Back to School

Wow, my first week of school began last week…crazy as usual and full of change. That IS the first week of school at any age level.  So much goes into a new semester: roster changes, procedural changes, new faces, old problems, the excitement of returning, and the awkwardness of getting back in a groove; there’s really no need for that proverbial needle on an educator’s back.  But I found it…three to be sure!

1. The Christian Science Monitor had an extensive bio on Arne Duncan. They balance the hope and humanity of the Secretary of Education with an underlying tone of targeting inferior teachers as the problem with schools.

2. TIME magazine’s entire issue this week focused on the potential of charter schools while subtly citing teacher unions as the problem with schools.

3. Probably my favorite was Newsweek’s editorial on why school reform fails, naming students (!!!) and their lacking motivation, as the problem with schools.

What is it about our national fabric that requires we find a boogeyman, a scapegoat, a fall guy, or otherwise something or someone to blame?  America’s public education system is hugely complex to the degree that appointing one boogeyman for the ailment is crassly shortsighted.

The journalistic timing is optimal that as teachers begin our year, usually the hardest part of our job, it becomes a popular time to critique and dissect the profession that we’ve sacrificed so much to uphold, not for the institution itself, but for children.  Still, a hallmark of problem solving and continuous improvement is to identify root causes and fixing them which may sound like casting blame.  Great educators do this every day with our students, finding out what is missing, what is needed, and what can be better, then doing it.   Let’s hope that was the intent of this latest media blast of education, so that after the first few weeks of a new school year settles in, we can continue the great work of improving schools from the inside out while thanking mainstream media for their hearty analysis.

I appreciate the tools and views of the HOPE Foundation. Simply through the moniker (Harnessing Optimism and Potential through Education), I feel reassured that there are voices in the darkness discounting boogeymen and blame, and focusing on the positive energy to approach solving the litany of challenges each school faces.

No one would deny that having a high-quality teacher in every classroom is important. Research confirms that effective teaching improves student achievement. So it stands to reason that very few would deny that it’s important for all teachers to have access to high-quality professional learning. After all, research confirms it is a significant pathway to more effective teaching.

Yet as evidenced by a recent report from Learning Forward (formerly the National Staff Development Council), the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers and Council of Chief State School Officers, far too few states and school districts ensure that their educators have access to effective professional learning activities.

Advancing High-Quality Professional Learning Through Collective Bargaining and State Policy takes an in-depth look at the professional learning policies of six states. The conclusion? Professional learning does not have a significant place in policy and collective bargaining language. But there is hope—the report offers recommendations and examples of collectively bargained language, legislation, regulations and administrative guidelines to inform the development of policy language that can strengthen the quality of professional development in the future.

To learn more about the report and its implications, we spoke to three individuals who each brought a unique perspective to this issue: Joellen Killion (Deputy Executive Director of Learning Forward), Linda Davin (Senior Policy Analyst at NEA) and Joyce Powell (now serving on the NEA Executive Committee after four years as the president of the New Jersey Education Association and decades in the classroom).

Public School Insights: Why is it important to do address professional development through collective bargaining and state policy?

Killion: At Learning Forward, we believe that if there are strong policies in place that set clear expectations, then there will be improved practice. So when collective bargaining language addresses with clarity the importance of the opportunity for teachers to engage in professional development, and when state policy simultaneously provides resources, guidelines and expectations for effective professional development, we believe that the practice of professional development will be improved.

Davin: I couldn’t agree more. Although we know that we can have high quality professional learning in districts where it is not included in collective bargaining language, we also know that professional development can be sustained if it’s incorporated into policies that drive the day-to-day operations of the school. Codifying professional learning through collective bargaining agreements and state policies helps ensure that it will actually occur.

Powell: I agree. And I think from a state perspective, part of the goal was bringing this together so that professional learning actually makes sense, so it can have some meaning and some sustainability. That it won’t just be happenstance. That it is embedded in the system so that it actually drives practice.

Killion: I think we know with a fair amount of certainty—it is certainly the consensus of the research—that the quality of teaching students experience in the classroom each day influences their achievement. And we also know that professional learning is one of the most important vehicles available to the teachers currently in classrooms to strengthen and refine their practice, and to support them in meeting the challenges of teaching. So ensuring that there is equal access to effective professional learning with appropriate resources for all teachers cannot be left to chance. It is an important system requirement.

