Tomorrow, Eduflack heads down to Tallahassee for the annual Florida Association of School Administrators conference. So imagine my pleasant surprise to see today’s Tallahassee Democrat article on the establishment of a first-grade reading academy in Leon County, Florida. (http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/NEWS01/803030316/1010)
For much of the past year, it seems that school districts have been frozen in place when it comes to strengthening reading instruction. Chalk it up to a host of reasons — the 2006 IG investigations into Reading First and subsequent proposed cuts to the federal reading program, uncertainty about expected NCLB requirements and funding, satisfaction with current reading efforts, or budget struggles that place priorities elsewhere. Whatever the cause, reading just hasn’t been on the educational frontburner these past 18 months.
So let’s hand it to Leon County for putting their money where the research is. This summer, first graders unable to read at grade level will gain extra reading help for six weeks, four days a week, for six hours per. The program is similar to one the school district had previously launched for third-graders.
Why is this so significant? It may just be that we are seeing the rhetorical pendulum swing back again. In Leon County, they are talking about the research-based components of reading — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. They are discussing the need to have all kids reading at grade level by fourth grade. They are taking about curriculum based on the findings of the respected Florida Center for Reading Research. After a two-year hiatus, we are again talking about scientifically-based reading research.
Sure, this could be the exception. But Leon County is embracing what many school districts rallied to just a few short years ago. We’re talking about kids and their reading skill levels. We’re talking about research-based interventions to get kids reading at grade level. We’re talking about doing what works. What could be more effective than doing what works, particularly when it comes to reading?
Hopefully, this is a sign of good things to come down at FASA. Florida’s long been a leader in reading instruction. These academies could be just the model we need to jumpstart reading instruction in 2008.
NCLB
It’s All About the Outcome
Anyone who has read Eduflack knows that I am a big proponent of outcomes,and not inputs. I look for results over process. In education, this is often a difficult fight. So much effort and so many reputations are tied to the process that we can often lose sight of the end game.
Earlier this week, Eduflack was at an event and had the opportunity to hear Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine talk about his vision for education improvement in the Commonwealth. Building an aggressive agenda that includes everything from preK to high school improvement to new governor’s STEM academies, Kaine has laid out a true vision. Such vision can often be lost among the process weeds, though.
The Virginia governor also spoke to a philosophy that far too many so-called education governors need to subscribe to. This is not an issue of choosing programs, this is about securing results. To accomplish this, we need to be flexible. Flexible in our choices. Flexible in our approaches. Certain of our goals.
Don’t understand what he means? Take a look at elementary reading instruction. It’s very easy for educators or school boards to step forward and say we should adopt program X or intervention Y. We can choose such programs because they work, or we can select them because we recognize the name, we enjoyed the sales pitch, or we just had a feeling.
In selecting a program, our goal is reading achievement. We want all students reading at grade level. We want to encourage good readers to become better readers. We want to help struggling readers. And we want to measure the results. We don’t need Reading First to set those goals. It’s been the objective of elementary teachers since Dick and Jane first got together.
Unfortunately, in recent years we’ve gotten too caught up in the process. And battles like the Reading Wars have made flexibility a bad word. Kaine is right. We need to be flexible if we expect to get results. What works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another. We need the ability to adopt approaches that work in schools and classes and with kids just like ours. And teachers need the ability to adapt to the individual needs of students or classes.
Yes, Virginia, results matter. And flexibility helps us achieve those results. Governor Kaine may be on to something here.
What’s Wrong with Boston?
The writers of Boston Legal are at it again. A few months ago, the plot line went after NCLB. This week’s episode (thank you, DVR) centers its attack on the American high school. Now, we have a mother suing her late daughter’s high school, alleging that the rigors of high school were responsible for her daughter’s “driving while drowsy” death.
Like the NCLB episode, we have a Boston high school full of overachievers. This time, lawyers are attacking the high school experience because kids are working too hard. They are taking too many AP courses. They are involved in too many extracurriculars. They all want to be tops in their class, and they all want to attend Harvard.
