How Do Successful School Systems Treat Teachers?

The recent release of two important reports led me to ask this question.

The National Education Policy Center shared a brief that reviews available research on several different aspects of teacher evaluation and makes recommendations for a comprehensive approach to teacher evaluation. If different measures, like observation (by peers and principals), teacher self-reports, student surveys, classroom artifacts, portfolios and value-added assessment are used, then the weaknesses of one measure can be offset by the strengths of another.

Meanwhile, the much-anticipated PISA rankings came out, revealing that America is (still) in the "middle of the pack" of international rankings of 15-year-old performance in reading, science and math. Putting anxious hand-wringing and concerns about representativeness and meaning aside, if we take the rankings at face value, then there is merit in examining how more successful school systems work, and learning from what makes them so successful.

One of the key things that such systems have in common is that they take teaching seriously. Drawing from research summarized in Linda Darling-Hammond's The Flat World and Education, common features of the teacher experience in places like the Scandinavian nations, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong include:

• Between three and four years of high-quality teacher education, typically funded at government expense. Pre-service teacher education programs in these places tend to include courses in content-specific pedagogy to develop teachers' knowledge of how their discipline works and empower them to help learners deal with certain types of conceptual issues unique to their field, research projects where teachers write theses on teaching practice and other issues in the schools, and at least one year of training within a school setting. Like the rest of the teaching and learning system, teacher education programs are regularly evaluated and updated, with teachers playing a central role in the process.
• Extensive mentoring and meaningful ongoing professional development. Teachers in these systems spend their first years working closely with veteran teachers, who often receive special training on how to be good mentors. New and veteran teachers alike spend a considerable amount of time engaging in professional learning, which is often embedded within the generous amounts of time (between 15-25 hours a week!) they have for collaborative planning. They frequently do action research projects with their colleagues and present their learning to other teachers through publications or at conferences. Release time for observations in other teachers' classrooms is also common, after which teachers take time to critique each other and offer feedback.
• Leadership development. Teachers are given the opportunity to develop curriculum and assessments, mentor and coach teachers, and offer professional development. The strongest teachers are recruited to become principals, who are trained to serve as instructional leaders.
• Professional pay and status. Teachers are paid comparably to members of other professions, and teaching itself is highly honored. Some governments make special efforts to recruit their best students into the teaching profession, which simultaneously boosts the strength of the teaching corps and the prestige of the profession as a whole.

Recognizing that "teaching is the profession that makes all other professions possible," other nations devote considerable time and resources into teaching. Note, too, that all of these investments are based on two key assumptions:

• That teachers should teach, develop and evaluate each other (and that every facet of education -- from teacher training to school leadership -- should be informed and led by professional educators).
• That teachers will stay in teaching until they retire, thereby allowing them to continue the cycle of developing other teachers and leading schools, and making such extensive investments worthwhile.

Though we have examples of strong teacher education, induction and professional development programs here, there is no large-scale effort to coordinate and/or duplicate these programs to ensure that every single teacher benefits from them. Here, it is more often the case that:

• Teachers must forgo income (and more often, go into debt) in order to participate in high-quality, in-depth teacher preparation programs, or skip such preparation and go directly into the classroom (typically the neediest ones) with little to no training
• Mentoring is spotty.
• Professional development is shallow and often disconnected from any given teacher's specific needs as a practitioner.
• Teachers have relatively little built-in time (three to five hours a week) to plan at all, let alone collaboratively.
• Teachers are increasingly observed, evaluated and led by school leaders who are not well-trained, experienced educators.
• Teachers are underpaid relative to other professions with similar levels of education.

Unlike our international peers, Americans don't consider teaching a prestigious profession or even much of a profession at all ("Those who can, do, those who can't, teach"). We don't invest in teachers or teaching, we only nominally (if at all) involve teachers in the process of making major decisions about education, and we've even become shockingly comfortable with the idea of teaching being a disposable job -- something people do for a couple of years before moving on to something else (...better? ...More important?).

And our national conversation about improving the quality of teaching focuses primarily on "getting rid of bad teachers." Instead of doing what's necessary to develop and keep good teachers, like improving teacher education and induction programs, implementing comprehensive evaluation systems and embedding teachers in supportive, well-resourced school communities, America glorifies whomever seems the most willing to fire people.

Rather than guaranteeing teacher quality before teachers take responsibility for students, we're growing a system where we put teachers in the classroom, then try to figure out if they're good enough after the fact. This experiment-and-punish approach is remarkably cruel to both teachers and students, especially the neediest ones -- who are often subjected to strings of over-worked, under-supported, and under-trained instructors year after year. If we really want to build a world-class school system, why waste time and money on witch hunts and magic bullets?

Why not emulate world-class school systems?

