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.

There is evidence (from sources such as IES and AIR) that shows that high-quality approaches to new teacher induction and professional development pay dividends in terms of student outcomes. Why would a "student first" agenda utterly ignore initiatives that work in favor of some that have a paltry or non-existent research base?

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?
  

With regard to the StudentsFirst plan, to use a Twitter construct, #edreformfail.

Positive Effects of Comprehensive Teacher Induction

Today, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. released the final report of its IES/U.S Department of Education-funded randomized controlled trial (RCT) of comprehensive teacher induction. It shows a statistically significant and sizeable impact on student achievement in mathematics (0.20 standard deviations) and reading (0.11 standard deviations) of third-year teachers who received two years of robust induction support. That's the equivalent of moving students from the 50th to 54th percentile in reading achievement and from the 50th to 58th percentile in math achievement.

As a basis of comparison, I note that in 2004, Mathematica conducted a RCT of Teach for America (TFA). In that study, it compared the gains in reading and math achievement made by students randomly assigned to TFA teachers or other teachers in the same school. The results showed that, on average, students with TFA teachers raised their mathematics test scores by 0.15 standard deviations (versus 0.20 standard deviations in the induction study), but found no impact on reading test scores (versus 0.11 standard deviations in the induction study).

In another recent Mathematica report (boy, these folks are busy!), the authors note that "The achievement effects of class-size reduction are often used as a benchmark for other educational interventions. After three years of treatment (grades K-2) in classes one-third smaller than typical, average student gains amounted to 0.20 standard deviations in math and 0.23 standard deviations in reading (U.S. Department of Education, 1998)." In that report -- an evaluation of the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), Mathematica researchers found a very powerful impact from KIPP: "For the vast majority of KIPP schools studied, impacts on students’ state assessment scores in mathematics and reading are positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial.... By year three, half of the KIPP schools in our sample are producing math impacts of 0.48 standard deviations or more, equivalent to the effect of moving a student from the 30th percentile to the 48th percentile on a typical test distribution..... Half of the KIPP schools in our sample show three-year reading effects of 0.28 standard deviations or more."

Is it appropriate to compare effect sizes among RCTs or, for that matter, among research in general? I am told that it is, although certainly considerations such as cost effectiveness and scalability have to enter into the conversation. Implementation issues also must be attended to. With regard to teacher induction, the issue of cost effectiveness was addressed in a 2007 cost-benefit study published in the Education Research Service's Spectrum journal and summarized in this New Teacher Center (NTC) policy brief.

Disclosure: I am employed by the NTC which participated in the induction RCT, and I helped to coordinate NTC's statement on the study.

The NTC is "encouraged" by the study. However, NTC believes that "it does not reflect the even more significant outcomes that can be achieved when districts have the time, capacity and willingness to focus on an in-depth, universal implementation of comprehensive, high-quality induction. It speaks volumes about the quality of induction and mentoring provided and the necessity of new teacher support that student achievement gains were documented despite [design and implementation] limitations to the study."

UPDATE: Read the Education Week story by Stephen Sawchuk here. And the Mathematica press release here.

You're Fired!

I am deeply troubled to read columns like this ("Improve education, fire bad teachers") -- both the title and the content -- from a reputable source like the Center for American Progress (CAP). Much as the likes of FOX News are in desperate need of balance and breadth of perspective, so is this column.

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.

State Teacher Policies Suck!

I'm sure glad that Kate Walsh and company weren't my professors in college. Damn! They are tough graders! With the exception of eight southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) that received a 'C' and three northern states (Maine, Montana, Vermont) that received a 'F', every U.S. state received some version of a 'D' in the latest edition of the National Council on Teacher Quality's State Teacher Policy Yearbook. In grading the states, the authors look at five broad teacher quality areas (and numerous metrics within them): teacher preparation, expanding the pool of teachers, identifying effective teachers, retaining effective teachers, and exiting ineffective teachers.

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.
  

My primary quibble with the report is that it appears to completely and utterly discount the role of induction, mentoring and professional development in strengthening teacher effectiveness. Even if we prepare teachers better, recruit non-traditional candidates into the profession, retain them longer, compensate them differently, make evaluations more regular and meaningful, and find appropriate ways to terminate the small fraction of truly incompetent ones, it still will not be enough to maximize teacher effectiveness. There will continue to be a need for high-quality, individualized support upon entry into the profession and regular opportunities for data-driven, instructionally-focused professional development through a teacher's career. Professional development is not featured as a metric in the report at all and induction only enters as a criteria with regard to teacher retention, rather than teacher effectiveness -- which is where its most important power truly lies. That said, the evaluative criteria the report lays out about induction policy (on page 183-184 of the printed report) are worth noting and includes elements that states must attend to: mentoring of sufficient frequency and duration, mentoring provided at the start of the school year, and attentive mentor selection and high-quality training.

