Searching for Competency-Based Teacher Education

Over on the Education World website, I have a new blog post reflecting on the National Center for Teaching Quality’s latest study on grade inflation in our education schools and how it — along with other developments — further points to a real need to move teacher education from a seat-time focused endeavor to one that is competency based and emphasizes mastery.

As I write:

Despite all we know about education and personalized learning and teaching styles and modes of delivery, we are still providing degrees based on how many hours one can log in a desk in a lecture hall. At too many institutions, teaching degrees are awarded based on “time served,” not on whether one understands and can apply what is taught in the classroom in their own classrooms.

And I continue:

In more concrete terms, we need to move from a system based on seat time and credit hours toward one based on competencies and mastery. Instead of just focusing on the academic preparation found in a higher education classroom, we need to equally emphasize the clinical experience and whether prospective educators can successfully apply the concerns learned in the classes they take while leading classrooms of their own. And it means providing the mentoring and support to make the transition from student to student teacher to teacher of record, gaining ongoing practical, professional learning from those who have come previously.

If I do say, the post is worth giving a quick read. The full post can be found here — http://www.educationworld.com/blog/moving-easy-mastery-teacher-ed.  Happy reading!

Teaching the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy Style

Anyone who knows Eduflack knows that, professionally, I was greatly shaped by my experiences as a U.S. Senate staffer. I was fortunate to work for some tremendous leaders and statesmen, the sort of public officials that we seem to be in short supply of these days. Not only did they teach me about the Senate, legislative procedure, and the appropriations process, but they also taught me about service and priorities and doing what was right (and not necessarily what was easy).

It helps that I am the son of a political scientist, my dad is a presidential historian by trade actually. As a young child, I remember my father being part of the development of the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston. Getting to see that library when it opened, I remember writing a very passionate letter to my Senator at the time, Ted Kennedy, telling him how much I enjoyed my time at the JFK Library. And I remember my joy when he wrote back. Not only did I get a lovely typed letter on U.S. Senate letterhead, but It included a handwritten note at the bottom, letting me know he had a son that shared a first name with me. The letter was framed soon after it arrived, and I still have that framed letter with me today.

So it’s clear how my interests in politics and the legislative process were both started and fed over the years. But how do we do the same for other students? Next week, many of our high school students will have the opportunity to vote for the first time. But as recent surveys have show, too many young people don’t see the value in the electoral process and certainly don’t hold any faith in government and the impact it can have on its lives.

Fortunately, there are some that don’t react to such positions with a shrug of the shoulder and a “what are ya gonna do?” response. Next spring, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate will officially open its doors (on March 31, actually). Building on the enormous legacy of Ted Kennedy, the Institute is committed to making the U.S. Senate relevant to learners of all ages, while using technology to better engage incoming generations of voters.

It’ll offer experiences that provide first-hand techniques of being a senator, everything from negotiation to bill drafting to debate to voting. It’ll even offer a tech platform so visitors can simulate being a “senator.”

With 2014 elections looming, and with attention already shifting to 2016 presidential elections, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute is offering a really cool opportunity for educators now. The good folks over at the Institute are offering access to its Senate Immersion Module now, where educators can test the three-hour experience of living the Senate life. They will even get to do it in the Institute’s replica of the U.S. Senate chamber, the cornerstone of the Institute. You can check out the Module here.

Those educators who might have interest in taking the Senate Immersion Module out for a spin or who may want to schedule a field trip can reach out to the Institute at SIMSCHEDULE@EMKINSTITUTE.ORG.

Classroom instruction. Ed tech. Experiential learning. U.S. Senate. Politics. Ted Kennedy. Something new and shiny. And even a chance to drop by the JFK Library after the fact. How can you go wrong?

And if you aren’t able to take advantage of the preview, plan to visit the Institute when it opens. As a huge fan of presidential libraries, as one who played a small part in helping make the Robert C. Byrd Library a reality, and as someone who still cherishes his Ted Kennedy letter, I’ll be there.

 

Making Tart Cider from an Apple Cover

Last week, I told myself I wasn’t going to write about the most recent Time magazine cover. You know, the one with the gavel smashing the apple. The one designed to draw readers in for a story on the story behind the Vegara decision, a telling of how moneyed interests got involved in an effort to strip away teacher tenure in California.