Powell: If I might just add that this was our first attempt to bring all of these folks together to begin the discourse at a national level. We’d not really done that before. We hadn’t had those conversations. So for us, that was an important aspect of this project—beginning the dialogue so that we can have some understanding of what would be a better system of professional development, with all the voices in the room.

Public School Insights: Were you satisfied by what you found overall in this review?

Powell: I believe that we accomplished what we set out to accomplish. But this should not be the end product. This really should be a beginning. We can look at what’s going on in other states. And remember, when we started this about three years ago, we weren’t as sophisticated at identifying the best practices of professional development. We weren’t talking in the detail that we do today about professional learning communities. So there are ways to expand what’s been presented here.

Killion: We learned a lot in this work. We learned that there is tremendous inconsistency in collective bargaining language and in state policy regarding professional learning, at least in these six states. And we have no specific data to extrapolate to other states.

I think it’s fairly safe to say that very few states have a coherent system of professional learning or development. Some states—for example, Ohio over the last few years, and New Jersey recently—have done some tremendous work in strengthening policy, which I think will eventually lead to stronger collective bargaining language as districts work to enact those policies.

I think that’s where our challenge is. We are not satisfied with the fact that there’s fragmentation and inconsistency. We’re not satisfied with the fact that professional development fits into so many different places in state policy without a coherent system. And we want to address some of those issues as we have opportunities to work with state policymakers and with union leaders in districts and states.

So we learned we have work to do. And what we have identified will give us the fuel to begin that work.

Davin: As Joellen (Killion) noted, this publication begins our work. NEA believes that every student deserves a great public school with high-quality teaching. For experienced teachers, professional development is an essential component of improving practice and improving student learning. Additionally, all of us who participated in this project recognize that professional development cannot exist as fragmented, piecemeal improvement efforts, but has to be driven by a clear, coherent plan.

Another point that was driven home was that professional development must be school-based, with an emphasis on improving student learning. And it has to be embedded in the day-to-day work of teachers. We also learned that dedicated time—providing time in the school day—is one of the most challenging issues that confronts school and district leaders.

Professional development can’t be an add-on or an afterthought that’s cut during budget shortfalls. It has to be an indispensable component of improving student learning. And one of the goals of the project was to determine the best ways to codify professional development through collective bargaining language and state policy.

Public School Insights: The report names twelve professional development policy pathways. The first is standards-based professional development. What do you mean by that, and why do you think it’s important?

Killion: At Learning Forward, we have been involved in developing such standards, and supporting and providing resources to help districts and states monitor their implementation. One of the reasons we believe that standards are important is because they are markers that indicate quality. They set a benchmark for what districts, schools, school systems and states should strive to achieve. They help translate research into practice—we are integrating what we know about professional development, adult learning and system change into those standards. And they give us a way of measuring the progress of our professional learning programs. So they help establish a framework for quality.

By having standards I think we can increase access to effective professional learning. And we also have the potential to increase the results we see from investments in professional learning. They can help both policymakers and practitioners make effective decisions about investment in, and standards for, professional development.

Public School Insights: Many states have already adopted the National Staff Development Standards. But the report mentions that standards aren’t enough. Earlier you mentioned that time for professional development is one of the most contentious issues in developing effective professional development. Why do you think that is, and what kinds of hurdles do people have to clear, especially in a collective bargaining process, to make time for professional development?

Davin: The time issue is one that’s challenging simply because it’s often looked at as a funding issue as well. And when dollars are scarce, some districts don’t want to commit resources that may not be sustainable.

However, there are ways to structure time in the school day through creative scheduling. It can be done, but it’s not easy. School leaders—principals and others—who are committed to embedding professional learning in the school day must be committed to finding the time for teachers to collaborate daily on teaching and learning issues. Building collaborative time into collective bargaining agreements or other policy documents acknowledges its importance and ensures its occurrence.

Powell: Professional development standards really develop the rationale for committing time for high-quality professional development. They give us observable, measurable items that we can look at and say, “These are what help us in providing high-quality professional development, which we need if we want to increase and improve student achievement.”

Public School Insights: One of the twelve policy pathways that has been running through a lot of material recently is that teacher collaboration, which of course also depends on time. From your review, do you think that teacher collaboration is a common feature of current professional development policies and collective bargaining agreements?

