NCTAF News Digest:

A Weekly Digest of News Articles & Reports

Thursday April 10, 2008

In this Issue:

--NCLB Watch

--New NCATE Publication Available

--Commentary: The Post-Boomer Teacher Crunch

--Federal Report Fuels a Quarter-Century of Restructuring, and Controversy

--Legistators Balk at Tying Teacher Tenure to Student Success

--Principals' Group Updates Standards for Leadership

--Teacher Test Results May be Appealable

--Higher Learning's Higher Competition

Greetings,

This is the NCTAF News Digest, a timely news service provided to our partner states, commissioners, and the education policy community. This Digest is for the personal educational use of the recipient. At publication time, all links were active. Some publications may require free registration. You may wish to bookmark links for future reference.

It's All about Student Learning: Assessing Teacher Candidates' Ability to Impact P-12 Students, edited by Arthur E. Wise and associates, is a compilation of performance assessments currently in use by consortia (the Performance Assessment for California Teachers, or PACT; the Renaissance Partnership, and the Ohio Teacher Quality Partnership), and individual teacher preparation institutions, to measure candidates' ability to impact P-12 student learning, including challenges and lessons learned. The publication includes actual assessment instruments. It provides practical assistance to those designing assessment systems or individual assessments. 220 pages. To order, visit www.ncate.org; click on Publications.

Commentary: The Post-Boomer Teacher Crunch: Reframing 'Retention' to Fit the Needs of a New Generation

-Education Week; April 9, 2008

More than a decade has passed since the first alarms were sounded, warning of the retirement from teaching of the baby boom generation and its likely negative impact on schools. The charge to education leaders then was two-faceted: Recruit a new generation of teachers, and modernize the profession so that these 21st-century workers could be retained throughout their careers. In the ensuing years, districts, states, and the federal government have made significant investments to streamline entry into the profession. In place of university-monopolized preparation, there is now an array of teacher-training alternatives. Districts nationwide are accelerating hiring and modernizing data systems to take better advantage of the applicant pool. But while we have improved the beginning of the teacher-supply pipeline, we have failed to put a priority on ensuring that substantial numbers of promising novices move into a second stage of teaching. In many districts, the ability to recruit large quantities of new teachers has muted concern about replacing retirees. And the fact that most departing teachers are replaceable seems to obscure the real loss that occurs as they go: They take experience with them. The instructional leadership and staff stability that experienced teachers provide is more critical to student learning than many think. Succeeding at recruitment cannot outweigh failing at retention. The cost of teacher attrition has been documented in dollars and in student outcomes. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future estimates that teacher turnover costs the nation $7.3 billion annually. Students of novice teachers achieve at lower levels than those with experienced teachers, and, most important, high-poverty students are far more likely to have novice teachers than low-poverty students. Urban districts, which have often done the best job of improving recruitment, suffer most from the staffing churn.

Conventional wisdom about teachers’ career choices has been a convenient excuse for overlooking the potential of a targeted focus on retention. We operate from the premise that some entrants to the field will teach for a couple of years before pursuing their “real careers,” and that the remainder will last a lifetime. This logic dictates that the former group will leave regardless of incentives, and those in the latter group do not need incentives to stay. The problem is that both suppositions are wrong.The existence of the “lifetime” teacher can no longer be taken for granted. Harvard University professor Susan Moore Johnson’s research clarifies that the average teacher today expects, as her generational peers in other fields do, to take on differing positions and responsibilities throughout her career. Perhaps a more interesting question is whether there is hope for retaining the promising teachers often dismissed as short-termers.

To read the full article, click here.
To view NCTAF's Cost of Teacher Turnover study, click here.

See related article:

• Retain and Deliver, Scholastic, April 2008.

Federal Report Fuels a Quarter Century of Restructuring, and Controversy
-Washington Post; April 7, 2008

Twenty-five years ago, the federal government report "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" launched an era of efforts to improve public schools that continues today. The authors used combative language, starting with the title, to issue a call to action to elected officials and educators to set new academic standards and improve teacher quality. The report was the product of an 18-member panel assembled in 1981 by Terrel H. Bell, who was secretary of education at the time, to examine the public education system. The report wasn't the first call for education reform, but it garnered unusual attention because of its plain language, which linked the future of the economy to public schooling, and because of the times in which it was delivered.  Ronald Reagan was president, and many newly resurgent conservatives wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, institute school vouchers and make other changes to the public education system. Some, including then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III, opposed the report because it made no mention of those issues. Others said many of its conclusions and recommendations were based on inaccurate data and hazy reasoning. Still, the report fueled new interest in education reform, launched the standards movement and influenced the Bush administration's creation of the No Child Left Behind law.

Here are some key events related to school reform since "A Nation at Risk" was published:

· April 1983: "A Nation at Risk" warns that the country's future is threatened by its inadequate public education system. It recommends that all high school students be required to take four courses in English; three each in math, science and social studies; and a half-credit in computer science, with a foreign-language requirement for students heading to college.