I wasn’t going to write because I’m not a fan of this “reform by litigation” strategy. I wasn’t going to write because I believe the real story should be about the kids and families who brought the suit, why they brought it, and what they hope to gain now that the court has ruled in their favor. I wasn’t going to write because too many people focus on the “tenure for life” side of the fight, and not enough on the needed due process rights of teachers. And I wasn’t going to write because Vergara becomes a slippery slope to vitriolic attacks on teacher evaluation, Common Core, student assessment, and just about every other issue one throws in there. No good comes of such a heated fight largely void of fact.

I wasn’t going to write after reading multiple emails from the AFT, including a fairly compelling one from Randi Weingarten. And I even wasn’t going to write after seeing some of the responses to the Time cover story, including one from Badass Teachers that again made this all about poverty, corporate takeovers, and declared the real issue was a teacher shortage (which for me seemed to read like BAT was making a case for Teach for America, but another story for another day).

So of course, after some Twitter back and forth last evening and this morning, I feel compelled to write. Not to defend Time. Not to defend Vergara. Not even to point out the irony of me being accused of hyperbole and then being told that “the fate of pub ed hangs in the balance” of this discussion on a Time cover story.

No, I write just to insert some facts into this whole discussion.

First, let’s look to Time magazine. It is no secret that the newsweekly industry has been on a bad streak. Many of Time’s competitors have stopped printing hard copies all together. Time’s print circulation is now down to about a million. It claims a total readership of about 3 million. That includes all those who read a six-month old edition in a doctor or dentist’s office or who leaf through a year-old one at their local Jiffy Lube. Fact is, fewer and fewer people read Time. And those that do often read it online, never seeing the cover at all.

So all of the attacks on Time. all of the discussions of #TimeFail, do nothing more than boost interest in Time. It is a win-win for the magazine. What was an irrelevant magazine is now all that one segment of the population is talking about this week. The number of readers visiting the site is increasing. More eyeballs on content means higher ad rates. In the words of Charlie Sheen, Time is winning.

Don’t agree? Time’s parent company also publishes Sports Illustrated. Every February, tons of folks protest SI because of its swimsuit issue. Subscribers opt out of the issue. Letters of protest stream in by the bushel full. Subscriptions are famously cancelled. Yet they keep publishing. Why? People read it. Publicity draws interest. Interest means ad sales.

And speaking of protests, let’s take a look at the petition currently demanding an apology from Time for the “rotten” cover. As of yesterday, organizers were claiming 50,000 signatures. Sounds impressive at first, yes. But there are about 4.5 million current teachers in AFT and NEA. A little more than 1 percent of them have been moved to sign this petition to date. To put it in a different light, last year more than 35,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to build a Star Wars-style Death Star. Similar numbers got behind nationalizing the Twinkie industry, removing Jerry Jones as owner of the Dallas Cowboys, and replacing the U.S. justice system with one “Hall of Justice” a la the Justice League cartoons.

When there are a million signatures on this petition, folks will take notice. And it may surprise people to know that Eduflack has signed the AFT petition. Why? While I believe it is an interesting story, I don’t think the cover is a fair depiction of the content.

Of course, I also see the gavel on the cover as being a symbol of the litigation strategy behind Vegara, and not as the “hammer of corporate privatization” as I’m seeing far too often on social media these days.  But what do I know? Sometimes I do think a cigar is just a cigar.

A Contract Negotiation Too Far?

Since the Vergara case, we have heard a great deal in the media (and in social media) about teacher contracts and collective bargaining. This has been particularly true in places like Chicago, still reflecting on the 2012 teachers strike and what that means for upcoming context negotiations.

According to ye old dictionaries, collective bargaining is “a process of negotiations between employers and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements to regulate working conditions.” That’s the meaning most of us expect.

That means discussion on salaries and benefits. Contributions to Healy insurance and to pensions. The number of days one works. And even how one is evaluated on the job in the years governed by that collective bargaining agreement.

On his This Week in Education blog, Alexander Russo this AM highlights an article from In These Times that looks at what Karen Lewis’ successor at Chicago Teachers Union is focusing on, particularly as the lead in for the latest round of contract negotiations.