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.

Research: Attracting New Teachers to Urban Schools

New research led by Tony Milanowski of the University of Wisconsin-Madison provides more evidence that increasing teacher pay may not be the best approach to attract new teachers to high-need, hard-to-staff urban schools. A key finding of the study -- published in the International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership -- which explored job factors important to pre-service educators was that "working conditions factors, especially principal support, had more influence on simulated job choice than pay level."

'Policy implications' include:

• "[M]oney might be better spent to attract, retain, or train better principals than to provide higher beginning salaries to teachers in schools with high-poverty or a high proportion of students of color."
• "[I]nduction programs and curricular flexibility are important to new teachers. The finding that induction programs are attractive, combined with evidence that such programs can be
  effective in reducing teacher turnover (e.g., Ingersoll and Kralick, 2004; Smith and Ingersoll, 2004), suggests that urban districts may want to implement high-qualityinduction and mentoring programs, especially for new teachers in schools with high proportions of poor students or students of color."

New Teacher Center Annual Symposium

If you are an educational practitioner, policymaker, or researcher with an interest in the needs of new teachers, you may want to consider presenting at the New Teacher Center's annual Symposium on Teacher Induction in San Jose, California in February 7-9, 2010.

In addition to new teacher development and support, the NTC also seeks submissions that address school leadership development, teacher compensation, teacher evaluation, working conditions, and related themes. Submissions should exemplify best practices and current research and present new issues or topics, innovative ways of viewing traditional issues, and/or research that substantiates, promotes, and advances the work of teacher development and induction.

The NTC has released an online call for proposals. For your information, here is an overview of the sessions featured at the 2009 meeting.

New Teacher Center Annual Symposium

If you are an educational practitioner, policymaker, or researcher with an interest in the needs of new teachers, you may want to consider presenting at The New Teacher Center's annual Symposium on Teacher Induction in San Jose, California in February 7-9, 2010.

In addition to new teacher development and support, the NTC also seeks submissions that address school leadership development, teacher policy, working conditions, and related themes. Submissions should exemplify best practices and current research and present new issues or topics, innovative ways of viewing traditional issues, and/or research that substantiates, promotes, and advances the work of teacher development and induction.

The NTC has released an online call for proposals. The deadline is August 10.

The Revolving Door of Teachers In Chicago

The Consortium for Chicago School Research today released an informative study ("The Schools Teachers Leave") of teacher turnover in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). It reviewed the personnel records of approximately 35,000 public school teachers in 538 elementary schools and 118 high schools over a five-year period between the 2002-03 and 2006-07 school years. Its primary finding is that half of all Chicago public school teachers had left their school within four years -- and more than two thirds of new teachers had. It also identified 100 CPS schools with "chronically" high teacher turnover -- losing about a quarter of their teachers annually. While these statistics are slightly worse than Illinois as a state and the nation as a whole, CPS is not a huge outlier with regard to teacher mobility. It is a problem across the board.

From an equity standpoint, teacher mobility and turnover is a particular chllaenge for schools within urban districts like CPS because of the student population they serve. Turnover has significant implications for educational equity because schools with large percentages of African-American and low-income students are more likely to be inflicted with this revolving door of teachers. These students in greatest need of access to quality education and quality teaching are the least likely to receive it. They are more likely be taught by beginning teachers and those without full credentials or relevant subject matter knowledge. This lack of educator quality feeds low student achievement, socioeconomic and racial achievement gaps, and dropout rates.

The Consortium reports offers some guidance about what relatively successful schools look like. It identifies teacher working conditions as a major factor in retention and in developing a nurturing and collaborative professional environment.

The schools that retain their teachers at high rates are those with a strong sense of collaboration among teachers and the principal. Teachers are likely to stay in schools where they view their colleagues as partners with them in the work of improving the whole school. They are likely to leave schools where colleagues are resistant to school-wide initiatives and where teachers’ efforts stop at their own classroom door. Teachers stay in schools with inclusive leadership,
where they feel they have influence over their work environment and they trust their principal as an instructional leader.

