NCTAF News Digest:

A Weekly Digest of News Articles & Reports

Thursday May 1, 2008

In this Issue:

--NCLB Watch

--Commentary: The Teaching Penalty

--New Ways to Get a Degree in Education

--Prince George's Replacing Teachers

--State Board of Education Approves New Grad School Math Standards

--Teaming for Success in Under Performing Schools

--21st Century Teaching and Learning: Assessing New Knowledge

--Commentary: Making Every Educator a Learning Educator

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.

Commentary: The Teaching Penalty; We Can't Recruit and Retain Excellent Teachers on the Cheap

-Education Week; April 29, 2008

“How to Make Great Teachers” was the headline of the cover story of a recent issue of Time magazine. Forgive us for wondering why there wasn’t a subhead with three words that say it all: “Pay teachers more.” We learned, in our recent analysis of pay scales for professionals, something that won’t surprise teachers, parents, school administrators, and, we would hope, education policy experts: Public school teachers earn considerably less than comparably educated and experienced people, and less than people in occupations with similar educational and skill requirements, such as accountants, reporters, registered nurses, computer programmers, members of the clergy, and personnel officers. Compared with these professionals, teachers earn, on average, about $154 less a week—or 14.3 percent less—than people in these other learned, but not unusually lucrative, professions. This teacher pay penalty, in effect in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, ranges from more than 25 percent in 15 states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) to less than 10 percent in only five (Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming). Nowhere in this country, however, do teachers earn more than those comparably educated.

These findings are disturbing for two reasons. First, researchers agree that good teachers are the single most important factor in kids’ school success. Second, because the baby boomers are beginning to retire while their grandkids are crowding the classrooms, America needs to attract and keep a whole new generation of teachers—2.8 million over the next eight years. So, how can we recruit and retain a new corps of quality teachers? In our new book, The Teaching Penalty, we offer compelling evidence that it can’t be done on the cheap. School systems used to rely on the fact that college-educated women had few career options open to them. But those discriminatory days are long gone, and salaries have been rising for both women and men in just about every profession—except classroom teaching. Back in 1960, women teachers were paid 14.7 percent more than other women with similar educations. But that trend reversed, and by 2000, women teachers were being paid 13.2 percent less than their educational peers in other fields. Indeed, over the past 10 years the latter trend has accelerated; the pay gap that was a 4.3 percent shortfall in 1996 became a 15.1 percent chasm for all teachers by 2006—a growth of 10.8 percentage points. Teachers were bypassed by the strong wage growth of the late 1990s and, more recently, continued to lose ground while college-graduate wages stagnated.The rising pay gap will make it difficult to recruit teachers—and present an even more daunting challenge in retaining them. For teachers starting their careers—those between the ages of 25 and 34—the 12 percent pay penalty today is only 0.5 percentage points larger than that of their peers in 1996. But for women who are experienced teachers—those ages 45 to 54—the pay deficit has grown by 18 percentage points over the same period. Sure, some say that teaching is such a unique profession that it is impossible to compare it with other occupations. But our study took pains to account for the special circumstances surrounding teachers’ pay and benefits. Because teachers’ annual work schedules are different from those of other professions, we compared wages earned for a week of work, rather than the entire year.

To read the full article, click here.

New Ways to Get a Degree in Education
-U.S. News & World Report; April 2008

Akilah Robinson, a financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, was at a leadership conference in New York when she realized the financial world wasn't where she belonged. "They spoke about not being afraid to follow your passion," she says. "I remember thinking: It's time for me to follow my passion." And follow it she did -- down the street to the New York City Teaching Fellows. Now she teaches elementary special education in Brooklyn, and she took a 55 percent pay cut to do it. Who knew Wall Street's revolving door spun that direction? Robinson is just one of thousands of teaching fellows who have switched careers to serve some of the most disadvantaged kids in New York. The program, founded in 2000 to get more teachers into the city's struggling schools, currently boasts 8,000 fellows teaching in 1,200 schools. Admission is competitive -- this year's acceptance rate is 16 percent -- and applicants with outside experience are preferred. "There's a certain maturity that comes from having had a different profession," explains Vicki Bernstein, executive director of teacher recruitment and quality.

