teachers

Those “Disengaged, Lazy Whiner” Students

Eduflack accountability, Media, teachers

Hollywood does a pretty good job of depicting the ideal teacher.  Such an educator instantly connects with even the most struggling of students, seeing past his or her faults and quickly converting the student into valedictorian/doctor/Broadway star or general success of one’s choice.  Long hours and incredible patience are always involved.

But if recent events up in Pennsylvania are any indication, some teachers aren’t quite following the Mr. Holland’s Opus/Stand and Deliver/Lean on Me model.  Reports out of the Philadelphia area have a Central Bucks East High School teacher suspended for calling out her students on a blog (which is no longer available).
What did Natalie Munroe, the teacher in question, say?  Did she talk about struggling students or the challenges of high-stakes testing?  Did she worry about classes that were too hard or out-of-date books?  Did she demand smaller class sizes or better-paid teachers?  No, not quite.
According to the Associated Press, the 10th through 12th grade noted on her blog:
“My students are out of control.  They are rude, disengaged, lazy whiners.  They curse, discuss drugs, talk back, argue for grades, complain about everything, fancy themselves entitled to whatever they desire, and are just generally annoying.”
Or how about this highlight:
“Kids!  They are disobedient, disrespectful oafs.  Noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS.”
We don’t even hear such criticism from Sue Sylvester on GLEE these days.
Obviously, Munroe has every right to think what she thinks.  And for those of us playing catch up on her tale, we are just starting to fill in the blanks and learn the story.  Teachers’ jobs are incredibly stressful, and we should expect that such sentiments will surface, particularly after a bad day or a bad series of days.
But aren’t those the instances where screaming into a pillow may be the best approach?  As a high school teacher, one has to realize that students will read your blog, check out your Facebook page, and generally know your e-life.  Perhaps Munroe’s intention was for students to see these posts.  A little tough love now could turn around students’ approach to the classroom in the future.  Or maybe she just got frustrated.  Regardless, is this really the way she now wants her career defined publicly, full of rants?
What can we learn from this?  If anything, instances like this demonstrate the need for a code of conduct on how educators use new media and social media.  The last thing we need is a complete overreaction, with administrators saying that teachers can no longer blog because of the possibility of something like this happening.  Teachers make terrific bloggers, and I am constantly learning from those practitioners who are posting their experiences.  We shouldn’t shut down those educators out of fear of a few screamers joining in the fun.

Are TFA Teachers Well-Trained Teachers?

Eduflack Education Debate, Teacher Education, teachers

We all know Teach for America.  We know them to be some of the best-selected new teachers.  Some of the most committed.  Some of the best intended.  But at a time when we still struggle to identify what is effective teacher preparation, can we really say that TFA teachers are “well-trained?”

This is the question I explore this week over at Education Debate, Are TFA Teachers Well-Trained Teachers?  Check it out.

Presidential Education Budget Redux

Eduflack Arne Duncan, early childhood education, i3, NCLB, RTT, teachers

Yesterday, President Obama released his FY2012 Budget.  And it was hardly a “the new phone books are here” sort of moment.  In an era of supposed budgetary belt-tightening, we all knew that the U.S. Department of Education was facing a budget increase.  The major question was how much of that increase would go to Pell and how much to P-12.