While I still want to find this Boston high school that seems to be all white with a 100% graduation rate and every kid moving onto postsecondary education, I just have to let it go. But there was one line that was truly disturbing.
In attacking the rigor of the high school, the mother’s lawyer asks why do we need to offer AP courses at all? Those are college courses, she says, they should be offered in college and not in high school. Of course, the school’s principal agrees, and placed the blame on the students. If we didn’t offer all those AP classes, the principal says, kids would just go to a different high school that would meet their needs.
Eduflack doesn’t know which is more ridiculous, the cavalier notion of school choice or the disdain for AP courses. Let’s leave the former alone, knowing it is an absurd statement without any ground in reality. The latter is just as frustrating, seeking to place blame on a solution, rather than a problem.
Just last week, we saw that more students are taking AP classes than ever before. Whether they secure a four or five on the exam is irrelevant. These students are able to experience college-level instruction before they get to college. They get to learn if they are up to the rigors of a college-level exam. They get to explore new subjects. And they get the opportunity to earn college credits or exemptions from college requirements.
No one is saying a high school junior or senior should be taking five or seven AP courses each semester. But if they have the interest and the ability, they should be allowed to push themselves and see what they are capable of. They should be given the opportunity to succeed, rather than given the an excuse to fail.
Many can say we are where we are in public education because of low expectations. A decade or two ago, students were lucky if they could take two or three AP courses during high school. Today, schools can offer dozens of such courses. That’s a good thing, not a reason to attack well-meaning high schools.
Maybe the writers for Boston Legal should go in and take a real tour of real Boston’s public schools before they use them for another plot line or as a punchline to another joke. Those TV junkies will remember a great little Fox drama called Boston Public, set in a Beantown public high school. If memory serves, those writers seemed to get what public education was all about. Maybe they can offer a little primer to James Spader and company. Or we could just keep education on the news pagers, instead of the TV reviews.
“Reading is So Hot!”
A year ago, virtually everyone had left reading instruction improvement for dead. Massive cuts to Reading First seemed to trump whatever data the states or the U.S. Department of Education were putting out on reading scores. The appearance of flat NAEP reading scores only added to the sentiment. And even those optimists looking for NCLB 2.0 to be passed this year haven’t spent much time talking about the RF component of the law.
But over the weekend, The Washington Post put reading instruction clearly back on the reform frontburner. Saturday brought an op-ed from E.D. Hirsch, Jr., the chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation. Hirsch’s premise is simple — if we expect schools to meet AYP on reading, we need to provide greater focus and gain greater understanding of comprehension skills. But more simply, we need a national commitment to building vocabulary and reading comprehension in all students.
Today’s Post has op-eds by Howard Gardner and Susan Jacoby, both discussing our national need to read. Gardner talks of the end of literacy. Jacoby of the dumbing of America. Both embracing a similar theme that reading skills lead to success.
All three, of course, are correct. Reading skills are the core to student achievement and successful lives. While critics of Reading First have dubbed the program a “phonics” program, the initiative was always based on an approach that included equal priority to phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. So what does this renewed attention on reading comprehension and ability tell us?
First, reading skill acquisition is not limited to the reading or English/Language Arts classroom. Reading skills are also acquired through content areas like science and social studies. That is why such a focus has been paid to reading at grade level by fourth grade. Students need those reading skills to achieve in their science, history, and even math classes.
Second, reading instruction is a team sport. Yes, teachers need to do whatever they can to build reading skills — particularly comprehension — in all students. Parents and families bear a similar responsibility. They need to model good reading behavior. They need to encourage their kids. And they need to be aware of their kids’ strengths and weaknesses, and do what they can to improve on the latter.