Killion: From my own engagement with practitioners, I think that the practice of collaboration is increasing rather exponentially. But I don’t believe that is being followed with policies yet.

I think we’re making strides. New Jersey has certainly stepped out ahead of the pack with its revision of policy around professional development. But other states and districts have, from my perspective, only begun to have conversations about policies related to collaboration, even though practice is already leading the way.

Davin: As we looked for examples of policy and bargaining language that details regularly dedicated time during the school day for teacher collaboration, we found such language was scarce,. However, school leaders, committed to creating a culture of collaboration and continuous school improvement, must also be committed to finding time and scheduling it in the school day. And I believe that is a challenging task.

But, like professional development, teacher collaboration cannot be a matter of chance. It has to be built into the daily routine of the school. And it’s not just about teachers meeting in teams. There has to be a real focus on student learning. To do this well, schools and districts need to invest in professional development to support educators’ effective use of collaborative time by providing assistance in the use of team protocols, goal setting, data analysis, and small group interaction. We also know it is not enough to simply schedule time to meet or provide professional development, all school staff—teachers, administrators, and education support personnel—must be committed to promoting and nurturing a collaborative school culture that supports student success.

Powell: I think we’re evolving in the collaboration arena, and finding time within the school day isn’t quite as difficult as we once perceived it to be. In the beginning I think everyone was cautious, thinking “Oh, this will take up too much time and energy.” Now we’re finding that common planning time with professional learning communities has simplified the system for us in a major way. But to actually bargain that, I think we have to get a little more sophisticated.

Public School Insights: Another of the policy pathways involves career paths and teacher leadership. Why do you think that’s an important pathway to include in your discussion?

Powell: I think it’s important because our teachers are experts in what’s absolutely necessary to improve academic achievement. Teachers have phenomenal experiences with what works in a classroom, and being able to share that with their colleagues is very powerful. And if we can give teachers a sense of being leaders, they’ll be much more likely to step up to the plate and say, “Yes, we should be doing this, and not looking for outsiders and other entities to determine best practices.” Teachers are really good at weeding out what’s important and what will work in their classrooms.

I believe teachers have to own professional development in order for it to be meaningful. And that’s where I think we see some great strides in the whole arena of professional learning. Just to sit, listen and be nonparticipants is not enough. We need the same engagement with adult learners that we need with students.

Davin: I also think when teachers come together in a collaborative culture there are so many benefits. It promotes the continuous improvement of all educators and provides a forum for new teachers to learn and to feel supported. It also provides the opportunity to discuss and resolve challenging dilemmas of teaching and learning. But, more than anything, it really cultivates a collective responsibility to ensure that all students learn. And there’s a sense of empowerment in that for teachers. And as Joyce [Powell] said, they are the experts. They’re doing the work on the ground.

Public School Insights: Do you think this report represents a significant change in how people see collective bargaining?

Killion: I think it’s difficult for us at this point to make an assessment of whether or not people would view this as a change in collective bargaining. But we’re hoping that people recognize that collective bargaining is a tool that can be used for strengthening the professionalism of teaching.

I think many educators have been eager to work not only on their working conditions but also on their professionalism. Collective bargaining is an incredibly powerful vehicle to help us professionalize teaching. And certainly, in looking at how teachers are continuously developed, that’s one way that we can really strengthen the profession.

Powell: From the bargaining perspective I believe it is a major change. Ten years ago, we didn’t talk about the teaching and learning process at the bargaining table. It was all about working conditions, salaries, benefits. That was all. Even just within a state organization that’s been pretty successful in the collective bargaining arena, it has been a major change to say, “Our teaching and learning process is as important as our working conditions.”

To me this report really brought that to a whole new level. I think that it sets a new tone in the collective bargaining arena. I’m not saying that it didn’t happen in isolated places before, but for the first time unions are actually saying, “This is as important as the other areas that we have been traditionally bargaining.” So I do see it as a major change for traditional union activity.

Killion: When you look at the four national organizations that participated in this project, I think that just this partnership is very powerful in speaking of professional learning and how important it is in terms of the day-to-day work of teachers in improving student learning. I think that the publication is going to be a very important contribution to professional development.

Public School Insights: Are there any questions that I should have asked you, but haven’t yet?