So when the details of the budget were revealed, Eduflack’s primary response was, “didn’t we just have this discussion last year?”  New rounds of Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation.  A handful of programs eliminated.  A good number of programs “consolidated” into a series of competitive buckets.  So while some of the specific dollars may be a little different (more for RttT this year than last, less for i3), Eduflack comments on the FY2011 budget seem to be fairly evergreen, all things considered. 
Of course, there are a few things that make this year a little different:
* Political realities — For those eagerly waiting to cash checks based on FY2012 presidential projections, please remember we still haven’t passed the FY2011 budget yet.  FY2012 is largely a do-over because FY2011 never became law.  The Administration is to be commended for sticking to its guns and staying with the same policy priorities.  But we can’t forget these priorities couldn’t get passed in a Democratic Congress in 2010.  If the current fight over the FY2011 continuing resolution is any indication, Congress (particularly House Republicans) have a VERY different view of where our education budget should head.  So let’s realize that the President has essentially put forward a “ceiling” for education spending.  The House will drive it down some, and both the House and Senate will swap out some of the president’s programs for their own favorite funding recipients.
* Reauthorization — Much of the “big thinking” in this year’s presidential budget is based on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  Based on yesterday’s ED presentation, all those interesting new programs and the continuation of RttT and i3 are all linked to successful ESEA reauth.  What happens, then, if reauth rolls out at House Education Committee John Kline (MN) wants — incrementally?  Or what happens if Dems in the Senate can’t agree on a strategy?  Another year of ED CRs means none of these big ideas are funded.
* Early childhood education — Kudos to the Administration for the creation of the Early Learning Challenge Fund.  The President is now addressing his 2008 campaign pledges about the importance of ECE.  Even more important, he is placing the responsibility for 21st century early learning with the U.S. Department of Education (instead of over in HHS with the Head Start office).  Could it be we may actually see a P-20 education continuum run through Maryland Avenue?  One can only hope.
* Title I Rewards — Perhaps the most intriguing new idea is that of a Title I Rewards program.  And it is interesting because of what we know, and what we still don’t.  Based on yesterday, it seems that ED will provide $300 million in new Title I dollars directly to the states, based on current Title I formulas.  It will then be up to the states to divide that money up among those Title I districts who are demonstrating the most progress in student achievement improvement.  So will dollars go to a select few districts or most?  Are rewards simply the thanks of a grateful nation, or are they to be designated for specific interventions or to scale particular improvements?  Lots of questions, with lots of opportunities.
* Teacher training — Last year, the Administration took a beating for the perception that it was scrapping its commitment to preservice education for teachers, instead handing the keys over to alt cert providers and programs like Teach for America.  This year, the President is offering up $975 million for the recruitment, reward, and retention of new teachers.  We’re looking at recruitment programs, scholarship efforts (particularly those targeting minorities), and an emphasis on science and math teachers.  This seems like an awful lot of real capital to begin supporting the Teach.gov initiative.
And who is getting condolence cards today?  Those 13 programs slated for elimination (including the Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners, which is experiencing another year of life and another $8.8 million under the CR).  The 38 programs targeted for consolidation, while a few are destined for greatness in the competitive grant process (I’m looking at you, TFA), most may go the way of those Whaling Partners.  Career and Technical Education, which seemed to be the big loser, as some well-meaning program had to sacrifice to make this year’s number, and CTE seems to be the recipient of such cuts.  And I’d also put ARPA-ED on the list, simply because after all of the build up it received in the week leading into the budget, the total dollar figure allotted to our very own DARPA seems small by comparison.
Now the fun begins.  Anyone willing to bet more than half the new funding makes it through the House of Representatives this fall?
 

Celebrating the Science Fair

Eduflack accountability, assessment, AYP, Science, teachers

During his State of the Union address last month, President Barack Obama showed the love for the science fair, saying winners of the science fair deserve the same kudos as winners of the Super Bowl.  But this week, The New York Times has an article detailing how the American science fair is on the decline, placing the blame at the feet of the U.S. Department of Education and its policies on student achievement and accountability and the fact that science fairs take up a lot of work, both for the teacher and the student.

