development in a way that raises the quality bar and invests public dollars in programs and approaches shown to have the desired impact on teaching and learning. Isn't that something we all can agree with?
Teachers are tremendously influential -- and we should do everything we can to unleash their full power. On teacher effectiveness, I'm unwilling to settle for half a loaf.
Rabu, 12 Januari 2011
rheeForm
Proposed education reforms that do not imagine that current and beginning teachers can become more effective while on the job should be considered null and void. This postulation, if accepted, would direct Michelle Rhee's new StudentsFirst agenda to the nearest paper shredder.
To be blunt, it is just plain naive and short-sighted to think that we can maximize teacher effectiveness purely by firing more teachers and marginally changing the cadre of incoming teacher candidates. Is supporting and strengthening the teaching practice of our veteran educators not worthy of our focus and investment?
StudentsFirst's "Elevate Teaching" policy objectives are limited to evaluating teachers and principals, reforming teacher certification laws, reforming teacher compensation, "exiting" teachers, and eliminating teacher tenure. Specifically, the objectives are:
- State law must require evaluation that is based substantially on student achievement. Evaluation tools should measure at least half of a teacher's performance based on student achievement, using a value-added growth model. The other aspects of a teacher's evaluations should derive from measures that align with student results, including high-quality observations and student evaluations of teacher practice.
- To avoid all teachers being ranked as effective without meaningful assessment, evaluations must anchor effectiveness around a year's worth of growth.
- State law must require principal evaluation that is based on student achievement and effective management of teachers. Districts should evaluate at least half of a school administrator's performance based on student achievement, and the remaining portion should mostly relate to their ability to attract, retain, manage, and develop excellent teachers.
- State law should give districts the autonomy to develop teacher evaluation systems apart from the collective bargaining process. Evaluations should be a matter of district policy.
- States must reduce legal barriers to entry in the teaching profession, including complicated credentialing or certification schemes that rely upon factors that do not clearly correlate with teacher effectiveness.
- State law should not be structured to penalize districts financially for recruiting teachers from alternate certification programs.
- States should adopt a clear process by which alternative certification programs are authorized, continually evaluated, and decommissioned if not producing high-quality educators.
- State law must facilitate digital learning by allowing certification for online instruction and modifying or eliminating mandatory "seat time" laws.
- State law must require pay structures based primarily on effectiveness. Teacher contracts must allow for individual performance-based pay.
- State law and district policy should not mandate higher salaries for master's degrees or additional education credits.
- State law should require staffing decisions (transfers, reductions, placements) be based on teacher effectiveness.
- State laws must prohibit forced placements and allow district control in staffing. Districts should ensure that teacher contracts require mutual consent placements. Districts should have the flexibility to offer defined grace periods, severance, or other options for teachers who have effective ratings, but do not find a mutually agreeable placement. Teachers rated ineffective should be exited from the system.
- State law should not grant, implicitly or directly, tenure or permanent contracts for PK–12 education professionals.
To keep it brief, please read some of my most relevant past posts arguing why a focus on teacher support and development makes sense and why it should be at the centerpiece of every education reform agenda.
- Teacher Quality: What You Need To Know
- Adding Value To The Value-Added Debate
- Positive Effects Of Comprehensive Teacher Induction
- State Teacher Policies Suck!
- Race To The Top: Under The Hood
- Research: Attracting New Teachers To Urban Schools
- Thoughts On Equitable Teacher Distribution
- Measurement Is Not Destiny
- Does Mentoring Improve New Teachers?
Rabu, 24 Maret 2010
You're Fired!
Where is the discussion about the need to support teachers to become more effective through improved preparation, stronger induction and mentoring, and job-embedded professional development? What about more than a throwaway line about the role of teacher evaluation systems to provide constructive feedback to help teachers identify strengths and weaknesses and help them become more effective?
I don't mean to pick on CAP too harshly, for some of its prior reports (such as this one) approached the teacher effectiveness issue more comprehensively and accurately. But if all we do is focus on firing teachers, without addressing other elements of teacher quality policy, we're going to dig ourselves into a hole that we'll never crawl out of. While stricter license and tenure requirements and more meaningful teacher evaluation systems might weed out truly ineffective teachers (a small minority), it won't do anything to help the vast majority teachers become more successful without a clear focus on individualized teacher development.
Another recent example of oversimplification and the repetitive 'teachers suck' mantra appeared on the pages of Newsweek masquerading as an actual news article. (I'm glad I canceled my subscription years ago.) The authors pontificated that, "Nothing, then, is more important than hiring good teachers and firing bad ones." Um, OK. Nothing, huh?
We need a broader vision here, folks, along the lines that the Obama Administration has articulated in its initial ESEA blueprint. It is not as simple as just firing more teachers. Columns like these do not convey the complexity and comprehensiveness of the policies, practices and implementation that is needed to truly improve teacher effectiveness across the board. They simplify the problem and cast the responsibility for educational failure solely on teachers.
Speaking of balance, here are more of my thoughts....
UPDATE: Eduwonk and Claus von Zastrow make good points on this issue -- as does Diane Ravitch (here and here). Bill Maher offers his own 'new rule, raising the important issue of parental involvement.
Selasa, 02 Februari 2010
Winners & Losers
Claus von Zastrow issues a wise caution regarding federal funding for professional development (UPDATE: as well as a second thought).