Finally, comprehension is king. Hirsch is correct. We can get kid to memorize vocabulary words, but if they don’t understand what they are reading, what good is it? As we get more sophisticated in our reading assessments, student reading skills are measured on their ability to independently read a text and demonstrate they understand what they read. Knowing letter sounds and vocabulary words are important components to reading. Successful reading, though, can only truly be measured through comprehension.
Where does it all leave us? Reading skills are just as important today as they have ever been. Such skills are successfully obtained when instruction is focused on all five of the key components to research-based reading. And we can’t let anyone forget either. Reading instruction should still rule the reform roost. Comprehension skills should be the measure of effective instruction.
Unlike Gardner and Jacoby, Eduflack isn’t ready to proclaim the end of literacy or the dumbing of America. There are too many good educators, too many good researchers, and too many good minds committed to improving reading instruction in the United States. But if Eduflack is to hold that optimism, we must redouble our efforts to get scientifically based research, proven-effective instruction, relevant professional development, and good ole good books into every classroom.
If we are to be a nation of readers, we need the skill, the passion, and the texts to prove Gardner and Jacoby wrong. And we have miles to go in that regard.
Every Teacher a Reader?
In fights over teacher quality, we often ask what makes a good teacher. NCLB’s HQT provisions called on teachers to have a degree in the subject and be certified. Leaders such as the NCLB Commission have sought to strengthen the provision, adding a measure of teacher effectiveness to the requirements. Has anyone thought that a classroom teacher should be functionally literate? Does a teacher need basic reading and writing skills to teach?
If we look at the story out of 10 News in San Diego, apparently not. They tell the tell of John Corcoran, a now-retired teacher who earned a teaching degree from an accredited four-year college and then went on to teach high school for 17 years. He did it all while being completely illiterate. Cheated his way through school. Taught without ever writing a word on the chalk board. Now he is an education advocate who runs a foundation and an SES provider out in California. Check out the full story here — http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html.
It is an entertaining tale, and just the sort of urban legend we hear now and again. While most will be moved by the story of a man who finally learned to read at 48 and committed the second stage of his life to literacy advocacy, what message does it say that an illiterate high school teacher led a classroom for almost two decades, and no one ever found out.
I appreciate that he used his classroom to build a learning environment based on the visual and oral. As you’ve heard Eduflack say again and again, it is important that we use multiple mediums and multiple approaches to reach all students. But could any of his students really have gained an effective education from an illiterate teacher? Did students go a full academic year with ever writing a five-paragraph essay or researching and writing a report or even taking a non-multiple choice exam?
I’ll set aside the notion that he had two or three teacher’s assistants helping in his classroom. That must be some school district. The bigger question here is what should we expect from our teachers?
We assume that Mr. Corcoran didn’t have students who complained about his methods or inquired as to why their teacher never seemed to read from the book or write on the board. And we might even assume that his students did well, using a different learning environment to develop new skills and improve their learning ability for other classes. He may have been a regular Mr. Holland, who inspired a generation of future teachers, creators, and innovators.
But his revelations speak poorly of the teaching profession as a whole. We all know that teaching — particularly in a secondary school environment — is one of the toughest jobs out there. It requires knowledge, skill, patience, and ability. Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher, and some find that out the hard way. It is an underappreciated profession, and one where virtually everyone assumes they could do the job if they wanted to.
And it is that fantasy that Corcoran helps contribute to. Anyone, even those who can’t read or write a lick, can lead a classroom if they want to. That’s a dangerous message to send to students, particularly those who are thinking about dropping out because they don’t see the relevance of school. After all, why learn to read at grade level if your teacher doesn’t have to?
I realize that Corcoran is of an anomaly, and his story is meant to inspire adults who think it is too late to learn to read. And that would be fine if he were an entrepreneur or a banker or a sales manager or an elected official. But he was a teacher. And, like it or not, we expect more from teachers. They need to be smarter. They need to be more patient. They need to be more successful than just about any other profession.
Yes, we want teachers who are highly qualified and effective. Basic literacy skills should be a non-negotiable. John Corcoran may be an inspiration to some, but he owes a big apology to the thousands of teachers who take pride in their profession and who lead by example in their classrooms.