Personally, Eduflack is sick and tired of hearing accountability (and its bastard step-sister AYP) for being blamed for all that ails our schools.  Anyone who has been a part of a successful science fair experience knows that doing so improves both student learning and student achievement.  Done effectively, science fairs can spur a love for learning, better engage students in the classroom (beyond just the science classroom), and instill the sort of 21st century skills we are seeking from our students.  And we won’t even talk about those pesky science accountability requirements that are supposed to be coming online any year now.
Believe it or not, Eduflack knows of what he speaks this time around.  Yes, I am a former science fair geek.  In fact, I once was the grand prize winner for the West Virginia State Science Fair.  I competed in the International Science and Engineering Fair (and even took home an award).  My project?  A study in behavioral science, looking at the impact of verbal conditioning (both good and bad) and human subjects of different ages.  (And for those who care, I found that positive verbal conditioning had far more impact than negative, even on my youngest test subjects.)
There is no doubt that science fairs can be time consuming.  A good project requires a great deal of work from the student, from the student’s science teacher, and from all of the teachers and community members who help assemble and judge the fair itself.  But it is one of those efforts where the payoff far exceeds the cost.  Students learn to work beyond the textbook, thinking critically and solving real problems relevant to them.  They are experimenting and writing and orally presenting and figuring out how to visually depict their project and its findings.  They are seeing something through from start to finish, and they are getting supports from their teachers every step along the way.  In many ways, it is instruction the way we all intended it — project based, relevant, comprehensive, measurable, and with long-term impact.
Perhaps President Obama is wrong.  We shouldn’t be celebrating the winners of science fairs … we should be celebrating all of those who take the time to experiment and compete in the first place.  We should be finding ways to support teachers in the process, giving them the time and resources to integrate fairs into the instructional day.  We should be projecting the value of the science fair, not seeing it as an extracurricular burden but rather as a terrific tool for inspiring creativity and exploration in students, particularly those who are not the science “whiz kids” as defined by test scores or AP classes.  And we should be thanking all of those teachers who continue to do whatever it takes to keep this wonderful practice alive, despite the added burdens and added hours associated with the science fair.
As a former competitor and a former winner, Eduflack thanks you.
 

State of the Education Union?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, early childhood education, ESEA, HQT, teachers, technology

As is typical for this time of year, most of Washington is eagerly awaiting tomorrow evening’s State of the Union address, delivered by President Barack Obama.  (Of course, Eduflack will be in a school board meeting, discussing local school budgets, but I’ll be listening to the SOTU in spirit).  And just about every year, the education community eagerly awaits to see how big a role education policy will play in the SOTU.