Altruism aside, why is the program so popular? Applicants are responding, in part, to the incentives, which are characteristic of alternative teacher certification programs. These typically offer training during atypical times -- nights, weekends and summers. They made their debut in the early 1980s, when a teacher shortage prompted many states to seek out untapped talent by offering salaried training, condensed classes and flexible schedules. Teaching fellows, for instance, do a seven-week intensive training program on stipend, then go straight into schools, earning $40,000 or more for a school year. Meanwhile, subsidized by the district, they pack in courses at local universities; after two years, they've earned their master's.By contrast, traditional master's students have no opportunity for salaried teaching and often pay more than $40,000 for their degree. It's little wonder alternative routes have become so popular, especially among midcareer professionals, many of whom have families to support. "There was no other way that I could have obtained my certification," says Paul Perry, who got his through  Utica College in New York. "If I had to give up my job and my income to student teach -- with no pay -- I would not have been able to do it."

To view the full article, click here.

Prince George's Replacing Teachers

-The Washington Post; May 1, 2008

Teachers of core subjects who do not meet state qualifications in their chosen fields will be replaced at 21 Prince George's County schools under a set of school improvement plans.  Thirty-nine Maryland schools have failed to meet academic standards required by the federal No Child Left Behind law for at least five years. Under the law's provisions, schools with consistently low performance must take drastic measures to improve achievement. The options include replacing all or most of the staff, changing principals or placing the school under management by an outside organization, among others. In Prince George's, all 21 schools that require restructuring are designated for the staff replacement option; some will also replace their principals. The schools' plans were approved in January by the county school board and are being confirmed in smaller chunks by the Maryland State Board of Education.  The state board approved plans Tuesday for Oxon Hill Elementary School, Largo High School and Benjamin Stoddert, Oxon Hill and Ernest Everett Just middle schools. The board also approved similar staff replacement plans for three schools in Baltimore County, and for a school in Harford County, which is replacing its principal with one trained by the New Leaders for New Schools program, a nonprofit organization that focuses on boosting urban school systems' performance.

John E. Deasy, the Prince George's superintendent, said teachers who are replaced can apply to teach in other subjects for which they are qualified. Others could work to earn the state's "highly qualified" designation, which can require graduate-level work or passing an examination in a subject area. It was not clear how many teachers will be affected. Since taking office in 2006, Deasy has made it a mission to hire highly qualified teachers, particularly in core subjects such as reading, math and science. "I think it's an undeniable fact that when you have highly qualified teachers in front of students, they can do better," Deasy said. As an example, he cited Arrowhead Elementary, which began restructuring last year. The percentage of Arrowhead students who showed proficiency on state tests of reading jumped from 54.3 percent in 2006 to 70.9 percent in 2007. During the same period, the percentage showing proficiency in math went from 62 percent to 68.7 percent.  The president of the Prince George's educators association did not return a call requesting comment. Deasy said the restructuring plans include additional measures. At Largo High, start times will be an hour earlier to reduce conflicts with evening classes and allow more after-school professional development for teachers. Oxon Hill Elementary is introducing a student discipline program that will establish and reward behavioral expectations. The schools' individual plans were sometimes elliptical in describing what will happen with personnel: "In order to create a more focused, rigorous, instructional program, the addition of highly qualified staff is recommended," the proposal for Oxon Hill Middle School said.

To view the full article, click here.

State Board of Education Approves New Grade School Math Standards

-Seattle Post-Intelligencer; April 28, 2008

Students in kindergarten through eighth grade will be held to more concrete standards when it comes to math, thanks to a revision of standards approved by the State Board of Education on Monday. The Legislature approved the revised standards earlier this year. The standards were drafted because student underachievement in math was causing alarm among educators and lawmakers. Now the revised standards are clearer, emphasize basic math facts and introduce some mathematical concepts in earlier grades. Although the Board of Education touts the new standards as something other states will aspire to match, the plan recently met with criticism. Some education activists thought the program wasn't rigorous enough and that school districts might suffer a loss of autonomy when it comes to teaching methods. A plan for high school math standards is still being devised. In February, a consultant hired to review the state's proposed standards said there were "serious problems" with the high school curriculum. A revised plan will be presented to the board later this spring or summer, according to a statement from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

To view the full article, click here.