Mis-assessing Teacher Assessment
How, exactly, do you grade a teacher? For years now, the education community has debated the value of measuring teachers based on student achievement. The concept is a simple one — teachers succeed when kids achieve. Students score well on district, state, or national assessments, and the teachers are effective. Good teaching aligns with student achievement.
In Polk County, Florida, policymakers decided to take it a step further by requiring an additional way to rate teacher achievement beyond student performance on standardized tests. The result? Use teacher-determined student grades to grade our teachers.
Huh? Let Eduflack get this straight. Teachers are evaluated based on student classroom grades. Teachers hand out those grades. So “A” teachers just need to give their students As. “C” teachers are those foolish enough to give their students C grades. And let’s not even talk about those “F” teachers.
In Florida, teachers seem to be taking issue with this scheme because they don’t have control over the students they receive. Teachers with a significant number of at-risk students run a higher risk of failure than those teaching honors classes. But shouldn’t we have a greater concern?
If this is the path our collective thinking is headed down, then we clearly don’t understand assessment, its intention, or its benefit. We wouldn’t dream of letting students grade their own assessment tests, would we? Is this really that different? Grading teachers on the subjective grades they hand out? What teacher would ink in that C or D for an underperforming student? This heads toward social promotion and grading on a curve, only on steroids.
What’s next? Licensing doctors based on customer satisfaction surveys, instead of board scores? Pilot’s licenses based on high scores on the latest PS3 game?
In the perfect world, assessments are scientifically based and replicable. We expect it to be third-party administered. We need to understand both the inputs and the outcomes, recognizing that we are assessed by our performance. We show what we know. We demonstrate learning and our ability to use it.
We want to assess our kids to ensure they are learning what they need to to continue to succeed in school. We assess them to ensure they are gaining the building blocks to achieve in life. ANd we are looking to assess teaches to know that they are teaching our kids the right things. We want effective teachers. And good teachers want to make sure their colleagues are effective as well.
Florida policymakers mean well. They are seeking to reward teachers with performance-based bonuses, and they need to find an effective way to measure that performance. But good intentions don’t make good policy. Instead of looking at the alphabet grades of students, Florida administrators might be better off looking at recommendations like the NCLB Commission’s effective teacher criteria or the legislation proposed by Coleman, Lieberman, and company last year on effective teaching.
What message do we send about student assessment issues when we communicate such a poor message on effective teacher evaluation? If we expect our teachers to get the job done, we should know what to look for. We shouldn’t just know it when we see it. Effective teaching can be both quantified and qualified. And if legislators don’t know how to do it, I’m sure the AFT can provide them some counsel.
The Next Education President?
Does a personal endorsement of a presidential candidate matter? Last week, Eduflack suggested that college presidents should play a more active role in endorsing political candidates, lending their support to those who can best help grow the institution, support the students, and improve the quality and access to postsecondary education.
This week, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (MA) threw his support to Barack Obama, symbolically passing the torch from JFK to the junior senator from Illinois. Much has been written on the issue, particularly on whether Obama or Bill Clinton is more Kennedy-esque. It raises another question though. Is Senator Kennedy also endorsing his preference for the next “education president?”
After all, Kennedy has worked with both Obama and Hillary Clinton on his Senate Education Committee these past three years. He’s seen them both in action. They’ve both introduced legislation that has been heard before his committee. He’s campaigned for both of them in their respective Senate races. He must know more about their education policy stances than the average bear, no?
Yes, Clinton has already gained the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers. They are strong in New York City, strong in New York State. Obama, meanwhile, spent part of his summer talking about merit pay for teachers, and issue the unions have resisted. So an AFT endorsement for Clinton, particularly last year when all assumed the race would be over by now in a Clinton blowout, was to be expected.
