What if "improving teacher quality" isn't THE answer?
July 31, 2008 Edition, From Mike's Desk
Is this the summer of school reform discontent, when the core assumptions of the past decade are reexamined? Are assumptions such as those that gave birth to the "Washington Consensus," ... More
7/31/2008 12:38 PM by Debbie Potts
You left out a very important issue -- Over my 30+ years I have observed many teachers who could not succeed in a school (community) that was a departure from the type of community in which he/she was raised and went to school. This was true no matter which way the change went - the inner city person moving to the 'burbs or the suburban person trying to make in a small rural school district or the rural small towner moving to the city. No matter how successful a teacher might be in a school with a "comfort" level that fits that teacher it is not necessarily true that that same teacher will be successful in a "foreign" environment.
7/31/2008 02:13 PM by rick nelson
Yes, Mike. Businesses upgrade their workfoce by upgrading the workforce they have.
Urban Richmond VA simply taught K-6 teachers how to teach reading scientifically, plus bought them Reading First-type textbooks, and test scores for the cohort that started the program in First Grade rose to above the state average in reading -- and every other subject.
In 1999, urban Sacramento CA gave their teachers Saxon Math books -- the only type at the time that included substantial math COMPUTATION, and scores soared above the state average quickly.
If math textbooks included computation, maybe our production of US schooled engineers would not have dropped by 40% since 1990 (when the NCTM so-called "standards" took computation out).
Toyota gives their workforce improved tools, and training in how to use them. How are they doing?
That's what would upgrade teacher quality for the current and future workforce: Toyota = Deming = common sense.
And what did both congressional appropriations committees do this month(by a largely bi-partisan vote)? Voted to kill Reading First, which when test scores for students in the program since Grade 1 finally show up in state results, will prove to be the most successful federal education investment since the GI bill.
-- rick nelson, Chemistry teacher (retired)
former prez, Fx. Co. VA Fed of Teachers/AFT
7/31/2008 02:49 PM by gabrielle capone
This is, quite frankly, one of the best pieces I've read by you, Mr. Petrilli. You have stated eloquently all of the holes in the typical arguments I've heard on how to improve education. AND you've offered a feasible solution. But great teaching is not enough. I would add, in addition to helping good teachers become great, that we have more federally funded programs (tutoring, financial management, counseling, etc) to also help underperforming schools.
I disagree with Debbie Potts. I grew up in the burbs and went to white, middle-class schools but learned how to work in the inner city because I desired to make a difference there. Many people go into environments foreign to them and learn to adapt and adjust.
7/31/2008 03:00 PM by Don Langenberg
Maybe it's time to move away from the academically-oriented "best and brightest" target to something like a "dedicated, willing, and able" target. Following are assertions based on incomplete knowledge, but I believe them to be approximately correct:
The most effective American educational institution, by far, when it comes to educating a diverse student body, is the U.S. military. That institution accepts a very varied student body, and trains them to function effectively in enormously complex interactive environments, technically, politically, and socially. I doubt that it can be argued that either the teachers or the students in this very successful enterprise are all among our population's "best and brightest," but many, and perhaps most, are dedicated, willing, and able. Perhaps, in our search for better teachers, we should cease looking for people with the characteristics of college professors, and start looking for people with the characteristics of Marine drill sergeants!
7/31/2008 03:02 PM by Erin Johnson
You are absolutely correct. It is not "teacher quality" that promotes quality student learning but "teaching quality". A critically important subtlety lost in our current ed reform discussion.
Our schools have no way of improving teaching quality and so ed reformist go on and on about just getting new and "better" teachers.
You have a great point. Where will we get these new and "better" teachers and how do we know that they will *teach* any better than the ones we have now?
Rick also brings up another critical element missing in our ed reform discussion: curricula. He correctly cited a case demonstrating that the curricula (in this case math) can make an enormous difference in student learning.
For the most part the curricula used in our schools is extremely disorganized, lacking in quality content, and poorly written. Quality curricula is essential for quality student learning. Why is there no focus on getting outstanding materials into our classrooms?
There are three critical elements to improving student learning: teaching, curricula and quality assessments aligned with classroom instruction. Without a focus on improving all three, all school reform efforts will fail.