The New York Times's Sam Dillon and the National Journal's Eliza Krigman (hat tip: Eduwonk) have the scoop on implications for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
The budget is just at the first step and Congress has yet to have its say. Likewise, I wouldn't bet on reauthorization this election year (yep, congressional elections are only nine months away!). 2011? 2012? Anyone? UPDATE: Here is what the Education Experts at the National Journal's blog think.
Jumat, 29 Januari 2010
State Teacher Policies Suck!
While it is easy to poke holes at some of the National Council on Teacher Quality's seemingly ideologically-driven work (such as, I believe, its excessive focus on teacher pensions), much of its state policy analysis has a strong foothold in research and is one of the most comprehensive and regular analyses of state teacher policies. Like it or not, there is an increasing alignment between the NCTQ's scorecard and that employed by the U.S. Department of Education in the Race to the Top competition. The entire report should not be dismissed because of who they are (or are perceived to be). States should feel challenged by some of the analysis within the Yearbook and should consider looking to the "best practice" states identified under some of the metrics.
Here's a brief summary of the report's findings:
- State teacher policies are "broken, outdated and inflexible."
- Evaluation and tenure policies take too little or no account of classroom effectiveness. 47 states "allow tenure to be awarded virtually automatically."
- States are "complicit" on keeping ineffective teachers in classrooms. Only 1 state separates dismissal policy for poor performance from criminal and moral violations.
- Few states provide robust enough alternate routes into teaching.
- States' requirements for elementary teacher, middle-school teacher and special education teacher preparation are inadequate.
- There is too little accountability for teacher preparation in state policy. Only 5 states set minimum standards for teacher preparation program performance.
- States "cling to outmoded compensation structures," including the single salary schedule.
I won't beat this horse any further today, but check out these past posts for greater substance on what I'm getting at here with regard to the inadequate focus on the developmental needs of new and veteran teachers:
Race To The Top: Under The Hood
RttT: Redefining Teacher Effectiveness
Measurement Is Not Destiny
In other news, experts are doubting the likelihood of a 2010 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so these state teacher policies with an added dose of Race to the Top reforms is likely to be where it's at over the next year plus.
Rabu, 17 Juni 2009
Thoughts on Equitable Teacher Distribution
Why are our least experienced professionals consistently being handed the most challenging teaching assignments? Because of the way seniority is rewarded in teacher contracts. More often that not, union contracts dictate that veteran teachers get first dibs on available positions within a school system. As a result, when given the chance, teachers often choose to transfer to more desirable, low-poverty schools. As a result of these transfers, students with the greatest educational need are time and time again taught by the least experienced teachers.
This will require a long-term commitment to systemic reform including investing in low-poverty schools to make them more attractive teaching placements and funding incentives to initially attract experienced and, we hope, higher quality teachers to low-income schools. Will this require dollars beyond what we have? Not necessarily. Federal law already provides schools with money to pay for this. It's just that the funds typically go to reduce class sizes or provide professional development for teachers instead - strategies that have mixed results. Some of these funds should be redirected to pay for incentives drawing teachers into high-poverty schools. This is also a great use of stimulus money.
Should some federal Title II dollars be used for recruitment incentives? Sure - but let's not take that idea too far. The distribution problem is one of retention as much as it is one of recruitment. Title II funding should and can be used for high-quality professional development and high-quality induction and mentoring focused on improving teaching practice – efforts directed at making teachers more effective that simultaneously improve retention and self-efficacy. This legislation, sponsored by U.S. Senator Jack Reed of
Senin, 23 Maret 2009
Axe-Wielding Policymakers
According to this article from the Southeast Missourian, in the version of the state budget passed by the House, funding (currently $15 million) for teacher professional development and mentoring would not just be trimmed -- but completely ELIMINATED.
Want to know more about why teacher development is important? Check out these resources:
Kamis, 12 Maret 2009
Wacky Wednesday (Yes, I Know It's Thursday)
Judging from a new report by the National Staff Development Council, though, the district's elementary teachers have been out front in the United States with their in-school training. According to the report, American teachers spend about 80 percent of their time teaching and only about 20 percent on those other things that teachers do -- planning lessons, talking to other teachers and improving their skills. Seldom do they engage in as much at-school training as the teachers in Laramie County 2.Now, given that so much professional development in American schools is of the spray 'n' pray, one-size-fits-all variety, skepticism is most certainly warranted. But given this evidence that the Laramie district's approach to PD was of much higher quality, it is unfortunate that the local school board took the easy route out of this PR challenge by eliminating this sanctioned time for educators.
In most European and Asian countries, meanwhile, teacher training is commonly part of the regular school week. Teachers in those countries typically spend less than half of their working time teaching, according to the council's report. Yet the students in many of those countries, who spend less time in class than American students, outscore their American counterparts in math and science, the report said.
It seems to me that the middle ground to this false choice -- between eliminating time during the school day for teacher to participate in professional development or cutting learning time for kids -- would be to lengthen the school day -- or the school year. It's an idea that Education Secretary Arne Duncan has discussed. A school superintendent in Mississippi has even proposed year-round schools.
The National Staff Development Council report can be found here.
And here is some good analysis here on the length of the school year from Kevin Carey at the Quick and The Ed.