"The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people," the report states.

And: "If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

To view the full article, click here.

To view the report, click here.

Legislators Balk at Tying Teacher Tenure to Student Tests

-The New York Times; April 9, 2008

ALBANY — In the latest rebuke to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s agenda, state lawmakers have decided to bar student test scores from being considered when teacher tenure determinations are made. Legislators said the move was the final detail negotiated as part of the budget, which they expect to complete on Wednesday. It was a setback to efforts by the mayor and former Gov. Eliot Spitzer to hold teachers accountable by using student performance data, and a boon for the teachers’ unions, which hold enormous influence over the political process in the capital. The new language being prepared for the state law says that for the next two years student scores will not be considered in decisions on teachers’ tenure; in the meantime, a commission is to be created to study the issue.The move was denounced Tuesday night by the Bloomberg administration. “I am dismayed that the State Legislature would even consider tying the hands of principals and school districts as they decide who gets lifetime job security,” said Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein. “This is unconscionable. Lawmakers should do all they can to ensure every student has a good teacher. I urge our lawmakers to vote no tomorrow. Our children deserve better.”

The development was another sign that the fledgling administration of Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, could be a rocky one for the mayor. The new governor was unable to rally support for the mayor’s congestion pricing plan, which would have charged drivers to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. While Mr. Paterson supported the measure, he could not persuade Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver or other Assembly Democrats to bring the measure to the floor, and it was pronounced dead without a vote on Monday. The mayor and his staff members were seething when it became known on Tuesday that the teacher accountability measure in state law was being revised. Lawmakers and legislative aides said they expected to return to work Wednesday morning and vote on the final piece of the budget — education financing and taxes — and it was the tenure issue, they said, that held it up. “That is the last piece,” Mr. Silver said. “And I think there’s, you know, some good compromise language we’re considering right now.” He added, “I think everybody will be comfortable with it.” He did not discuss details of the compromise, but a draft of the relevant portion of the budget obtained by The New York Times changes language added to state law last year while Mr. Spitzer was governor. That section said teachers would be evaluated for tenure based on, among other things, an “evaluation of the extent to which the teacher successfully utilized analysis of available student performance data.” The newer language says that “the teacher shall not be granted or denied tenure based on student performance data.”

For the full article, click here.

Principals' Group Updates Standards for Leadership

-Education Week; April 9, 2008

Effective school leaders don’t just raise students’ test scores—they instill a culture of learning in their schools that includes the adults who work there and members of the surrounding community. That is the picture of the K-8 principalship painted this week by the National Association of Elementary School Principals, which released two new publications designed to help its members grapple with the demands of their jobs. The first, Vision 2021: Transformation in Leading, Learning, and Community, offers a future look at schools and educational trends. The title year refers to the date that will mark the organization’s 100th birthday. The second publication, Leading Learning Communities: Standards for What Principals Should Know and be Able to Do, updates a set of standards for elementary principals released in 2001. Both were unveiled at the NAESP’s annual convention April 4-8 in Nashville, Tenn. The books are intended to place principals squarely in the forefront of defining school performance and excellence, said Gail Connelly, the executive director of the NAESP. Too often, she said, principals are forced to react to outside pressures. High-stakes testing, for example, has prompted a shift away from goals that elementary principals deem important, she said. One part of a successful school of the future, the organization believes, involves a shift from high-stakes testing to high-quality learning. Principals “don’t often have the opportunity to think about the future and their role in that future,” Ms. Connelly said, but they are steeped in the best ways of educating children.

Vision 2021 was the culmination of 18 months of intense self-reflection, said Mary Kay Sommers, the president of the NAESP and the principal of the 476-student Shepardson Elementary School in Fort Collins, Colo. Part of that work was done with the help of the Institute for Alternative Futures, an Alexandria, Va., organization that works with groups to create forecasts, goals, and strategies. School leaders of the future, the publication says, will be expected to be data managers, champions of professional development, experts in “whole child” learning, and skilled at community engagement. The forecast also includes a tight connection between technology and education. The principals’ organization predicts that increases in scientific knowledge about child brain development will mean that teachers can use new technologies to reach specific groups of students.Technology will also help teachers receive continuous feedback on students’ performance. Students could then be evaluated on individual measures. “Electronic safety networks” would allow parents as well as principals to observe classrooms by remote viewer. In those schools of the future, principals will shift away from a managerial role, Ms. Sommers said. “They’ll need to know, how do you drill down on data? How do you work together as a team?”

For the full article, click here.