Getting better "teachers" will do nothing to improve student learning because if fails to address the three critical components of student learning.
8/1/2008 08:34 AM by John Lloyd
Erin Johnson has it right on the button. What we need is less talk about teacher quality and more investment in teaching quality. We need schools in which teachers
* implement scientifically based, effective curricula with fidelity;
* monitor students' progress routinely; and
* adapt their teaching according to the learning performance of their students.
If that sounds unfamiliar, please see the instructional model described in Reading First. If it sounds familiar, that familiarity probably comes from the same source.
8/1/2008 08:52 AM by Leonie Haimson
This post is interesting, but your suggestion of making teachers more effective through "augmenting technology" is bogus. No study has shown that technology improves teacher effectiveness or raises student achievement.
Instead, teachers themselves say that the best way to improve their effectiveness by far is to reduce class size.
See the recent national survey of first year teachers from Public Agenda, called "Lessons Learned" at http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/lessons_learned_3.pdf
76% of teachers overall said that reducing class size would be "a very effective" way of improving teacher quality, and 78% of teachers who work in high needs schools. 21% of teachers said reducing class size would be "effective", for a total of 97% -- far outstripping every other strategy mentioned, including :
Increasing teacher salaries (57%), increasing professional development opportunities (54%), making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers (41%), requiring new teachers to spend time under the supervision of experienced teachers (35%) requiring graduate degrees in education (21%), requiring teachers to pass tough tests of their knowledge ot their subject (21%), tying salaries to principal or colleagues assessment (15%) tying rewards and sanctions to student performance (13%), eliminating tenure (12%), reducing regulations for teacher certification (8%), and relying more on alternative certificaiton (6%)..
(In each of the categories I have put in parentheses the percent who said this would be a "very effective" way to to improve teacher quality.)
By the way, these views about the effectiveness of reducing class size to improve teacher effectiveness are shared by more experienced teachers and most principals as well.
See this 2006 public agenda survey of teachers and school administrators, "Is Support for Standards and Testing fading", posted here: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/rc0603.pdf
If the public schools finally got more money and smaller classes, they could do a better job: 88% of teachers agreed, 85% of superintendents and principals, far outstripping any response.
Compare how many teachers, superintendents and principals agreed with this statement: "More testing and higher standards will ensure kids will master the skills they need: 1% (teachers), 7% (supers); 10% (principals).
If we really respected the opinions and views of the professionals who work in our schools, we would do everything in our power to reduce class size.
8/1/2008 09:10 AM by Arnie
Mike, Gabrielle is right that this is a high level of discourse. This post is point of singularity - all future posts will be judged against this one, at least by me.
Leonie, teachers perceive that they will be more effective with much smaller classes. I would like to see data that small classes actually help students, and not just the best guess of teachers.
Finally, the key to this post is that teachers seek employment in very specific situations, i.e. a 3rd grade position at such and such school. No one applies for a "teaching job" and just accepts any assignment because they no that if the pay is the same, they will seek the easier position. The regional market in which this occurs makes school improvement very difficult.... if quality teachers (or as Erin said "teaching quality") is a major component in learning.
I wonder if the slow progress in test scores is a result of missing the obvious (as Rick states with his computational math point - dead on) and not measuring the subtle, such as a teacher that demands a quiet, attentive face in EVERY seat.
8/1/2008 09:53 AM by Gisele Huff
If you analyze education as the $550 billion a year business it is, you will find that it is labor intensive, has low productivity and provides a shoddy product. No wonder customers are dissatisfied and CEO's are frantically searching for solutions.
You are absolutely correct, Mike, it is not humanly possible to find enough good teachers or to properly train enough bad ones to provide our children with the kind of education they need in the 21st century.
Erin Johnson is right, we need a major overhaul of our curricula and we need a consistent, high level delivery system that is based on technology. In all other industries that have faced the problems mentioned above, the introduction of technology has been the saving grace. We can now create customized learning systems for each individual child that include assessments and remediation and do not depend on the quality of the person at the front of the room.