 

Follow Sabrina Stevens Shupe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TeacherSabrina

Comments

[placos]

07:17 PM on 12/21/2010

Thank you for this excellent article. As a French teacher myself I understand why France is doing so wrong regarding it's educational system. Only money matters now. For the ones who can read French : http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2010/12/21/percu-comme-plus-eprouvant-l-enseignement-suscite-moins-de-vocations_1456182_3224.html

[Protocolor]

11:52 PM on 12/19/2010

Open question: Another poster has reminded me of the concept of "teacher burnout". What other professions experience "burnout"? Are there such a things as "doctor burnout", "lawyer burnout", "carpenter burnout", "police officer burnout", "insurance salesman burnout", "banker burnout", "investment broker burnout", "engineer burnout", "short order cook burnout", "human resources director burnout", "used car salesman burnout"? If these other professions experience 'burnout', is it to the extent that said burnout is a threat to the stability of the workforce in that profession?

What other professions burn out those who seek them?

[Protocolor]

12:03 AM on 12/20/2010

Rather, put it this way: Which professions that require an advanced education retain less than 50% of their entrant workers more than five years?

[JohnAquinn57]

01:23 PM on 12/30/2010

I cant say I've seen the numbers on it, but I would guess most actually. Just kidof like students aswell. I just reviewed an interesting course for teachers called "The Dropout Dilemma", its at

http://www.graduatecoursesonline.com/Classes/DropoutDilemma/index.html

[Cynical Citizen]

09:39 PM on 12/19/2010

Thank you for the article!

(Been too busy posting comments, that I almost forgot to thank the author!)

[Shontell Samuel]

09:31 PM on 12/19/2010

Good post!

[blueskybigstar]

07:59 PM on 12/19/2010

Since we left the gold standard in 1971, money has become virtual. People who control the banks gained more power because money was no longer tied to a commodity, so if a dollar went missing, it wasn't missed so much, and if another dollar was printed, it was not noticed so much. The people who control the purse strings were able to change laws that allowed them to skim more easily from the top and to launder money. Money accrued increasingly more into fewer and fewer pockets. Trickle up increased exponentially. Jobs that people used to look up to and were paid a decent wage were devalued because of the disparity of income and a change in culture that made money right no matter how it was made. The disparity of income caused less people to value these kind of jobs. Education was defunded in an attack against America. The lower the wages of the company and the less small businesses there were made large corporations richer, allowing them to monopolize more of the economy. Through the research of think tanks like the RandCorporation, the powers that be understood that an educated populace would make it harder for them to rule the way they want and would be capable to bring them to justice for their crimes. Littlebylittle, increment by increment, they dismantled everything that was established for the people's best interests. Our poor state of being, our poor state of education are due to a metered non-stop attackontheAmericanpeople

[blueskybigstar]

09:13 PM on 12/19/2010

Since we left the gold standard in 1971, money has become virtual. People who control the banks gained more power because money was no longer tied to a commodity, so if a dollar went missing, it wasn't missed so much, and if another dollar was printed, it was not noticed so much. The people who control the purse strings were able to change laws that allowed them to skim more easily from the top, insider trade, and to launder money. Increasingly, more money accrued into fewer and fewer pockets. Trickle down was a joke. Jobs people used to look up to and were paid a decent wage were devalued because of the disparity of income and a change in culture that made money right no matter how it was made. The disparity of income caused less people to value regular jobs. Education was defunded in an attack against America. The lower the wages of the company and less small businesses there are make large corporatio­ns richer, allowing monopolization of the economy. Through the research of think tanks like theRandCorpor­ation, the rich understood an educated populace would make it harder for them to rule and would make them capable of bringing them to justice. Little by li­ttle, increment by increment, they dismantled everything that was establishe­d for the people's best interests by FDR. Our poor state of being, is due to a metered non-stop attack on th­e American p­eople by people accustomed to being above the law.

DEFEAT CORRUPTION NOW

[lightist]

07:22 PM on 12/19/2010

Slam dunk, Sabrina!

[behumane]

06:57 PM on 12/19/2010

I believe that the students who succeed are those who have earned the majority of their education from their parents and at home--and I don't mean home schooling .Our educational system is in dire shape.

[behumane]

06:38 PM on 12/19/2010

What an excellent article! Sometimes, getting rid of bad teachers actually means reducing the bottom line. Make it unpleasant for the older teachers to remain so that younger teachers can be hired at a considerably lower salary.

School boards, especially in rural areas, are comprised of individuals with only a high school education and no understanding of issues facing teachers in the classroom, and teachers are excluded from school boards, who, along with administrators, make all decisions.

[lisakaz2]

06:19 PM on 12/19/2010

I totally agree with your analysis. The cultural change that would be necessary to meaningfully change this non-system system is not here. The will and from this the funding is lacking. Developing this commitment requires a commitment of funds and while pols will talk about passing on costs to grandkids, they won't talk about doing something would actually improve their lives: investing in them, because it would involve investing in ppl who are considered, as you say, disposable. It's very sad. It makes it surprising the US is still middle of the pack. For how long?