Thus, teachers stay in schools where the conditions are well suited for them to have the potential to be effective—where their colleagues are collaborators, school administration is supportive, parents trust teachers to do their jobs, and the learning climate for students is safe and non-disruptive. These elements of school working conditions are among the key elements needed to improve student achievement, along with a school-wide focus on improving instruction.

To address this teacher quality problem, one solution that new CPS CEO Ron Huberman has announced is to expand the new teacher induction and mentoring work of the Chicago New Teacher Center throughout the district. (Disclosure: I work for the New Teacher Center, the CNTC's parent organization.) CNTC is currently active in five CPS Instructional Areas, mostly on Chicago's South Side. Its intensive mentoring work -- and high-quality induction overall -- has been shown not only to increase teacher retention, but also to help beginning teachers become more effective in the classroom. The work of the CNTC was recently profiled in the Center for American Progress report, Ensuring Effective Teachers for All Students.

This kind of data analysis is exactly what all states and school districts should be engaged in. It's hard to fix a problem that isn't understood and it's hard to set a policy goal to address something that isn't quantifiable. More often than not, the reason this type of analysis isn't occurring is due to the lack of political will and the unwillingness to grapple with bad news, rather than the absence of data systems or human talent to conduct it. Where there's a will, there's a way. Without naming names, I've seen a 'can't do' attitude triumph again and again in states and districts. It's best to take this work out of the direct control of politicians and educational leaders who serve systems over kids. Perhaps that's why this effort ("Education Week: Chicago Group Promotes Links for Districts, Researchers") to replicate the Chicago Consortium model is a promising one. And, in this case, kudos to CPS leaders for being open to this scrutiny and their willingness to learn from it.

MORE:
Chicago Tribune coverage
Chicago Sun-Times coverage and editorial
Catalyst Chicago blog

Thoughts on Equitable Teacher Distribution

In a U.S. News & World Report article (“In Urban Classrooms, the Least Experienced Teach the Neediest Kids”), the New America Foundation’s MaryEllen McGuire offers a compelling analysis of the problem of inequitable teacher distribution in American schools.

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 is a topic that the Education Optimists have written about previously (see here and here). In addition, The Education Trust has done some good work on this issue, including this 2006 report ("Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality") by Kati Haycock and Heather Peske.

But compared to her solid conception of the problem, McGuire somewhat misses the mark on proposed solutions to inequitable teacher distribution. She writes:

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 Rhode Island, would go a long way toward these ends. Arguably, these approaches to teacher development are arguably a far better use of stimulus money than recruitment incentives.

In addition, as the author suggests (“more attractive teaching placements”), we need to work with school leaders and policymakers to improve the working conditions in these hard-to-staff, high-poverty schools and districts. We need to provide educators time to collaborate and a role in school decision-making—things that don't cost a whole lot of money but that do require a new way of doing business. Research has shown these factors are often more important than often paltry recruitment incentives in keeping the highest-quality, most effective teachers at hard-to-staff schools.

Stand For Children

Child advocacy groups are pretty predictable creatures. They're all about childhood immunization, child health care, and early childhood education, right? Well, usually.

Not these folks.

Stand for Children is a national 501(c)(3) based in Portland, Oregon. It is a self-proclaimed "citizen voice for children" that torpedoes the traditional concept of what a child advocacy group is and can do. Stand "builds effective local and statewide networks of grassroots advocates" and focuses on "securing adequate funding for public schools and reforming education policies and practices to help children thrive academically, giving them the opportunities they need to become successful, productive citizens."

Stand has taken on an aggressive reform agenda focused on k-12 education and teacher quality, specifically. Stand was instrumental -- along with the Chalkboard Project -- in passing a visionary teacher mentoring law (HB2574) in the state of Oregon in 2007. (For more, read an article by Stand's Dana Hepper on page 7 of the New Teacher Center's Reflections newsletter.) They've achieved many other successes, too.

Stand has state affiliates in Massachusetts, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington state -- and soon in Colorado as well. It is led by Jonah Edelman, co-founder and executive director.

Check them out.