The profile of CTU’s Jesse Sharkey focuses on many of the issues we should expect, such as proper staffing levels and financial supports for programs such as special education. But then it takes an interesting turn. It nots a third priority:

a real commitment by city government to help alleviate the strangling poverty facing wide swaths of the city—concentrated in the largely African-American South and West Sides—by instituting more progressive taxation of the wealthy to fund public education, a policy long championed by Karen Lewis.

While one can understand that cities like Chicago need to look at new ways to bring additional dollars to he public schools, how is “progressive taxation” for the city a topic of collective bargaining?

And if it is a negotiating point, does it mean it continues up the chain? Is it then a point for the state union to address with the governor and legislature? Should Randi Weingarten and the AFT be pushing for higher tax rates in DC to see federal income tax gains trickle down to the schools?

Once again, it seems Chicago may be the testing ground for his theory. If successful, it could open the door to everything but the kitchen sink being negotiated. In 2012, there was strong public support for CTU during the strike. But does negotiating a topic like his lose that good will, and be seen as little more than a power grab or a point of leverage.

Time will tell. Time will tell.

Why Do Teachers Leave the Classroom?


When it comes to teacher attrition, we all have our ideas as to why teachers are leaving the classroom. For decades, we guessed it was because salaries were just too low. In recent years, we’ve opined that teachers are leaving education in droves because of high-stakes testing, high-stakes accountability, and most recently, because of the Common Core.

Over at Education Week, Jordan Moeny relays data points from a recent Albert Shanker Institute/American Federation of Teachers panel discussion. The topic of the panel was the lack of qualified staff in high-need schools. The panelists included UPENN researcher Richard Engersoll and Duke researcher Helen Ladd.

What did they relay with regard to why teachers, at least those in high-need schools, are deciding to no longer be teachers?

The top source of teacher dissatisfaction is too little prep time. It is closely followed by “teaching load is too heavy” and “class size is too large.” Poor salary and benefits comes in fourth.

The rest of the list of concerns for teachers at high-need schools include: student behavioral problems, lack of faculty influence, too little parent support, no opportunities for parent advancement, and too little collaboration time.

Imagine that … the top nine things that frustrate teachers in high-need schools the most, and not a mention of the dreaded Common Core. Not a whisper high-stakes testing. Not a glance at the post-NCLB corporate education industrial complex.

Let’s Chat about Reformer/Educator Collaboration

Earlier this month, dear ol’ Eduflack had a commentary published in Education Week focusing on the need for both the education reform and the educator community to look for ways to collaborate and work together if we were serious about improving student learning and student achievement.

The idea might be common sense, but it is one that is often absent from so many of these so-called discussions. We seem to only want to debate with those who agree with us 100 percent, and we are quick to discount those with specific differing opinions, even if there is much we can agree on regarding the larger field.

The response I’ve gotten from the piece has been tremendous, and just a little bit surprising. Perhaps the most heartwarming discussion I’ve had is with Michael Ramon Hicks (@TheOtherDrHicks), a professor of education down in Louisiana. As the result of some rich give and take with the good Doctor, I was able to see I have a little bit of educator in me after all, and that those lines of both agreement and disagreement can be wonderful starting points for a meaningful give and take.

Continuing in that vein, I’m happy to announce that I’ll be part of Ed Week … Every Week!, a live Twitter chat hosted by the Arizona K-12 Center, a not-for-profit that provides high-quality professional learning to educators.

On Wednesday, October 1, I’ll be participating in their Bridging the Classroom-Policy Divide discussion. It’s happening at 7:30 pm ET (4:30 pm Arizona Time). You can join in with the hashtag #azk12chat.

Hope you’ll be able to join us.

Seeking Collaboration Between Reformers, Educators

For too long, we have heard of the battles between the education reform community and educators. From the way these debates have been framed, one would think the two sides couldn’t agree that the sky was blue or that water was wet.

Truth be told, reformers and educators agree on far more than they disagree. and both sides of the school improvement coin are necessary if we are to be successful in efforts to improve student learning and achievement.

Or so Eduflack writes in this week’s Education Week. In a commentary entitled, “It’s Time for Reformers, Educators to Work Together,” I note:

The time has come to turn away from the divisive, us-vs.-them approaches of past policy fights. Instead, we must work together with educators to improve our public schools. We must focus on options and opportunities that can have real impact on all our children, not just a select few. And we must do so in a way that improves teaching and learning for all.