Teacher Test Results may be Appealable

-The Boston Globe; April 5, 2008

One day after the issue sparked derision and mockery on the Senate floor, the Patrick administration has indicated it is receptive to legislation that would allow aspiring teachers who fail the certification test three times to get licensed anyway. S. Paul Reville, chairman of the state Board of Education, said yesterday that the administration is trying to figure out what other criteria it might use to judge candidates who cannot pass the test. The state, like many, has been struggling with a shortage of teachers and does not want to discourage qualified applicants. "The test is one methodology - and we think it's a valid and reliable methodology for looking at people's level of skills and knowledge - but it isn't necessarily the best venue for everybody to demonstrate their competency," said Reville, who in July will take the newly created post of state education secretary. The bill passed the Senate Thursday by a vote of 34 to 5. Critics roundly denounced the measure as an attempt to water down a key tool used to weed out sub par teaching candidates. Republicans openly mocked the bill by offering a series of satirical amendments to allow similar appeals for doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who cannot pass their certification tests. "It demeans the whole profession," said Senator Richard R. Tisei, Republican of Wakefield and the Senate minority leader. "Teachers should be held to the same standards that we expect when we certify a lawyer, an accountant, a funeral director."

Aspiring teachers need a score of 240 out of a possible 300 to pass the test, which measures literacy and communication skills, as well as knowledge in a particular subject. The test is scaled, so the bill says that anyone who takes the test three times and comes at least once within "one standard of error" of a passing score may appeal to the state education commissioner. That score would vary each time the test is administered. Proponents said they pushed the bill for aspiring teachers who believe they are qualified but unable to pass the test. "I don't think any test can absolutely indicate whether someone can be a good teacher or not and should not be the ultimate determination in some of the cases," said Senator Robert A. Antonioni, chairman of the Education Committee, who sponsored the bill. Christopher R. Anderson, an Education Board member, agreed. "These are people in the anecdotal cases I've seen who we don't want to see pushed out of the profession, and the lack of the appeals process has been a hurdle to retaining them," he said. Chuck Zucco - who owns the Education Testing Institute, a Wakefield company that helps teachers prepare for the test - said he has had customers who have failed the test more than a dozen times. Most have a learning disability or speak English as a second language, he said. Some might still make good teachers, he said. "It would hurt my business, but there are certain cases where I think the bill makes sense," Zucco said. The test has provoked controversy before. House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran caused a furor in 1998, the year the test began, when he called people who had failed the test "idiots."

For the full article click here.

Higher Learning's Higher Competition

-Baltimore Sun; April 10, 2008

In college admissions it is the year of unprecedented uncertainty. Akua Abrah, a talented senior at Annapolis High School, tried to guess how many top schools she would need to apply to in order to get in somewhere she really wanted to go. She chose 10. Admissions deans such as John Latting at the Johns Hopkins University walked a tightrope as they tried to estimate how many students to accept to fill their freshman classes. What was the probability that students such as Abrah, who might be accepted by competitors, would choose Hopkins? A bump in the population - a so-called baby boomlet - means that a record number of high school seniors are applying to college this year. Making matters worse, a handful of selective colleges dropped "early decision," so thousands of students who would have been committed to attend a college by December instead joined the larger group applying for spring acceptance.
And some counselors suspect that colleges began rejecting highly qualified students who the admissions officers believe are applying only because they need a backup "safety" school. National rankings judge colleges in part by the yield rate - the percentage of accepted applicants who ultimately enroll. So colleges worry about accepting too many students who decline to attend. Deans of students have taken to writing personal notes on the formal acceptance letters, a touch they hoped would entice students to enroll. Just in case an unexpected number say no, the waiting lists are longer, too.

The intense competition for places isn't just for those applying to the Ivy Leagues. Statistics from colleges show it is harder to get into small liberal arts colleges and big state schools. Maryland schools noted an increase in applications from state students trying to save tuition costs in a weak economy. Even community colleges are seeing more students registering earlier. And so now some high school seniors are left with fewer choices than they expected - while others must pick from a confusing number of acceptances. At Washington College in Chestertown, the number of applicants for 400 slots in the freshman class went up from 2,146 last year to 3,391 this year. At Hopkins there were 16,006 applications for 1,235 spots, an 80 percent increase in applications since 2002. And at the University of Maryland College Park, the number of applications went up from 25,000 last year to 28,000 this year for a freshman class of 4,500. "It is hard to know how much is true interest," said Barbara Gill, director of college admissions at the state's flagship campus. "It was unusual to talk to a student who didn't apply to more than five schools." That unease led some colleges to make decisions this year that guidance counselors find puzzling. At Hereford High School, guidance counselor Tim Hayden was surprised when a student "with pretty much a perfect grade point average" was accepted by Yale and rejected by a second-tier school. He believes that reflects the backup school trying to protect its yield rate in national rankings. "It is like dating. You don't want to tell them that they are not your first choice," said Stephen Roy Goodman, an educational consultant from Towson who advises families on college admissions. One student he advised got into Vassar and New York University and was rejected by Ithaca College, a less competitive school. "Why would that happen? Because Ithaca didn't believe that student was ever going to Ithaca," Goodman said.Abrah got into nine of the 10 colleges she applied to, far more than she dreamed. She had planned to apply to eight schools, but her teachers and counselor advised her to pick a broader range, so she added two more. She thought that perhaps her decision would be made for her because one college would offer more scholarship money.

For the full article, click here.