Today, the best physics teacher who instructs 150 students per year, reaches a total of 4,500 students over a 30-year career. Using technology, s/he can reach at least that many in one year, not only multiplying productivity exponentially but also exposing students to the outstanding quality of her/his teaching.
Dan Langenberg deems the U.S. military as "the most effective American educational institution, by far." He is absolutely right and the U.S. military uses online learning almost exclusively.
Technological advances have made it possible to completely revolutionize education. The world has changed, our schools have not. It's time we reboot learning.
8/1/2008 10:37 AM by Ed Jones
Gisele, Mike, Leonie, et al, Many very good points!
How can these cross points all be right? Well, technology can make the class temporarily smaller. But so far, tech ain't what it ought to be. Some very cool apps are coming out in the past few years, but used in how many classrooms? Classroom 2.0 has 10,000 members sharing these, but this is few of the 6 million teachers.
Moreover, tech is not helping much with the rich content problem. First we have to reach teachers and get them to stop saying, "Content is dead; skills are everything." Maybe good software can help.
Finally, the education economic model doesn't well support ongoing integrated R&D as DoD has lerned to do. If teachers organized as knowledge workers....
--
We've got more ideas about increasing content delivery via cheap (free-ish) tech at openhistoryproject.org. Gisele, you might give me a shoutout.
8/1/2008 01:31 PM by Greg Cruey
I teach in a rural area - a county that the Appalachian Regional Commission describes as "distressed." I think reference to "the best and the brightest" in policy is humorous because of the contrast it presents to our approach for educating the students. With the kids we want consistent, generalized proficiency. Why isn't that the mindset with teachers?
"Highly Qualified" has been confused in the education world. People think it means "properly certified." It's a compliance issue, not an inspirational vision. But certification is mostly just a piece of paper that tells you little about a teacher's ability to perform in the classroom. It tells you more about how good a STUDENT the teacher is than how good a teacher they are...
When policy makers talk about teacher shortages and attracting teachers to high need areas, it often reminds me of growing up in the military. They could move my Dad to where they needed him. Teachers are not soldiers or missionaries. I teach where I do because it's HOME. You might convince me to work in a neighboring county. But you're unlikely to convince me to leave Central Appalachia for Atlanta, New Orleans, or Los Angeles. The stroke of genius that might work in my view is to tie both educational and pay incentives to a history of residency in a needy target area. If you want to find teachers for Atlanta, recruit prospects from Atlanta.
Like No Child Left Behind itself, Highly Qualified Teachers is a nicely poetic concept with a good ring to it. But it?s been poorly thought out and it?s value is mostly in the poetry of the terminology, not in the substance it provides.
8/1/2008 05:14 PM by performancenottech
mike might mean technology that allows teachers to track student performance, real-time (not wait two weeks to get assessment data) so they can reteach accordingly.
8/1/2008 06:31 PM by Crimson Wife
Why is it that other countries don't seem to have a problem recruiting K-12 teachers from among the "best and brightest" college graduates? Places like Finland, South Korea, etc. Perhaps we should be looking at what these countries are doing that leads to teaching being a more desired profession than here in the U.S....
8/2/2008 07:09 AM by Peter Meyer
Eventually, when we all tire of seeking the magic bullet of education reform, we will get back to the original Plan A: content. Even a casual look at the history of our progressive educational dysfunction reveals the not-so-coincendtal history of gradual content pollution. We can learn a lot from the Catholic school experience; they experimented with shopping mall content in the 70s (the original -- and bad -- choice program and decided that it was simply a way to give more kids the opportunity to fail.... All roads lead to E.D. Hirsch.
8/2/2008 11:12 AM by Erin Johnson
Peter,
E.D. Hirsch has done a wonderful job highlighting the great need for quality content.
But there is much more that is needed for quality learning.
Student learning is completely dependant upon three components:
1. Quality teaching (as distinct from quality teachers!)
2. Great curricula (content is an essential part of quality curricula)
3. Assessments that completely align with classroom instruction (standardized tests do not qualify)
These elements are essential, along with a school system that is set up to improve all three components.
One leg is not enough to hold up a three legged stool. Content alone (even national standards to that effect) will not improve our children's education.
8/2/2008 11:38 AM by Wade
I enjoyed this post and its related comments very much.