Ideas Worth Exploring

You'll have to forgive me for not writing a nice post in complete sentences this morning, as I'm running/flying between Santa Monica and Nashville with hardly any time to spare. But since the policy conversations in Washington these days feel friendly to good ideas, I want to throw some out there -- and see what kind of support we can generate. I'm not claiming any of these are uniquely mine, just that I think they're worth researching further and potentially backing as policies. Here we go:

1. Tie loan forgiveness to college completion. Create incentives for students to choose a loan over long hours of work while in college, and give them a reason to be sure and finish a credential.

2. Forgive student loans as a way to stimulate the economy. Instead of sending people checks, let them keep the money they already have.

3. Do NOT tie need-based grant aid to college completion.

4. Start teacher induction/mentoring programs for junior professors. If we know new k-12 teachers need help getting started teaching kids, why would we think new assistant professors are prepared and able to teach 18-year-olds?

5. Make one during or post-college service option (e.g. for loan forgiveness) serving as a 'college coach' in a high-poverty high school.

Who Says Democratic Governors Have A Monopoly on Education Policy?

In January 2006 Alabama Governor Bob Riley initiated one of the more thoughtful gubernatorial commissions focused on teacher quality in recent years. And the commission didn't produce a document to sit on a shelf or fatten up a web site, but its work is on-going and is having impact.

In just three years, the Governor's Commission on Quality Teaching -- led by former National Teacher of the Year Dr. Betsy Rogers -- has already impacted public policy in the Heart of Dixie. Its initial recommendations, released in November 2006, were central in leading to the creation of a statewide teacher mentor program and the development of new standards for the teaching profession.

The commission's latest recommendations focus on creating a professional pathway for teachers in addition to maintaining support for the Alabama Teacher Mentoring Program, continuing a biannual Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey, and reforming teacher preparation.

Read the Commission's complete report here.

1. Professional Pathways for Alabama Teachers - The Commission recommends that two systems be selected as “demonstration sites” to begin implementation of the Professional Pathways system. The Commission would raise $75,000 from private sources for a planning grant to work on development with the two systems beginning in the summer of 2009.

2. Improve the Quality of Teacher Preparation - This set of recommendations seeks to structure meaningful partnerships between Colleges of Education and P-12 schools and districts in order to improve both the academic and clinical preparation of prospective teachers. This includes a strong focus on Alabama-specific initiatives, such as the Alabama Reading Initiative and the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI). They also aim to increase the accountability of teacher preparation institutions for the quality of their graduates.

3. Consolidate and Expand Teacher Recruitment Efforts - These recommendations include a centralized and user-friendly teacher recruitment website, student-produced ads to highlight the opportunities provided by the teaching profession, and a pilot seminar course in teaching for high school students.

4. Improving and Expanding Alternative Certification - These recommendations seek to create new routes that encourage the best and the brightest to enter the teaching profession. They include (a) a partnership with Teach for America to bring talented young people from across the country to teach in high-needs areas in Alabama, (b) improving the quality of our current Alternative Baccalaureate Certification, and (c) creation of an adjunct certification to allow individuals with recognized expertise and experience in high needs disciplines to work part time in public schools.

5. Maintain and expand the Alabama Teacher Mentoring Program - The Commission recommends the continued funding of Alabama’s highly-successful mentoring program for first-year teachers and the addition of a low-cost program for second-year teachers that uses small groups to continue their training and enhance small learning communities in schools..

6. Adopt a new definition for professional development - The Commission recommends that the State Board of Education adopt the National Staff Development Council’s definition of professional development to clarify, enhance, and support the existing Professional Development Standards.

7. Continue the biennial administration of the Take 20 Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey - The Commission feels it is critical that we institutionalize the biennial administration of our teaching and learning conditions survey to all educators so that leaders can continually assess the state of their schools and plan for constant improvement. The Take 20 survey was recommended by the Commission in 2007 and first administered to all Alabama educators in 2008.

The idea of a professional pathway for teachers isn't a completely new idea. In 2001, under the leadership of then Governor Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, Iowa developed a teacher career ladder, a multi-tiered licensure system, as reported by Education Week. But due to funding constraints, this initiative was never fully implemented. The only parts that were enacted were a small pay hike and a teacher mentoring program.

But this idea is the wave of the future. Fewer and fewer young people are going into teaching as a life-long career. And fewer are going into teaching because of the limited opportunities for advancement while staying in the classroom. Opportunities to advance in the profession and be compensated for teaching excellence and leadership roles are needed. Right now, given the typical steps and lanes pay structure, the only way to make this happen is to move into educational administration or to leave public education entirely.