For a complete description of the revisions, click here.

Teaming for Success in Underperforming Schools

-redOrbit.com; April 30, 2008

Like never before, today's classroom teachers routinely are being asked to collaboratively analyze student data, develop or implement new mandated curricula, and assess the effectiveness of these innovations. Ironically, few preservice preparatory or in-service professional development programs actively train classroom instructors in the use of team-based inquiry or collaborative data- driven problem solving. Framed within the context of the literature and governmental efforts to achieve school reform, this article describes one such in-service program, in practice at public and charter schools in high-need communities in New York City. Team- Based Inquiry and School Improvement  For well over 20 years, the literature on school improvement has shown a link between collaborative data-driven problem solving at the local school level and increases in student achievement, particularly in schools with high populations of underperforming students. As early as the 1980s, some educators urged school systems to adopt a "bottom-up" approach to improvement, focused on altering the culture of local schools, in contrast to "top-down" approaches in which agencies mandated bureaucratic change from afar. They reasoned that to obtain greater local participation and involvement in reform efforts, schools had to break down teacher isolationism, to give voice to previously silenced local stakeholder groups (such as teachers and parents), and to cede to them much greater ownership of and responsibility for their schools' problem-solving and decision-making efforts (lieberman and Rosenholtz 1987; Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy 1986).  Around that same time, the "effective schools" literature lent further support. In both Britain and the United States, a number of commonalities were found among successful schools serving high populations of children in poverty. In general, this literature reported that successful schools were ones in which local school stakeholders focused on their students' acquisition of central learning skills and closely monitored student progress (Reynolds and Cuttance 1992; Levine and Lezotte 1990).

In today's school improvement literature, articles again urge classroom teachers to conduct inquiry-this time in the form of action research in their own classrooms and with the larger school community (e.g., Carrett 2006).  In the 1990s, recognizing the value of collaborative site-based inquiry focused on student achievement and trying to provide assistance to schools struggling to meet higher educational standards, many state departments of education began to prod poorly performing schools to form school councils or school leadership teams (SLTs) as working bodies to problem solve around issues of student achievement. Comprised variously of teachers, administrators, parents, and other local stakeholders, these councils (or teams) in turn authorized the formation of smaller topic-specific subcommittees. These subcommittees, focusing on topics such as literacy, mathematics, and school climate, were charged with the tasks of collecting data, analyzing it, and problem solving around their targeted area.  In some states, these councils (or teams) also were required to create Comprehensive Educational Plans (CEPs)-that is, "living documents" which described their schools' challenges as identified from the data and reported detailed "action plans" of the problem- solving steps and resources they would take to address each specific challenge area. Schools were to show how they built on the knowledge gained each year by updating and adjusting their CEPs and action plans. In mandating these activities, states aimed to have schools in need of improvement not only adopt and recreate significant elements of "best practice" identified in the effective schools research, but also incorporate common elements of the most advanced thinking in the school improvement literature

To view the full article, click here.