[hollywood2008]

05:44 PM on 12/19/2010

I'm a teacher, and I'll tell you this - most American kids do not do their homework. There is a HUGE difference between the ones who do their homework and the ones who don't. That is the difference.

I can see the ones who are going to succeed and the ones who aren't based on their homework assignments. So believe me, it's not JUST about the teacher. American students are lazy, and until we whip them into shape, nothing will change.

[IGNSTHMD]

06:13 PM on 12/19/2010

to fan or not to fan, to fan.

[lisakaz2]

06:20 PM on 12/19/2010

Is it them or their parents? I wonder if teachers' unions could be more proactive in investing in some of the training ideas mentioned above. I would think it'd provide more job security, among other things.

[Crista Renouard]

04:25 PM on 12/19/2010

Speaking from the perspective of a "good" student, bad students and bad teachers have equal influence on how well a classroom runs. That being said, some teachers had the ability to make nearly every student a good student, while some teachers only seemed to exacerbate the bad student problem.

I think allowing flexibility to move students around at the very beginning of a semester might go a long way to pairing students with teachers who are best able to handle them, from both the students and the teacher's perspective. When you're left with a bunch of students who don't have a teacher who wants to teach them, and some teachers who no one wants to take, then the problems will reveal themselves, and can be dealt with accordingly.

[Protocolor]

06:28 PM on 12/19/2010

Not really a good plan.

I can tell you from first hand experience that for students in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore (and am willing to bet concerning Netherlands), the option to justify academic failure with "Bad teacher" or "I didn't get along with the teacher" is simply not available. In fact, in those places the suggestion that one's failure was due to a teacher's negligence is an extraordinary one that requires not only evidence of the teacher's failure to perform their duties, but evidence of the student's extraordinary efforts to succeed despite that failure. No effort from student=no failure by teacher.

The problem with your suggestion is that it starts with the assumption that some teachers, enough so that every school likely has several, are just no good. This gives the student who doesn't want to make an effort a ready-made excuse for failure. "I failed `cuz I couldn't get into Mr. Sparx class. He's awesome. I had to take old Mrs. Gray's class instead. She's boring."

How many parents accept as an excuse "I failed the spelling test `cuz Mrs. Maple doesn't know how to teach spelling" from their child? Do you or your child know sufficiently better to pass such a judgment? If so, then why didn't your child learn the spelling list anyway and pass the test?

No, "Bad teacher" is just a cheap excuse for laziness, and the sooner it is removed from the dialogue, the better off the kids will be.

[ascanius002]

06:29 PM on 12/19/2010

The problem with that is there are some teachers who are very easy, making few demands of their students and giving good grades. These teachers will tend to have sections that are overflowing. Other teachers with higher standards and more challenging teaching methods will be less attractive to students, and, even though they are better teachers, they will have smaller classes. If all students were truly motivated to achieve, your system would work. The reality, however, is that most students will seek out the path of least resistance--the easy teacher, leading to a further decline in edicational achievement.

[greenjean]

04:19 PM on 12/19/2010

When reading the discussion of the low test scores our 15-year old students, compared with students of other developed countries, what stands out to me is the noble experiment of No Child Left Behind begun when these 15-year olds were in elementary school. Coincidence?

[Snarliechell]

05:32 PM on 12/19/2010

You may be right but to be fair the test scores were about the same.

[ScreenName05]

04:13 PM on 12/19/2010

School boards in the U.S. treat the most successful teachers the same way, they find some way to get rid of them so they don't have to pay them.

Until that changes, then all the silly programs the right wing can think up are going to result in the same dismal results.

[Ubikwity]

06:14 PM on 12/19/2010

Definitely not the experience where I live. I have never heard of a school board trying to get rid of the most successful teachers. Maybe you could cite a good reference?

[behumane]

07:06 PM on 12/19/2010

I saw teachers who had been in a system for a long time. When budgets were hurting, these teachers were "encouraged" to retire. Sometimes, good teachers were let go along with those who needed to go, just to improve the bottom line by hiring a new teacher at a considerably lower salary.

[ed2291]

07:11 PM on 12/19/2010

Of course there is no documentation because it would cost a teacher his or her job! It is not always this way but educational leaders, who frequently have little experience teaching, tend to find fault with the most senior teachers or those who complain and want to improve the process. Of course there are bad teachers, but there are other facets mentioned in this article and the comments that need to be addressed as well.
If you want to know about your school system, ask about how good teachers or bad teachers are determined. If you get specific guidelines and measurements - great! If not and all you hear are vague generalities - watch out!

[eric14]

03:26 PM on 12/19/2010

A very good overview.