Although Democrats are often framed to be more pro-education than Republicans, and in reality often are, Alabama's Riley is a notable exception. His leadership has led to some real steps forward in public education in Alabama.

The Commission's efforts were recently featured in Education Week's Teacher Beat blog, in a post authored by Vaishali Honawar as well.

Do You Know The Way To San Jose?

Who says there's nothing to do in February?

Come on out to San Jose, California for the New Teacher Center's Annual Symposium on February 2-3, 2009 to learn all you ever wanted to know about supporting our newest educators. I promise you a fun and informative time - and if you bring this blog post with you and join us to watch the Super Bowl on the big screens in the Fairmont lobby, the beer is on me.

Early registration ends on Friday, January 9!

New Teacher Center Annual Symposium

If you're an educational practitioner, policymaker or researcher interested in supporting new educators, have I got the perfect conference for you! It's the 11th New Teacher Center Symposium on New Teacher Induction. It takes place in San Jose, California from February 2-3, 2009, with pre-conference sessions on (Super Bowl) Sunday, February 1.

The conference includes three themes central to induction: (1) Quality Mentoring, (2) Leadership and Professional Identity, and (3) Equity and Social Justice. Numerous conference presentations will be offered by NTC staff as well as representatives of state government, foreign governments, universities, school districts, teacher unions, and policy/research organizations.

The keynote speaker is Andy Hargreaves, the Thomas More Brennan Chair in Education at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College (my alma mater). Other guest speakers include NTC executive director Ellen Moir, Monica Martinez of the KnowledgeWorks Foundation, and Joe McDonald, professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University and director of the NYC Partnership for Teacher Excellence. Even yours truly will be involved in three sessions, focused on state induction policy, advocating for investments in high-quality new teacher support, and a focus group for policymakers in attendance.

For more information or to register, please visit here.

...And It's Sarah Palin! Who?!?!

Word just leaked that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (NGA bio) has been tapped by John McCain to be his vice presidential running mate. Certainly his choice is not an attempt to nail down Alaska's vote in the Electoral College. It is an obvious attempt to appeal to independent women voters (and any Clinton supporters Obama didn't win over at the Democratic Convention) and to counter Obama's youth and dynamism. How Palin will face up to Joe Biden in the VP debate is another question.

Here is an initial look into Palin's education record in a year-and-a-half as Alaska Governor.

(1) In her 2008 State of the State Address she had this to say:

Victor Hugo said, “He who opens a school door, closes a prison.” It's a privileged obligation we have to “open education doors.” ... Stepping through “the door” is about more than passing a standardized test. We need kids prepared to pass life's tests – like getting a job and valuing a strong work ethic. Our Three-year Education Plan invests more than a billion dollars each year. We must forward-fund education, letting schools plan ahead. We must stop pink-slipping teachers, and then struggle to recruit and retain them the next year.

We will enable schools to finally focus on innovation and accountability to see superior results. We're asking lawmakers to pass a new K-12 funding plan early this year. This is a significant investment that is needed to increase the base student allocation, district cost factors and intensive needs students. It includes $100 million in school construction and deferred maintenance. There is awesome potential to improve education, respect good teachers, and embrace choice for parents. This potential will prime Alaska to compete in a global economy that is so competitive it will blow us away if we are not prepared. Beyond high school, we will boost job training and University options. We are proposing more than $10 million in new funding for apprenticeship programs, expansion of construction, engineering and health care degrees to meet demands. But it must be about more than funds, it must be a change in philosophy. It is time to shift focus, from just dollars and cents to “caliyulriit,” which is Yupik for “people who want to work.” Work for pride in supporting our families, in and out of the home. Work for purpose and for action, and ultimately destiny fulfilled by being fruitful. It's about results and getting kids excited about their future – whether it is college, trade school or military.

(2) In her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, her education platform included:

A. Schools of Choice
B. Expanded Vocational Training Opportunities
C. Pre-Kindergarten
D. Competitive Teacher Salaries & Benefits

(3) Palin has been a strong supporter of the Alaska Statewide Mentor Project. The Alaska Department of Education & Early Development created the Project in partnership with the University of Alaska in support of their shared mission to improve academic achievement for students in Alaska. Through mentoring for beginning teachers, the goals of the program are to increase teacher retention and increase student achievement. The model is adapted from the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Prior to being elected Governor in 2006, Palin had served four years on a city council and six years as a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a city of 6,000 people.