During the past month, Obama has picked up the endorsement of both Kennedy and House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA). That’s a powerful statement to the education community. Kennedy and Miller are likely the leaders who will shepherd NCLB’s successor in 2009 (assuming we don’t heed the President’s call and reauthorize this election year). As chairmen of their respective committees, they speak for education policy in the U.S. Congress, and have for some time. And they have both stood up to say Obama is their guy. That means something, particularly with the policy community and the education blob here in our nation’s capital.
What about the Republicans? By CongressDaily’s latest count, House Education Chairman Buck McKeon (CA) has lent his support to Mitt Romney. Based on McKeon’s commitment to education reform issues, that endorsement says a great deal about the possibilities of the former Massachusetts governor. On the Senate side, Education Chairman Mike Enzi is still in the uncommitted category. Maybe he is waiting on Romney or John McCain to talk about the importance of rural education for his Wyoming constituents.
What does it all mean? Will we see an Obama education platform in the fall that shows Kennedy and Miller’s full fingerprints? That certainly wouldn’t be a bad thing for teachers and kids across the country. What about a Romney education platform that shows the imprimatur of the school improvement-minded McKeon? It sure beats past GOP platforms calling for the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.
Either way, while the candidates may not be talking in public much about education issues, these endorsements signal the candidates are listening to the right people and are saying some of the right things behind closed doors. And that is why such personal endorsements are important. None of us know what an Obama or a Romney Education Department would look like. But if they are working in partnership with Kennedy or McKeon, we have some understanding of — and some hope for — what the future of federal education policy may hold.
Powerful Rhetoric on Vouchers
For years now, vouchers have been a highly controversial topic in education reform. Proponents see vouchers as a way to deal with failing schools, giving families a chance for a better education and increased opportunity. Opponents see it as taking funds from our public schools, further reducing the dollars available for struggling schools to right their ships.
As a nation, we’ve seen pockets of success on the voucher movement. Cities like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington, DC have staked much of their reform on the program. And Florida has implemented several statewide voucher systems, including one for special education. We’ve seen initial success, to a degree, while many continue to wait to see the long-term impact.
While the wait continues, the language continues to evolve. Vouchers evolved into school choice. Such language moved the discussion from one of finances to one of family choice. After all, what could be more important than a family deciding what school was best for their child, and then sending them there.
During last night’s State of the Union address, we saw the language evolve even further. President Bush has long been a supporter of vouchers. His Administration pushed hard to get the Washington DC voucher program into place in during his first term. Initial research shows that the DC program has had a positive impact from the start. In fact, so many inner-city students were choosing to use their vouchers to attend DC Catholic schools that the Archdiocese is now looking to convert a significant number of those schools into charters to allow even more students to be educated at the school of their choice.
So how does the President build on his initial DC voucher investment? First, he calls for $300 million to expand school choice across the nation. Then, he crowns the initiative with a new name — Pell Grants for Kids.
The President’s words are worth revisiting, as they set a new tone and new playing field for the debate on school choice. Even the most liberal of Democrats are firm supporters of the original Pell Grants, designed to help low-income students attend college. How, then, can they oppose the idea of Pell Grants for Kids, a scholarship program that lets low-income families send their kids to good schools? It was a bold move, and a bold choice of words, since one can’t imagine that former U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell would ever put his name on an educational program from this President. Yet, somehow, it all works.
Let’s look at the President’s actual remarks:
“We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our nation’s capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other nonpublic schools.
Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America’s inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning.
And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential.
Together, we’ve expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.”
Over the next few days, we’ll hear how the President played small ball in his SOTU, discussing manageable ideas without swinging for a “we will land on the moon” moment. And we all expected very little in terms of education policy in the speech. Yes, he called for the reauthorization of NCLB, touting its results to date and its bipartisan foundations. But the true education moment was the announcement of Pell Grants for Kids. Who is opposed to liberating poor children trapped in failing schools? Who doesn’t want kids to realize their full potential? Who doesn’t want to support opportunity and hope?