For some information on whether or not reduced class size makes any difference, see www.nctaf.org/documents/DoingWhatMattersMost.pdf. In particular, check Figure 4 on document page 16 (page 9 of the report itself).
It appears that teacher quality is the number one school-controlled variable impacting student achievement. Also consider the financial outcomes of decreased class size (and the resultant reduction in assets available for enhancing and improving teacher quality); to me, it's not as good an idea as many of us think it is.
Wade
8/2/2008 02:51 PM by Robert Pondiscio
I agree, Erin, with your three-legged stool analogy. The interconnectedness of these elements cannot be overstated. If we had broad general agreement on curriculum, teachers would be freed to develop the soul of our craft: developing effective instructional techniques. Every minute spent trying to decide what to teach instead of how to effectively deliver instruction is wasted time. And while I favor robust accountability, we ought to learn the lesson of NCLB: if you have high-stakes tests, schools will teach to the test, so we need to design tests that are worth teaching to.
8/3/2008 02:57 PM by jane doe
slightly off-topic: My sense is that as long as "differentiated instruction" is the rule, teachers and parents alike will continue to press for further reductions in class size.
My own district has told parents that "differentiated instruction" means that each individual child will be taught in a manner unique to him or her, and I know from experience that the further students go in school, the wider the variation in their skills.
When you have a 7th grade ELA class in which reading levels range from the 3rd or 4th grade through the 12th headed by one teacher, the only hope of that teacher being able to differentiate instruction for every student in the room is to have as few students in the room as possible.
8/3/2008 05:16 PM by patslatt
England is rolling out a program across its school system of introducing literacy and numeracy teaching specialists. This programshouldl be very successful: a specialist in teaching reading and writing is much more likely to do a good job of literacy teaching than a generalist teacher who is trained to teach many subjects. The specialists will presumably help the children who are falling behind through both group sessions geared to their ability level and through individual tutoring.
8/3/2008 10:19 PM by Erin Johnson
Patslatt,
England has not been known for their quality eduacational system. And providing teaching specialists is not a guarantee for quality learning.
What has England done towards improving their teaching? What has England done towards improving their curricula? And what has England done towards improving their exams? Unfortunately, very little. Consequently, it is unlikely that their resorting towards "specialists" will do anything about improving student learning.
England has tried this "get better teachers" approach without a lot of success. Why do we think that their failed approach will help our students?
8/4/2008 07:49 AM by GT
Here's what I'm trying to get my arms around:
The country has debated sundry curricula schemes/strategies for the better part of the last century (classic academic subjects, vocational education, activity-based learning, child-centered schools, and all other sorts of iterations in between) - now we're in to standards to see if students actually learning anything (imagine that).
Further - big districts have been at professional development for decades and decades (seminars, coaching, professional learning communities, and on and on and on.
and so the punchline- why will we be any more successful at bettering our current teaching force than trying to continue efforts to attract folks (who otherwise go to our nation's most successful industries and companies) into our public schools.
Perhaps ed reformists should avoid such unhelpful terminology as "great teachers" or "best and brightest" because it's hard to define what those terms mean. But, isn't it a bit dismissive to conclude that the education sector is incapable of attracting folks (who were high academic achievers in college, attended selective universities - there is some research, by the way, that correlates those sort of things with successful teaching).
Those involved with the work like that of The New Teacher Project, will tell you that there is'nt exactly a welcome mat at the district doors. Most in the system do everthing they can to subjvert such initiatives. Hell, in many states, only universities can certify/traub anyone (though that will probably change soon). Imagine the incentive they have to do a bang up job? Some good alternative programs (many are bad, I know) have only been around a short time.
The point being is that we haven't really tried to do that much in the way of attracting high academic performers to public schools. We've designed our systems to do the exact opposite, in fact.