I find it very difficult, in these current economic, social and political circumstances, to see any policies emerging that will lead to systemic improvement.

However there is one trend that is worth exploiting - and I do mean ''exploiting''.

The charter nonsense (for such it is) embodies a great desire by the right to devolve power to the schools. Instead of opposing this and ending up in all sorts of arguments which are essentially ideological - support every suggestion - but always centering upon the need to empower school-children - the citizenry of the future.

I know that teachers will feel that such proposals are just another assault upon their status. That is because the narrative is being conceived and developed by the crazy right. You have to steal it from them by picking up the ''devolving of power to the school'' ball and running with it.

Advocate radical democratization of high schools! Bring students into ALL levels of decision-making. The right Republicans want schools run like businesses. Good. Train high school students to run their schools like a businesses and engage in business! You get the picture.

Premodern traditionalist pedagogy is teacher-centered, past-oriented and based upon exposition.

Modern, progressive pedagogy is learner-centered, future-oriented, based upon facilitation.

Postmodern, democratic pedagogy is process-centered, based upon the discussion of equals.

You can no longer make gains using late modern narratives, ideology and rhetoric. Welcome to the brave new world of the democratic school.

[WRP64]

04:11 PM on 12/19/2010

I was with you until the three slogans. Lets see, is that supposed to mean I am to engage in processes whereby I learn from my students? What am I getting paid for again? Or perhaps the slogans are meaningless and a teacher is needed to point that out.

[eric14]

04:57 PM on 12/19/2010

They reflect a historical process. Unfortunately, traditionalists and progressivists spent the 20th century arguing if pedagogy should be teacher-centered or learner-centered instead of realizing that learner-centered facilitation complements teacher-centered exposition. Similarly the move to process-centered pedagogy (entailing democratization) takes the focus away from teacher and student and on to the task wherein they engage as equals.

Teachers are required as subject specialists, curriculum planners, tutors and guides in research tasks.

[lisakaz2]

06:25 PM on 12/19/2010

The latter doesn't work when students are lazy and want A's for nothing. I'm sorry they are not equals and they are not consumers of education. They have to produce and internalize it. It's a different process and this whole discussion seems part of the problem I see with college students, based on their over-indulged beliefs of equality.

[eric14]

07:57 PM on 12/19/2010

If you want to live in a democracy, you are going to encounter those who believe in human equality.

Depriving younger citizens of their democratic rights because you believe that compliance is a prerequisite of appropriate teaching and learning delivery systems is no longer viable, as you well describe. The failures you indicate are not failures in an equality system but in a compliance system which pretends to, but does not in actuality, acknowledge human equality.

There is a great difference between democratic relationships, and those of a permissiveness engendered by the weaknesses in a failing compliance system. Discipline can no longer be imposed. It must come from within through participatory processes.

The first stage in moving towards democratization is recognizing that the compliance system has irretrievably broken down. It cannot be restored. Not with Charters, not with Christianity, not with immigrants from traditional cultures pressing for the subordinating the students. There is no going back. A democratic revolution is a continuous process. Each generation - wrongly - thinks it complete. It never is.

It's over. It is time to democratize.

[My Good Babushka]

03:24 PM on 12/19/2010

The trend in America is to belittle ANYONE who works for a living. Policemen, firemen, ambulance drivers, teachers, they all DESERVE to be poor and treated like junk because they don't live off investment income.

[Roger Cotton]

03:55 PM on 12/19/2010

The trend in America today is to belittle the successful.

[My Good Babushka]

04:18 PM on 12/19/2010

Financial sector worker are taking a rasping across the apple bag because they failed at their jobs and still made money hand over fist, not because they were successful.

[gloriab]

04:26 PM on 12/19/2010

When we decided success=$, better yet $=god, that's when we sold our souls. Policemen, firefighters, EMTs, teachers, nurses-these are the backbone of America. One can imagine this nation without hedge fund managers, but just try to keep the country going without the aforementioned heroes.

[ScreenName05]

04:21 PM on 12/19/2010

The direct result of equating success with wealth! Great wealth is primarily a function of luck and nothing more. Being born in the right family, going to the right school, having the right friends, your ideas accepted and invested in by your fellows.

With a few exceptions, success is all about luck, not hard work. Professional athletes are probably the best example of this problem - luck in their genes, luck in getting in the right programs, luck in getting on the right team, luck in getting the right coach, and incredible luck that anyone who can promote them actually sees them perform. Until we realize that success should never be a function of wealth, we are not going to appreciate the real heroes in our society - policeman, fireman, and teachers. And when we drag all the bankers out into the street in chains and flog the skin off their bodies we will have started down the road to bringing America back.

[SercaneT]

06:01 PM on 12/19/2010

Deuteronomy 8:17-19

[2warsoffbooks]

09:08 PM on 12/19/2010

Warren Buffet calls it the "DNA Lotto."