21st Century Teaching and Learning: Assessing New Knowledge

-T.H.E Journal, May 2008

Much has been discussed about the new roles teachers and students play in learning environments created by using new technology and the types of skills required of students in this century. Those skills tend to be softer skills like team building, cooperative communication strategies, self-direction, and the academic skills of critical and applied thinking, new knowledge construction and collaborative learning techniques. Alongside this dialog is another sociological discussion currently in progress attempting to define millennial students; their characteristics, expectations, and preferences in life and learning (Howe, Strauss & Matson 2000; Howe & Strauss, 2006). Much has been and is being written about how the new student characteristics should affect instructional design and increase technology use. Not so much, however, is being discussed about how these kinds of changes should affect assessment and the recognition in terms of academic value of the skills that are being developed in the learning process. The theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2004) is interesting in this context. This theory proposes that technology and making connections in learning are linked--a combination of connectivism and constructivist methods: Learning processes previously confined to learning theory can now be actively supported by technology. Solomon and Schrum (2007) suggest that current educational trends based on standards and tests lean towards teacher-driven instruction, while the required 21st century skills of higher order thinking skills, application of technology, and adapting to change and workplace skills, among others, require new methods and new assessment measures. The challenge for teachers according to these authors is to find ways to support in-depth learning and increased student achievement, "...while also employing a variety of measures, including standardized tests." What kinds of new methods would provide the kind of learning environments and learning measurements that truly reflect the learning that is taking place? What new skills are needed if instructors are to meet this challenge?

Identifying new skills here does not refer to content area as much as process; thinking, interaction, collaboration, communication, application: All represent areas of process. Each of these areas is included in any process of teaching and learning. While each of these can be researched individually and its interplay with other processes in learning analyses, I would suggest that teachers/instructors in current educational environments must be aware of how new forms of communication, new ways of thinking, and new expectations and needs for application can be accommodated and valued in the learning process. That is, teachers being involved in assessment that not only assesses the outcome of the process but the process itself. Formerly, the assessment of process was more about the end result than the method you chose to arrive at that result. For example, occasionally, progressive math teachers concerned with concept building might ask students to represent their calculative methods in an attempt to validate the concept and the thinking process involved, as well as the end result. Often, those very same math teachers, however, would not grant a passing grade for an incorrect result even if the thinking demonstrated excellent logic and well thought out connections.

For the full article, click here.

Commentary: Making Every Educator a Learning Educator

-Education Week; April 16, 2008

For nearly a decade, efforts to raise student-achievement levels have been mostly about driving standards through the schoolhouse door. Accountability has meant putting pressure on educators to raise performance. But ensuring that educators have the necessary skills, knowledge, and tools to help all students achieve has not been approached with the same urgency. A concentration on minimal standards for teacher quality and the continual underinvestment in proven approaches to help educators do their jobs more effectively have made it almost impossible for teachers and principals to bring all students to proficiency, as required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Today, about two-thirds of schools and school districts are invested in a system of professional learning that hinders, rather than promotes, great teaching for every student, every day. Common policy and practice focus on individual professional learning, rather than team-based and schoolwide learning; on increasing the number of staff-development days, rather than restructuring the workday; and on isolated professional-development plans, rather than those that are embedded in school and district improvement plans. This approach ensures that only some teachers and their students benefit, not all teachers and all students. Moreover, too much of the debate about improving teaching is focused on improving preparation, rather than improving practice. Yet more than two-thirds of the current teaching force entered the classroom before the introduction of more-rigorous standards. Only on-the-job staff training for both new and veteran teachers will deliver significant dividends in student learning.

A growing body of evidence suggests that the right kind of investments in effective, school-based learning for teachers can have an enormous impact, and may well be the difference between lackluster achievement in the United States and the higher performance seen in foreign countries that have invested strategically in teacher collaborative learning. Countries that outperform the United States on international education comparisons, such as Finland, Japan, and Singapore, devote significant time to professional development and teacher collaboration, and their students reap the benefits. Here in the United States, a 2005 research review by the Center for Public Education says: “Professional development at high-performing schools differs distinctively from the norm. It is directly linked to changing instructional practice in order to improve student achievement. It is often team-based and schoolwide, and it reflects a continual process of improvement.” A 2007 American Institutes for Research study of successful schools that “beat the odds” in student achievement sheds more light on this issue. The study showed that teachers in such schools, when compared with those in low-performing schools, were, to a greater degree, deliberately engaged in collaboration, were supported by instructional coaches, received regular classroom visits by principals, and benefited from peer observations and coaching, as well as mentoring. The data support what a small number of districts and states are learning when they begin to view professional development as an investment, and teacher knowledge as a crucial resource that must be nurtured every day.

To read the full article, click here.

To learn more about authors Stephanie Hirsh and Joellen Killion and their book The Learning Educator: A New Era, click here.