Powell: I think the important question is, what’s the follow-up? I don’t know that we have the answer to that yet, but I think it’s an important question. How will this be utilized to assist others?

Killion: I agree. I think that is a very important question for us to consider. I have some ideas, and I’d love to hear yours.

One of my ideas is that both state policy developers, including those who work at departments of education at the state level and are responsible for professional development and state school boards, who are often responsible for crafting policy related to professional development, use this as a vehicle for launching their own state policy analysis. We’ve been encouraging our affiliates to do that, and we worked with affiliate leaders this summer to begin the process of analyzing state policy.

I think that can also happen with negotiation teams at the district level. They can begin to study their collective bargaining agreements to determine how professional learning is addressed and where the gaps are, and think about where they might want to craft language that provides the kind of quality professional learning that we’ve been talking about.

Davin: I would like to see some follow-up research to determine where we are, now, in terms of bargaining language—how many contracts throughout the nation have collective bargaining language focused on the pathways to professional learning that we outlined in the report, as well as the extent to which state policy supports professional development and collaborative learning teams. I think that would be a very interesting study [to expand the scope of this report].

Powell: I couldn’t agree more. And the publication has some great ideas and recommendations in Part 3 about how we can expand this work in the future.

Back in 1965, UNESCO proclaimed September 8 to be International Literacy Day. The goal? To highlight the importance of literacy to individuals, communities and society. I’ll try to link to some of the reports being released today as they come out.

Just learning this occasion exists reminded me of a post of Robert Pondiscio’s that I saw recently on the Core Knowledge Blog, which referred to a post on Mark Bauerlein’s blog at The Chronicle of Higher Education that commented on an article that Pondiscio wrote with E.D. Hirsch earlier this year. (You’ve got to love the internet.)

The article doesn’t necessary embrace the international spirit of today, but it hits literacy on the head.

To be fully literate is to have the communicative power of language at your command—to read, write, listen and speak with understanding.

The Pondiscio/Hirsch article argues that reading is not a transferable skill, at least not entirely. A child may be able to master “decoding” but needs domain-specific content knowledge to fully comprehend what he or she is reading. And it argues that our current testing and accountability system for our public schools results in time wasted on reading strategies rather than imparting the knowledge that will allow our children to become truly literate, especially in low-income schools where children don’t always get background knowledge from their home environment to the degree that their more advantaged peers do. Certainly there are exceptions–Alabama’s George Hall Elementary comes to mind. But in general, we seem to be developing a society of decoders…or perhaps a society segregated in terms of literacy as well as income. Those who have are literate and those who have not decode. The problem is worsened by standardized tests that, at least in the early grades, reward the decoding drill and kill rather than the development of the underlying skills necessary for literacy later.

Just because a school has high test scores doesn’t mean that it’s a good school. And just because a child passes a state reading test doesn’t mean that he or she is literate. But then we get back to the same old question: How can we accurately assess whether someone is literate? Something worth considering on a day in which we are celebrate its importance to not only the individual but society as a whole.

The first paragraph of Education Next’s Grading Schools: Can Citizens Tell a Good School When They See One? discusses the widespread availability of school standardized test score data. Reading that, I thought I knew what the article would be about. Citizens judging schools based on test scores alone, rather than more meaningful measures. It resonated with me, because the same day I read the article, I had fallen prey to that trap. I was talking about a really great school…and talking only about its test scores. Someone called me on it. I could have mentioned the amazing parent engagement at the school. Or discussed how students at this school–over 90% of whom receive free or reduced price lunch–collected money to send to relief efforts in Haiti. In imparting such citizenship to its students, this school must be doing something right. I know all this, about this school and many others. But I still talk mainly about test scores. We do need to look beyond test scores in determining a school’s quality, but do most citizens actually do so?

Of course, by the end of the second paragraph I knew that was not what this article was about. Instead, it described a study that looked at whether citizens judge school quality based on performance data, or whether indicators such as the racial or class makeup of the school sway their perspective. An entirely different question, but also very interesting.

So I read the article. And while I am not sure I entirely trust their methodology, I am somewhat heartened to learn that citizens do judge the quality of their schools based on student proficiency rates in core academic subjects, not racial demographics. They do take into consideration the percentage of a student body that is poor, but those considerations do not overpower judgments based on information about academic performance. For parents of school-age children the relationship between proficiency rates and school ratings was more than twice as strong as it was for other respondents, though they were also more responsive to poverty rates than others. Importantly, trends held among demographic groups–in other words, disadvantaged populations were just as aware of school quality as other citizens.