Last year, we expected big things, but just about all of the ed discussion was focused on higher ed and student loans, not on P-12 issues.  In the lead-up to Tuesday, the White House has made clear that this year’s speech will focus on the five pillars to turn around our nation’s economy (not to be confused with EdSec Arne Duncan’s four pillars for turning around K-12 public education).  And go figure, education is expected to be one of those five pillars.
But in the Washington Post, in a graphic that accompanies today’s story on the SOTU, expects that the education focus will be on protecting funding for existing programs.  So if WaPo is right (and it hasn’t necessarily been lately), part of the great road to economic improvement is maintaining the status quo in K-12 education.
Yes, I realize that means continuing funding for new programs such as Race to the Top, with Duncan just last week calling for a third RttT round focused on school districts.  I’ll say it here and I’ll say it loudly.  If tomorrow’s education focus is simply about staying the course, the education sector will have missed a major opportunity.
Across the nation, we are asking states, districts, schools, and teachers to do more and more with less and less.  As those budgets have shrunk, some have even said it is a golden opportunity for schools and school improvement, as we can no longer the maintain that which we’ve had, and instead need to focus on that with the greatest impact or the highest return on investment.  We’re calling for virtually all schools to “reform” or “improve,” making clear that the way we used to do things isn’t going to cut it in the future.
So if President Obama comes out tomorrow and says we need to keep on keeping on, it will be a major step backward.  If we merely try to save the U.S. Department of Education from budget cuts, while protecting recent gains for Title I, RttT, teacher quality efforts, and student loans, we will have squandered a real chance at real improvement.  And if the goal is a true economic renaissance for the United States, status quo at a time when our international standing is slipping, our achievement gap is offensive, and our resources and lacking just isn’t going to cut it.
I recognize that tomorrow evening’s speech is likely already loaded into the teleprompter, but there are a few key items I’d like to see make the cut:
* Early childhood education — We need to honor the promises made with regard to ECE and begin to fund what the research tells us is needed.  Achievement gaps start before kids ever hit kindergarten.  We address that by confronting the problem from the start.  And that means real, academic-focused ECE efforts.  Babysitters and social adaptation programs need not apply.
* Teacher quality — First, we need to agree on the qualitative and quantitative measures of what makes an effective teacher.  Then we need to see what goes into the pre-service and in-service education of a teacher to get there.  Only then can we effective use teacher incentive programs to improve the schools.  We need real research that gets at the heart of the teacher quality issue.
* STEM — And I use this as a collective discussion.  We need to increase on investment in effective math and science education.  We need to put real resources behind the goals of America Competes.  It is the only way we start to move the needle when it comes to international competitiveness.
* Ed tech — We need to convert our 19th century classrooms into 21st century learning environments.  That means focusing on both how we teach and what we teach with.  Ed tech needs to be both at the heart of our ESEA discussions and of our school funding realities.
* Achievement gap — Let’s stop dancing around the issue.  If we are talking about righting our economy, we need to address the achievement gap.  Until black, Hispanic, and low-income students start gaining ground against white, wealthy students, our schools will always struggle.  With the gaps as astounding as they currently are now, it isn’t enough to applaud all groups for incremental gains.
* College prep — We need more opportunities to prepare students for postsecondary education.  More dual enrollment.  More opps to study at local community colleges.  More career-focused, relevant courses.  More exposure to the academic world beyond the high school.  A high school diploma isn’t going to cut it as we head deeper into the 21st century.  
* Parental engagement — We need a concerted, supported effort to better engage parents and families in the learning process.  The responsibility for student success does not rest solely with the classroom teacher.  Parents need to know what their role is, how to play it, and how to ask the questions to ensure their kids are getting the education they both need and deserve.  
* R&D — As we keep asking folks to do more with less, we need to ensure that what we are doing is proven effective and has a strong evidence base behind it.  For too long, educators have done what they thought worked or what they believed worked or what they hoped worked.  It is now time to invest in what we can prove works.  That starts with a robust R&D effort focused on the classroom.  And the “&D” is very important, particularly as we look translating good research into real practice.  
What I want to see if fairly simple.  I want the circle of educational life.  What are the conditions we need to start effective learning (teacher quality, parental engagement, ECE)?  What should all children know and be able to do (STEM, ed tech, college prep)?  What obstacles must be overcome (achievement gap, ed tech)?  And what is our intended destination (increased grad rates, increased college-going rates, and the economic success that we’ll hear about for more than an hour tomorrow)?
And I would NOT talk about ESEA.  How we get to these above points isn’t nearly as important as actually doing it.  ESEA is merely a process.  But it isn’t a required path for 2011.  And I’d stay away from issues like common core, charters, and AYP.  All those buzz words do is stoke the fires of the loyal opposition (whichever side on which they may be).
What am I missing?  What is necessary to tell the true state of our education union?
 
 

Some Resolutions for 2011

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, assessment, charter schools, early childhood education, ELL, ESEA, HQT, i3, international benchmarking, NCLB, Online Education, reading, Reading First, RTT, STEM, stimulus, Teacher Education, teachers, technology

Another year about to go down in the history books.  Are we any closer to truly improving our public schools?  For every likely step forward we may have taken in 2010, it seems to be met with a similar step back.  For every rhetorical push ahead, we had a very real headwind blocking progress. 