Mentoring Science Teachers

I thought I'd share this post from teacher leader Anthony Cody's blog Living in Dialogue. He discusses an initiative called TeamScience, a project to support new science teachers in Oakland (California) Unified School District.

Science teachers, in addition to knowing their content, must also know how to organize cooperative groups for hands-on activities. That means a whole level of classroom management that takes practice to master. TeamScience mentors will do their best to close this gap. We have several goals. The first and foremost is to make these new teachers as effective as possible, as quickly as possible.

TeamScience is a collaborative effort with the Santa Cruz-based New Teacher Center (NTC), my employer.

Another project that supports new science teachers through online protocols is e-Mentoring for Student Success, a collaboration between the NTC, the National Science Teachers Association and Montana State University.

Will The New President Support New Educators?

In yesterday's lukewarm editorial about the presidential candidates' education policy platforms, the Washington Post clearly sided with Barack Obama as the preferable option over John McCain. Not exactly a strong endorsement.

One thing is clear. Obama's presidential platform specifically focuses on developing excellent teachers--recognizing educators as the #1 school-based impact on student achievement. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has sponsored and co-sponsored legislation that would fund teacher residency programs and high-quality teacher induction programs. He's not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue.

Other than the fact that the charter-and-voucher-happy Lisa Graham Keegan (Matthew Yglesias/The Atlantic blog) (Arizona Republic article) is his chief education advisor, why is McCain clinging primarily to the tired, old right-wing focus on school structure, market-based reforms, and demonizing teachers at the exclusion of everything else? What too many conservatives don't seem willing to admit is that teachers drive results. Whether it's a public school, a charter school, a voucher school, a religious school or a home school, if a child has a good teacher he will be more likely to succeed. If teacher quality is lacking, learning is much less likely to occur. Teachers are not the enemy - they will lead us where we need to go if we support them and, yes, challenge them when appropriate to do better. But It can't be all sticks and no carrots. And It can't be done to teachers, it must be done with them.

The 'It' is what is in question in this campaign.

There is some hope in McCain's education platform. Buried within it is an interesting idea:

Provide Funding For Needed Professional Teacher Development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today's technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.

I agree that Title II monies should be better directed at high-quality, high-impact professional development. About half of these funds currently go to class size reduction which is not necessarily the biggest bang for the buck, particularly outside the early grades. Certainly, some professional development monies are directed at low-quality, pray-and-spray, one-size-fits-all PD seminars. And some teachers are allowed to self-select PD offerings that really aren't focused on improving their teaching. I'm not saying that enrollment in Underwater Basket Weaving is rampant, but simply that districts and school leaders should have more say in -- and a better understanding about -- helping teachers improve through purposeful PD.

As McCain so often discusses, it is also appropriate to focus on weeding out ineffective teachers. But even more important is identifying the effective ones through meaningful evaluation systems [Ed Sector] [NGA] [NCCTQ], figuring out what makes them effective, and using that knowledge to transform the practice of the vast majority of mediocre-to-average-to very good teachers by improving preparation [ECS] [Edutopia] [SREB] [TNE], instituting high-quality induction programs [NTC] [AASCU] [AEE], and and designing career-long professional development opportunities [CCSR] [CCSSO] [PEN] [VA DOE] that support individualized teaching contexts.

The main problem with McCain's proposal is that he has proposed ratcheting down increases in domestic spending. That means little money to implement No Child Left Behind-related programs and fund needed teacher quality reforms. (Remember, we've got to fund those tax cuts for the rich that sickened McCain just a few years ago; oh yes, and pay for the 100-year war in Iraq.)

Obama, on the other hand, has signaled a willingness to reform teacher compensation and strengthen professional development systems and ante up federal resources and target them at high-need, hard-to-staff schools and districts across the country. His focus clearly is on making teachers better with a focus on student outcomes. That's a more comprehensive approach that makes a lot more sense. I agree with the Post that he needs to go further in fleshing out his views on issues such as teacher assignment and teacher tenure, but Obama's reform-minded, student-focused teacher policy proposals are a refreshing change from the "status quo or bust" and "more money is the only answer" ethos of many recent Democratic presidential contenders.

With regard to McCain, I wish he would spend less time talking about bad teachers and more time talking about how we can learn from good ones. And enough with this voucher obsession! Let's focus on making our public schools as good as they can be. That starts with strengthening America's teaching force.