Otherwise, we are merely tinkering around the edges, seeking to set the next boundaries for the next fight. Our kids, our communities, and our nation deserve far better than such rhetorical posturing.

As we start another school year, we can’t afford another year of sniping, motive questioning, and hyperbole. Hopefully, this piece gives all sides something to consider.

Boosting Excellent Men — and Women — in Teaching

Over the weekend, The New York Times’ Motoko Rich wrote about the dilemma of how to get more men into the teaching profession. As one would imagine, the news analysis discussed the need to raise salaries, increase respect for the profession as a whole, and other such ideas.

While those are important, the education community also needs to drill down a little further. If we are serious about getting excellent teachers, be they men or women, into high-need schools, we need to dramatically improve our teacher education programs. If we want higher outcomes, we need improved inputs. It is that simple.

In response to Rich’s call to action asking why more men don’t teach, the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation reflected on what it has learned constructing rigorous STEM teacher prep programs in states like Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio. From the Foundation:

Motoko Rich is absolutely right. We need the best candidates to go into the teaching profession. Collectively, we need to do everything we can to ensure our schools, particularly those that are high need, have excellent teachers leading all classrooms.

 

To achieve this, we must recognize the importance of high-quality teacher preparation programs that ensure teachers to be have the pedagogy, clinical experiences, and mentoring and support necessary to achieve. We must redesign our approach to teacher education, requiring greater rigor and stronger relevance to where instruction is headed, both in the near and long term.

 

An example of this new path is the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellows program. Our innovative program is helping develop the next generation of STEM teachers in states like Georgia, Indiana, and New Jersey. We are partnering with 28 universities in five states to improve teacher education and, in the process, prepare excellent teachers for the 21st century classroom.

 

This focus on rigor and impact directly addresses the concerns Rich and others raise. This year, 45 percent of our Teaching Fellows in Indiana are male. In Ohio, 49 percent are men. And in New Jersey, the majority of our Teaching Fellows, 52 percent, are male.

 

What does this tell us? A high-quality, rigorous teacher education program attracts our best future educators, both male and female.

 

This should not be an issue of men versus women. Instead, we should be focusing on how to improve our teacher education programs in general. The Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship offers a proven solution, and the results speak for themselves. We know what a difference well-prepared teachers, male or female, make when it comes to both student learning and achievement outcomes. And we are working to get more of those teachers in our high-need schools.

An interesting observation. And an incredibly important point. First and foremost, we must be focused on excellent teachers. Doesn’t matter gender or race or socioeconomic background. We need to do a better job of getting great teachers in the classroom. And that starts with offering great teacher education.

 

(Disclosure: Eduflack calls the Woodrow Wilson Foundation home.)

Rising to the Teacher Challenge in Georgia

When we talk about the teacher pipeline, we often hear folks voicing their frustrations about how the old teacher education pathways just aren’t sufficient when it comes to getting truly excellent teachers into high-need schools. This is particularly true when we talk about placing math and science teachers in historically disadvantaged schools.

Seven years ago, the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation (a place I like to call home) launched an effort redesign teacher preparation to meet the needs of 21st century schools. The Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship program now “recruits and prepares the nation’s best and brightest recent graduates and career changers with STEM backgrounds to teach in middle and high school science and math classrooms. It also works with university partners to change the way these top teacher candidates are prepared, focusing on an intensive full-year experience in local classrooms and rigorous academic work.”

The program is operating in five states — Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio. In places like Indiana, Woodrow Wilson is finding that its Teaching Fellows are exceeding expectations, with student achievement in measured math and science classes led by Teaching Fellows exceeding performance in peer classrooms.

Interesting what makes the program tick and how it does what it does?  You are in luck. Woodrow Wilson President Arthur Levine and EVP/CEO Stephanie Hull are hosting a Shindig discussion this week to talk about the Georgia program and ow the Woodrow Wilson model is getting the job done when it comes to preparing excellent STEM teachers for high-need schools.  

The discussion is open to all. Just register today for the Wednesday, September 10th online conversation. I promise you won’t be disappointed (and you’ll get to experience a terrific new online collaborative platform in Shindig).