So as we head into 2011, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack offers up a few “resolutions” for all on the education reform boat to consider as we start a new year.  We need to come to accept the following:
1.  True reform does not happen at the federal level.  The federal government is an important lever in the school improvement process, offering some necessary financial resources and some bully pulpit language to inspire reform.  But true improvement happens at the state and local levels.  It is about what our SEAs and LEAs do with those resources and whether they embrace the call from the bully pulpit.  Just as all politics is local, so too is all education reform.  Why do you think groups like DFER are so keen on launching new statewide efforts, like the new one in California?
2.  ESEA reauthorization really doesn’t matter.  As much as we want to fret about when ESEA is going to be reauthorized and what will and won’t be included, it doesn’t have much impact on the game at hand.  At the end of the day, EdSec Duncan could work from the current NCLB, make a few tweaks, and be just fine for the next few years.  Those thinking a major sea change is coming with reauth will be sadly mistaken.  If we see reauth this year (put at about 60 percent), expect it to simply be a kinder, gentler NCLB.  Nothing more.
3. Education technology matters.  For years now, we’ve placed ed tech in the perifery when it comes to school improvement, trying to define it as simply the adoption of a particular piece of hardware.  Ed tech needs to be at the center of 21st century school improvement.  It is important to instruction and student achievement, teacher quality, and all-around turnaround efforts.  If we are to realize its impact, we need to ensure it is a non-negotiable in the process.
4. We cannot forget about reading instruction.  Nine years ago, Reading First was born, emphasizing the importance of literacy instruction in the elementary grades.  We cannot boost student test scores and we cannot ensure that all kids are college and career ready if everyone isn’t reading at grade level.  RF taught us a great deal on how to teach reading (and how not to advocate it politically).  Building on those lessons, we need to redouble our efforts to get each and every child reading proficient.  And that now includes focusing on middle and high schools, where too many students have fallen between the cracks.
5. Superintendents matter.  Many of our largest and most influential school districts will experience change at the top this coming year.  These new leaders can’t forget that the role of instructional leader is essential to their success.  Shaking things up is good.  Sweeping out the old is fine.  Doing things differently is great.  But at the end of the day, being a superintendent is all about teaching and learning and measurement.  Magazine covers are nice, but rising test scores are far more rewarding.
6. We still need to figure out what teacher quality is.  Is it just student test scores?  Does it include preservice education requirements beyond HQT provisions?  Are their qualitative factors?  Can we accept a “we’ll know it when we see it” definition?  With increased focus continuing to be placed on the topic of teacher quality, we need a true defition and a true measurement to really launch a meaningful discussion.  We’ve spent too much time talking about what it isn’t or what it shouldn’t be.  It is time to determine what it is.
7. Research remains king.  In 2010, we spent a great deal of money on school reforms and improvement ideas.  Most of these dollars were an investment in hope.  Now it is time to verify.  We need to determine what is working and what is not.  We need to know not just that the money is being spent (as ED typically sees evaluation) but instead need to know what it is being spent on and what is showing promise of success.  We need to redouble our investments in evaluation.  Other sectors have made real advances because of investments in R&D.  It is about time for education to do the same.
8. We need to learn how to use social media in education.  It is quite disheartening to see that states like Virginia are exploring banning teachers from using tools like Facebook with their students.  It is also a little frustrating to see that media like Twitter are still being used for one-way communications.  We need to see more engagement and dialogue through our social media.  An example?  How about more Twitter debates like those between @DianeRavitch and @MichaelPetrilli ?
And as we look forward to the new year, some predictions on what is hot and what is not for 2011.
HOT — Accountability (and its flexibility).  Assessments.  International benchmarking.  Rural education.  Alternative certification.  Special education.  Competitive grants.  Local control.  School improvement.  Local elected school boards.  Online education.
NOT —  Charter schools.  Early childhood education.  21st century skills.  STEM.  ELL.  Education schools.  RttT/i3.  Education reform (yeah, you heard me).  Teachers unions.  Mayoral control.  AYP.  Early colleges.  Edujobs.
Happy new year!  

Blue Ribbons and Teacher Prep

Eduflack higher ed, HQT, Teacher Education, teachers

With all of the talk about student achievement and turning around schools, there is a larger issue lurking in the shadows.  Teachers.  For much of this year, we’ve focused discussions of teacher quality on how we measure effective instruction in the classroom.  And while Eduflack is all about the outcomes, the research shows that the inputs of teacher quality are just as important, particularly when we look at the education and clinical preparation that goes into growing a better teacher.

Today, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education releases its (much) anticipated report from its Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improving Student Learning.  The Panel itself is a relative who’s who of the education blob, particularly those organizations and individuals involved teacher quality issues, including AACTE, AFT, IEL, KA, NBPTS, NCTAF, NEA, and a host of IHEs and LEAs (how’s that for using your edu-alphabet?).

What did the Blue Ribbon winners offer up on their key reccs for improving teacher quality and the clinical preparation of educators?  The group offered up a Top 5 list:

1) More rigorous accountability, including calling for teacher ed programs to do a better job of monitoring their programs, ensuring they are up to par, and guaranteeing they are meeting the needs of the school districts filling teaching jobs.

2) Strengthening Candidate Selection and Placement, with a careful eye to making teacher ed programs more selective and more diverse. 