8/5/2008 11:26 AM by modogg125
In this day and age looking for "The Best" and "The Brightest" of teachers is not going to pull the train of faultering schools in areas where social economics has an impact on how the students view themselves. In light of all this drama surrounding education reform, we forget about who it is that we are targeting to change. Publicly we announce that kids in our inner cities are failing at an alarming rate, but yet we chose to put people, (teachers) who do not want to be in the environment. We allow them into the classrooms to act as if they are teaching. We introduce our young students to people (teachers)who gets up and leaves as soon as a more elaborate position, in a better neighborhood, comes along. I am a product of the inner-city. For approxitmately two and a half years, I have witnessed the steady comings and goings of the so-called "Brightest Teachers". I have also witnessed the impact that it has had on our young. Before entering the inner-city to teach, you have to be aware of the fact that we, as teachers, are faced with the challenge of removing years of self-esteem issues, of abuse, and of hopeless feelings they have about the society that suppose to represent them. Now the true question is are you willing, mind me,not bright/best/smart, but are you willing to step up to the plate and commit to teaching in our inner-cities? Not on a two-year contract, or because the pay is better, but because you love what you do. Believe me, the students know...They really do...
8/5/2008 08:26 PM by Elizabeth Edwards
While I agree with most comments posted above and also the points within Mr. Petrilli's article, I am one with a perspective slightly different than modogg125. Money does, in fact, play a huge part in attracting GREAT teachers for our students. I am 29 years old, and have a master's degree in education - yet I have never taught in a classroom simply because I cannot afford to. My scores on projects during my master's program were some of the top scores in the state of California, and I am passionate about education and prioritizing our children. I know that I would make a fantastic teacher. However, when I think about the $50K+ that I spent on my program - plus the additional classes required to teach in New York (where I now live) - I simply cannot take a large paycut in order to make $50K (which would be my starting salary). And I am not alone.....most of my friends and colleagues (in my generation) say the same thing - that they would love to teach, but cannot afford to live on a teacher's salary in the cities that need GREAT teachers the most - New York and Los Angeles. And these are educated, smart, innovative people - the kind we need in our classrooms. Maslow's Heirarchy exists for a reason - without taking care of our teachers financially, we cannot ensure focus, innovation, and motivation. I agree very much with Ms. Huff's response - every other industry is measured based upon productivity - but special interest groups prohibit education from becoming exactly that - it's own market. The cream of the crop (in terms of employees) rise in every other industry because there is a market - their productivity is measured, and they are compensated for that. Yet this cannot happen fully in education. There are glimpses here and there of teacher demand - (those teachers who are highly sought after by parents and students, those teachers that innovate curriculum that is benchmarked, etc.) - so in essence, there are the beginnings of creating a teacher "marketplace" - but this market cannot flourish because of the bureaucracy. Modogg125 - I'd argue to say that most teachers do get into education because they love children and teaching - but that's not the point. This isn't a non-profit industry. The love for children and love for teaching are the main draws for teaching - but it has to be a desirable profession - one where there is a career path and opportunities to thrive as a teacher. Once that desire is established, I guarantee that GREAT teachers will join the force - those who are educated, innovative, technologically-savvy, and LOVE children and teaching. I would be the first name on that list.
8/6/2008 09:01 AM by tebyerly
The answer lies in how you define a great teacher. Teachers will say it is the most educated and/or the most experienced (which also means the most highly paid). Most hiring professionals will tell you that "commitment" is more important than "competency". Both are desired, but as a professional passes through their career, they usually loose the first as they gain the second. I contend that the most experienced are also the most stale, least creative, least energetic and most likely to be in a rut; just waiting to retire.
Employee turn-over, even high levels of employee turn-over can be healthy, energizing and generate creativity within an organization. Why is so feared in public education?
8/8/2008 11:24 AM by Nancy Scharff
Erin Johnson has it right ? student learning is a function of 1) instructional (or, his word, teaching) quality, 2) great curricula and 3) fully aligned assessments. Strong leadership and school culture are critical but not sufficient for student success. The ultimate difference for student achievement is the point of instruction.
Technology provides teachers with access to quality instructional materials ? and an efficient forum for collaboration around instructional quality. For profit industries have learned to take an effective process or system (in this case collaboration), and make it even more efficient through technology. With technology, teachers can access great curricula (including assessments) and collaborate around best practices for implementation of that lesson (Japanese Lesson Study???).
And whatever works within a community of teachers in an online forum is perfectly scalable to the broadest population of teachers. Technology, rightly utilized, is a big part of the solution.