The researchers also found that while citizens were responsive to student achievement levels, they were not as responsive to achievement growth as a measure of school quality. Nor were they responsive to school performance on national standardized tests, only the state tests for which results are readily available to them.

The researchers describe two policy implications of this study: that growth measures should feature more prominently in school accountability systems, so that citizens pay more attention to them as a measure of school quality; and that realigning state standards or moving towards common standards would help citizens more accurately understand the performance of their schools in a national context.

While I may not have been thrilled with the methodology used here, I am really displeased with these implications. My interpretation of their findings is that citizens pay attention to the public data on their schools. So why simply call for more prominently featuring growth measures? Why not branch out from an accountability system based almost entirely on standardized test scores to one that includes multiple measures of school performance? Since the public is responsive to what we say about school quality, let’s let them know about what we actually believe are the most important aspects of a school, not just basic reading and math scores.

But a larger concern I have with this study goes back to my initial question: Are citizens judging schools based on more than test scores? What would have happened if those who conducted this study had asked not, “Is this a good school?,” but “Would you send your child to this school?”

A white upper-middle-class parent living near a KIPP* school might be able to say, “That school is good.” He sees in the paper that the school is good. The school celebrates its achievement by putting flyers in mailboxes and banners on the building. But would that parent send his child to that school? If not, how “good” does he truly believe that the school is? Until we start getting at this issue, are we really learning what our citizens think about our schools? Or have we assigned a definition to school quality that they don’t respect?

Image by Andeggs

*Not to pick on KIPP schools, but many are considered “good” schools while serving a mainly disadvantaged population rather than a racially or economically heterogeneous one.

Last week we looked at the state of public schools, as viewed by the American public. Today we’ll look at the state of the American student, as viewed by students themselves.

In creating the recent report Youth Readiness for the Future, Gallup polled students age 10-18 on their hope, engagement and well-being. Why those variables? A number of reasons, including that they are indicators of future success, with links to attendance, grades, achievement scores, retention and employment. And they are malleable—so even if a student is not hopeful now, he or she might be in the future.

The results? Over half of students—53%—are hopeful about the future, while 31% are “stuck” and 16% are discouraged. Over two-thirds of students—70%—are thriving, with about 30% struggling or suffering. And nearly two-thirds—63%—are engaged, while 23% are not engaged (just going through the motions) and 14% are actively disengaged (likely undermining the teaching and learning process for themselves and others). Engagement peaks during elementary school, then decreases through middle school and early high school before rising again.

All in all, 34% of students are what the researchers termed “Ready for the Future”—hopeful, engaged and thriving. Why is that important? “Ready” students are more likely to succeed. For example, students who were “ready” going into their freshman year of high school went on to complete 20% more credits and have GPAs that were one-letter grade higher than peers who were not ready.

Those are national results. And they illustrate some important trends. For example, I think it’s a bit sad that nearly half of kids aren’t hopeful about the future. We as a nation need to talk about that. And 14% of students are actively disengaged? So on average, in every class of 30 students, more than four are undermining teaching and learning for all others. How can we improve that? Educators, policymakers and parents need to work together to address some of the underlying issues revealed here.

But while this national level data is interesting, researchers recognized that it may be more useful to reform efforts if it were local. So they created a system in which schools and districts can get their own results. An individual school can learn whether its students are hopeful, engaged and thriving. It can go deeper into the data and learn, for example, whether its students feel safe at school. Or whether its teachers make students feel schoolwork is important. Or whether its students believe they will find a good job after they graduate.

Once a school or district has that information, they can really use it to drive reform efforts. They can target professional development at engaging students. Or develop a jobs-focus that gets kids hopeful they’ll find good work. Whatever it is their school needs.

The information provided by this poll is important for other reasons as well. It has become glaringly obvious to most education stakeholders that focusing on basic math and reading skills is not preparing our students for the next step—or getting students excited about it. This poll offers an opportunity for conversations to move beyond those skills to what some would consider “softer” concerns–things we suspect are important to learning, but that we do not have a great way to measure. Of course this survey isn’t perfect, but it is a good starting point.