3) Revamping Curricula, Incentives, and Staffing, with a commitment to couple practice, content, theory, and pedagogy in the teacher ed process.

4) Supporting partnerships, particularly those relationships that produce college graduates “who do want to teach and are being prepared in fields where there is market demand.”

5) Expanding the knowledge base to identify what works and support continuous improvement, giving a hat tip to the unfortunate fact that “there is not a large research base on what makes clinical preparation effective.”

To help move these concepts into practice, NCATE announced that eight states — California, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Tennessee — are now part of the new NCATE Alliance for Clinical Teacher Preparation (though it is interesting to note that six of those eight states now have new governors, thanks to this month’s elections).

So how does NCATE keep this report from suffering the fate of so many reports before it, being applauded at its release and then relegated to a shelf never to be read again?  Put simply, the NCATE reccs need to be moved into practice NOW.  The Alliance is a good first step.  But how are the reccs being implemented into the US Department of Education’s teacher candidate recruitment effort?  How are these priorities being funded through the Higher Education Act and Title II programs?  How are we rewarding colleges for doing right, while dealing with those leading us down the wrong paths?  And how do we ensure that federal, state, and local teaching dollars are going to employ those educators who live up to expectations and enter the classroom with the clinical preparation necessary to succeed from day one?

I realize I often throw cold water on these sorts of reports, always asking what comes next.  But informing is only the start of the battle, and all a report does is inform.  If we are to change the hearts, minds, and actions, we need to go further and dig deeper.  Changing the way we address teacher preparation is a big thing requiring a lot of work.  One report does not solve the problem, but it can get the discussion going.

Teacher Incentives and Australia-Bound Felons

Eduflack accountability, teachers

Can 18th century British boat captains teach us anything about the effectiveness of teacher incentives?

Early this morning, NPR featured an economist talking about English maritime history an economist talking about English maritime history.  As many know, at one point Australia served as  a prison colony for Great Britain.  The British would send their criminals on a lovely sea voyage, eventually dumping their troublemakers on what was seen as the other side of the world.
The trouble was, by the time the trip from England to Australia was completed, nearly one third of the prisoners on the ship were dead, lost mid-voyage because of lack of care or concern from the boat captain and his crew.  You see, those manning the British crafts were paid by the journey.  Complete the trip to the Land Down Under and back, and collect your paycheck.
So at the end of the 18th century (1793, I believe) some British leaders took great issue with the fatality rates on these prison ships.  How could Great Britain move these criminals from the British Isles to Australia successfully, where they could serve out their sentences as intended?
Ultimately, the British came up with an intriguing idea.  Instead of paying ship captains by the trip, they changed their contracts and paid them based on the number of prisoners that were ultimately delivered to Australia.  By shifting pay determination from process (the trip) to outcomes (the number of living bodies delivered), a funny thing happened.  Nearly 99 percent of those destined for Australia made it there alive, up from the previous 65 percent survival rate.  Ship captains were paid well, and they were recognized for successfully completing the job at hand.
Perhaps I am a little punchy this AM, or perhaps I am just trying to be a little provocative, but what if we took the same approach to teaching?  What if, instead of being paid for standing in front of a classroom for an academic year, teachers were paid based on the number of students who score proficient or better on assessment measures?  Would we see a change in outcomes?
When we talk teacher incentives, isn’t the 18th century nautical analogy apropos?  Ultimately, our teachers are the captains of their classrooms, in charge of charting the course and making sure all those on board make it to the final destination.  Today, most of those teachers are rewarded for simply manning the ship, surviving the trip from September through June.  I’ll give you that we shouldn’t look at our students as 18th century criminals, but the survival of today’s students depends on their ability to demonstrate proficiency on academic measures.  So why not expect that student performance would increase if teacher pay is tied to that ultimate outcome?
The NPR economist was singing the praises of the British approach, acknowledging that the shift in pay structure all but eliminated the “failure” rate on these ships, with virtually all passengers surviving the trip.  What would these economists say about applying these lessons to the 21st century classroom?