Voucher opponents will likely come out swinging against the proposal, citing flaws in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program and again bemoaning taking money from well-meaning public schools and handing it to faith-based and nonpublic schools. But Bush’s words shift this from a policy debate of voucher advocates and opponents to a discussion of families and community leaders of options and pathways to help low-income students in struggling schools. It moves this from inside baseball to a game the whole community can play in.
We’ll have to wait and see if “Pell Grants for Kids” sticks as a brand and a call to arms for vouchers in 2008. But it definitely has potential.
Equal Opportunities for Success?
There seems to be virtual agreement that much more needs to be done to improve our nation’s public schools. Education is, and should be, the great equalizer. Under the current law of the land — NCLB — our nation is committed to providing access to a high-quality, effective education for all students. For those who can’t get such an education at their community school, the law provides for vouchers, supplemental services, school choice, charter schools, and even improved instruction through Reading First.
For months now, Eduflack has been waiting for the presidential candidates to jump into the rhetorical debate on the future of public education. Aside from a few quick phrases and taglines along the fringes, most have stayed away from the education issue. After last week’s NEA conference, it seems a few are starting to dip their toes into the water.
The latest is John Edwards. Seeking to promote his “two Americas” agenda, Edwards chose New Orleans to take his first stand on improving public education. The Politico has the story. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4957.html
His solution? Busing and housing vouchers. Sure, he offers a few additional ideas, but once his stump speech makes its way through the media filters (if the media even notices), it will be remembered for two issues — busing and housing vouchers. And that’s a shame.
In promoting these ideas, Edwards is saying that some communities in this country are beyond assistance. We need to bus kids away from struggling schools, hoping a change of scenery will boost student achievement. And we need to uproot families, telling them that opportunity can only come to those in some, not all, communities.
This is the wrong message at the wrong time. At the root of meaningful education reform is the belief that all schools can be improved if they have access to proven instruction and high-quality teachers. NCLB strengthens that belief, committing the nation to ensure that no child is left behind and all children have access to a high-quality, effective education.
Spending $100 million on a busing plan doesn’t solve the problem. Instead, we’re playing three-card monty, hoping that no one flips over the underlying problem. Shuffling kids around doesn’t improve educational quality. It may help a few kids improve, but it doesn’t fix the problem. Don’t believe me? Take a look at how well busing worked in the 1960s and 1970s. Many cities have just recently ended that failed social experiment. In 2007, we should all rally around the belief that all students should have a chance to succeed, not just those fortunate enough to gain a seat on the bus, a slot in a magnet school lottery, or a voucher for a new apartment.
Senator Edwards, if you really want to tear down the walls between the two Americas, offer an idea for getting effective teachers in some of the most struggling of classrooms. Provide the means to ensure that proven-effective instruction is taught with fidelity in every school, regardless of socioeconomic standing. Commit to holding all schools accountable, giving all students the resources and support they need to achieve.
Edwards has put a weak volley across the education reform net. Who’s up for returning it with a little umph?
“Just Walk Away, Renee …”
What’s the measure of a “good” teacher? It’s an age-old question whose answer has varied and changed over the years. For the past five years — under the No Child Left Behind era — we’ve answered it with the formula developed by Congressman George Miller and his colleagues as part of their HQT provisions. A highly qualified teacher was one who has a degree in the subject matter and who is certified.
Yesterday, a group of California parents took issue with how the U.S. Department of Education was interpreting the HQT provision, specifically how it approved the Golden State’s effort to categorize alternative cert teachers and emergency hires as HQTs. The case — Renee v. Spellings — is expected to have national implications on alternative teaching programs. (Or at least that’s what Stephen Sawchuck and Education Daily tell us.)
Eduflack doesn’t take issue with the intent of Renee and parents across the country who want to ensure that their children get the very best instructors, the very best curriculum, and the very best of opportunities. And I agree that, ideally, our best teachers should be in our most challenging teaching environments, working with the kids who need their experience, expertise, and knowledge the most.