Teachin’ the Teachers

Eduflack accountability, assessment, PD, teachers

For much of this year, the education community has gone back and forth on teacher quality and how we evaluate effective teaching.  Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times (with an assist from Hechinger Report) pushed the topic further than most, offering a comprehensive Grading the Teachers effort that tracked individual teachers to their students’ test scores.

Without doubt, we will continue to look at such outcomes to see whether teachers are up to the job or not.  Cities across the nation, led by municipalities like Denver, Houston, and DC, have strong teacher evaluation and incentive plans in place.  And the 12 states (yes, I’ll count DC in the state pool) that finished as Race to the Top winners all needed to focus on teacher quality issues (to varying degrees).

Such emphasis on outcomes is imperative.  At the end of the day, we know our schools are improving when test scores go up.  Other measures, particularly the qualifiable, are relatively meaningless to the average parent or the average policymaker if student performance does not improve.  Scores go up, we’re doing the job.  Scores remain stagnant, we’re advocating the status quo.  And let’s not even think about scores going down.  Data is king.  He with the highest test scores — be you student, teacher, or school — rules the kingdom.

But every once in a while, we need to think about the inputs that get us to those outcomes.  The logic goes that if we are measuring teachers based on the achievement scores posted by the kids in their class, we need to also look at the tools that educators have to effectively teach in those classrooms.  What supports are teachers getting, particularly new teachers?  What does an induction program look like?  What sort of ongoing PD is offered?  What intellectual weapons are we arming our classroom teachers with?

Today, the National Staff Development Council released a new report, Professional Development in the United States: Trends and Challenges, that provides a snapshot of the investment we are making into teaching the teachers how to be better teachers.  Conducted by the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) at Stanford University (a center that Eduflack has been fortunate to work with since its founding), the NSDC study offers a state-by-state report card of 11 indicators important to professional development access.  Such indicators include whether at least 80 percent of new teachers participate in induction, at least 80 percent of teachers report PD on content, at least 51 percent of teachers are getting 17 or more hours of content, and at least 67 percent of teachers reported PD on reading instruction.

How did the states do?  If a teacher wants to get the best professional development out there, they should be teaching in classrooms in either Arkansas or Utah.  If you aren’t in a classroom in either of those two states, you are doing pretty well if you manage a classroom in Colorado, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, or South Carolina.  South Carolina and Utah also offer the best environment for new teachers, posting the best scores in induction indicators.

And where does NSDC and SCOPE find teachers struggling to get the PD deemed necessary?  Indiana was the only state not to receive a single apple in the 11-apple indicator scale.    Single apples (out of 11) went to Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and WIsconsin.    

While many aren’t going to like to see such a report boiled down to a horserace (the folks at SCOPE actually list the states alphabetically, not in leaders to laggards order), such a comparison is important.  Teacher quality was a key component of RttT, and worth a fair number of points in the process.  Of the seven states recognized for their good work in PD access, only one, North Carolina, is a RttT winner.  Three others (Colorado, Kentucky, and South Carolina) came close.

But of those NSDC finds lacking, we see four RttT winners (Georgia, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) in the 11 laggards.  One would like to believe that some of these perceived deficiencies will be addressed as part of each state’s RttT-funded teacher quality efforts; only time will tell.

What also becomes interesting are the indicators themselves.  NSDC’s Professional Development Access Index says that at least 51 percent of new teachers need to report 4 out of 5 induction support.s  Only two states — South Carolina and Utah — actually do that.  It says at least 67 percent of teachers need to report PD on student discipline and classroom management, but only one state — Arkansas — is doing that.  Only three states — Arizona, California, and Oregon — are offering a majority of their teachers PD on ELL students.  It begs the question — how, exactly, do we know these indicators are non-negotiable when it comes to teacher PD if almost no states are doing it? 

Regardless, NSDC’s Professional Development in the United States report provides some interesting fodder for the ongoing teacher quality debate.  It forces us to go on record as to whether PD is important or not, opens the discussion on what good PD truly is, and allows states to see how their fellow states are doing (and what they can do to beat them).

No, we probably won’t see a rush to invest in huge PD programs, particularly in this economy.  But if states are serious about improving student achievement and measuring teachers by said achievement scores, we need to look at the inputs that go into instruction.  Teacher induction and ongoing professional development are inputs that just can’t be ignored.
 

Acting on Common Standards

Eduflack accountability, national standards, teachers

Two-thirds of states have now signed onto the Common Core State Standards Initiative, pledging to adopt the K-12 English/language arts and math standards framework officially released in final form by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers back in June.

Without doubt, CCSSI is a necessary step forward in our national school improvement effort.  One, singular set of academic standards is a non-negotiable if we are to truly improve our performance on national assessments such as NAEP and if we are to make ourselves more competitive on international benchmarks such as PISA and TIMSS.  CCSS offer the promise that, in the near future, we will actually know the answer to the question, what should a fourth grader know when it comes to math?  Or what does it mean to be ELA proficient in the 7th grade.  Doesn’t matter what state or district a student is in (unless they happen to reside in Texas or Virginia), standards will soon actually be standard.

As states are moving to formally adopt the CCSS, the federal government is already beginning the process of developing the assessments that will accompany such standards.  In the coming weeks, we should hear about hundreds of millions of dollars being sent to various consortia to develop a standard assessment to go with the standards.  But an important question remains.  How do we move these K-12 standards frameworks into real instruction?   

Often, school improvement efforts get bogged down in this question.  We offer up a “great idea” but have little notion of how to operationalize it.  So those great ideas wither on the vine.  We all sign onto the concept, but we never fully put it into practice.

Last week, a comprehensive set of K-12 ELA “curriculum maps” were released for public review and comment.  The maps are a product of Common Core (which despite the name is not actually a part of or affiliated with CCSSI).  According to the folks at Common Core (a group Eduflack has been fortunate to work with):

Common Core’s Curriculum Maps in English Language Arts were written by public school teachers for public school teachers. The maps translate the new Common Core State Standards for Kindergarten through 12th grade into unit maps that teachers can use to plan their year, craft their own more detailed curriculum, and create lesson plans. The maps are flexible and adaptable, yet they address every standard in the CCSS. Any teacher, school, or district that chooses to follow the Common Core maps can be confident that they are adhering to the standards. Even the topics the maps introduce grow out of and expand upon the “exemplar” texts recommended in the CCSS. And because they are free the maps will save school districts millions in curriculum development costs. The draft maps are available for public comment until September 17.

There has been a great deal swirling around the blogsphere the past week on these Curriculum Maps.  One thing seems certain.  Like CCSSI itself, these Maps are a necessary first step toward moving the standards into real instruction.  Do they answer each and every question one has about implementing CCSS?  Of course not.  But it does put us on a real path toward teaching English according to what is expected from CCSS.  And it does so on a platform that was constructed on the standards themselves (rather than being tailored from old, existing materials or simply claiming alignment even if one is not there).

Perhaps most importantly, though, is that these standards were “written by public school teachers for public school teachers.”  We’ve been hearing a great deal, of late, about how most education improvement efforts seem to exclude teachers from the process.  We bring them the final product, asking them to implement, but we don’t give them any practical input into the development.  These Common Core Curriculum Maps seem different.  Educators developed and reviewed these drafts.  Teachers are now being asked to provide public comment and input on the drafts.  And those teacher inputs will be factored in before the Maps go final later this fall.

Such maps only live up to their potential, though, if folks provide valuable feedback and actionable recommendations.  Both the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation processes were strengthened because of a robust public comment period.  Same goes for the Common Core State Standards themselves, which went through comprehensive review and public comment before we saw the final product in early June. 

So for all of those who worry how to implement the standards, now is the time to offer public comment.  For all of those who worry that teachers have been ignored in the school reform process, now is the time to offer public comment.  For all of those who have first-hand, real classroom experience to provide, now is the time to offer public comment.  And for those who want to improve both teaching and learning, particularly in ELA, now is the time to offer public comment.

As the first to market, these Common Core Curriculum Maps have the potential of wielding significant impact on the future of instruction in our public school classrooms.  If we are going to start from the strongest footing possible, we need teachers and administrators and policymakers and the like to take the time to review the maps and offer their views on how to strengthen the recommendations and improve the tools that will be provided the educators throughout the nation.