But after five years, it is time to revise our definition of a good teacher. The language is stale. Highly qualified is fine … to an extent. But is a teacher with a bona fide diploma from a teachers college guaranteed to be a good teacher, while another from Teach for America or Troops to Teachers is not? Of course not. The pedagogy one gets from a TC only takes you so far. Success depends largely on the passion of the teacher, the pursuit of continued learning, the push to continue to improve practice, and one’s commitment to the classroom and the student. And many would say alternative routes engender those qualities far more frequently than traditional routes.
Regardless, we need a new benchmark for a “good” teacher. And that benchmark is based on one simple word — effectiveness. Our goal should be to have an effective teacher in every classroom. A teacher committed to boosting student achievement. A teacher that can be measured based on year-on-year gains in her classroom. A teacher who leaves his students better off at the end of the year than they were when they showed up the previous September. Good teachers should be effective teachers. And that effectiveness can be measured, studied, and replicated in other classes and schools.
The words we choose to define “good” teaching are telling of our objectives. “Highly qualified” measures the inputs. “Effectiveness” measures the outputs. And at the end of the day, we should be defining our teachers, our schools, and our kids on the outputs. All the qualifications in the world can’t guarantee success. Our focus is results. The end game is achievement.
Slowly, this concept is making its way into our discussions on NCLB and HQT. It was first offered by the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission, and was championed by its co-chair, Gov. Roy Barnes. We’ve now seen it mentioned in a number of NCLB reauthorization bills on Capitol Hill. But we have a long way to go.
Maybe the lawyers with Public Advocates can offer a settlement … all California teachers must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Now that would be a practice worth modeling in all 50 states.
Yesterday, a group of California parents took issue with how the U.S. Department of Education was interpreting the HQT provision, specifically how it approved the Golden State’s effort to categorize alternative cert teachers and emergency hires as HQTs. The case — Renee v. Spellings — is expected to have national implications on alternative teaching programs. (Or at least that’s what Stephen Sawchuck and Education Daily tell us.)
Eduflack doesn’t take issue with the intent of Renee and parents across the country who want to ensure that their children get the very best instructors, the very best curriculum, and the very best of opportunities. And I agree that, ideally, our best teachers should be in our most challenging teaching environments, working with the kids who need their experience, expertise, and knowledge the most.
But after five years, it is time to revise our definition of a good teacher. The language is stale. Highly qualified is fine … to an extent. But is a teacher with a bona fide diploma from a teachers college guaranteed to be a good teacher, while another from Teach for America or Troops to Teachers is not? Of course not. The pedagogy one gets from a TC only takes you so far. Success depends largely on the passion of the teacher, the pursuit of continued learning, the push to continue to improve practice, and one’s commitment to the classroom and the student. And many would say alternative routes engender those qualities far more frequently than traditional routes.
Regardless, we need a new benchmark for a “good” teacher. And that benchmark is based on one simple word — effectiveness. Our goal should be to have an effective teacher in every classroom. A teacher committed to boosting student achievement. A teacher that can be measured based on year-on-year gains in her classroom. A teacher who leaves his students better off at the end of the year than they were when they showed up the previous September. Good teachers should be effective teachers. And that effectiveness can be measured, studied, and replicated in other classes and schools.
The words we choose to define “good” teaching are telling of our objectives. “Highly qualified” measures the inputs. “Effectiveness” measures the outputs. And at the end of the day, we should be defining our teachers, our schools, and our kids on the outputs. All the qualifications in the world can’t guarantee success. Our focus is results. The end game is achievement.
Slowly, this concept is making its way into our discussions on NCLB and HQT. It was first offered by the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission, and was championed by its co-chair, Gov. Roy Barnes. We’ve now seen it mentioned in a number of NCLB reauthorization bills on Capitol Hill. But we have a long way to go.
Maybe the lawyers with Public Advocates can offer a settlement … all California teachers must demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom. Now that would be a practice worth modeling in all 50 states.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 