Today’s New York Times has an article “Report Envisions Shortage of Teachers as Retirements Escalate” which refers to a recent study that states more than a third of the nation’s teachers could retire in the next four years. Recently, on this site, discussion has focused on getting rid of “bad” teachers and the obstacles of doing this. Whom do we replace these teachers with?
Linda Darling-Hammond and David Haselkorn just wrote a commentary piece for Education Week that speaks to this issue. “Reforming Teaching: Are We Missing the Boat?” The authors recognize that current college teacher preparedness programs, as well as alternative programs fail students-especially minority students. The author’s concern is that our current debate on teacher preparedness focuses on one weak program versus another weak program. The author’s recommendation: more intensive training similar to other nations that have seen an increase in student achievement.
Case in point:
Around the world, the highest-achieving nations have poured resources into teacher training and support over the last decade. Top-scoring Finland attributes its meteoric rise in achievement to a massive overhaul of teacher education it undertook two decades ago. As in other Scandinavian countries, all teachers there now receive three years of graduate-level preparation for teaching, completely at government expense, plus a living stipend. Their preparation includes training in a “model school” connected to the university, like the professional-development schools created by some successful U.S. programs, along with extensive pedagogical coursework, focused on using and conducting classroom research and meeting the needs of struggling learners.
Asian countries like Singapore also completely subsidize four years of undergraduate teacher education, including a salary while training. Unlike the United States, where teachers either go into debt to prepare for a profession that will pay them poorly or enter with little or no training-these countries invest in a uniformly well-prepared teaching force by recruiting top candidates and paying them to go to school. Slots in teacher-training programs are highly coveted, and shortages are unheard of. Teachers are paid well in relation to competing occupations, and salaries are equitable, sometimes with added incentives for harder-to-staff locations, so that all students receive well-trained teachers.
Rather than our current counterproductive contest, which pits insufficient models against each other, the United States needs to pursue a higher standard-in the caliber of candidates entering teaching, the quality of programs that prepare them, and society’s support for teachers across their careers.
We know that the most important variable in improving student achievement is teacher quality. The author’s proposal is expensive. Are we willing to pay the price?
Popularity: 1% [?]
I’d like to turn this around a little and ask Mark: what would teachers be willing to do to help invest in increased training. Would they commit to time in the summer months at the same annual salary? Weekend training? Reduced pension benefits? Where does one cut to increase the professional development budget?
I’m all for increasing both the quality and quantity of professional development: I think it is crucial to ed reform. But on the theory that everyone needs to bring something to the table, what can teachers bring? I think that is critical to any plan, otherwise this falls into the “just give us more money” category, which is never a good political sell.
Incidentally, don’t miss this part of the NYT article:
“This is not the first report to predict widespread teacher shortages unless policy makers took quick action. In 1999, an Education Department study warned that the impending retirement of millions of teachers could lead to chaos, a dire outcome that never materialized.”
Let’s see–what would fire-fighters be willing to give up in order to be trained on the most recent fire fighting techniques; what would police officers be willing to give up to be trained on new law enforcement techniques? Nothing? Well so much for better fire and police protection. Would that be a hard sell? While I get that it is a hard sell–I don’t see why teachers would need to give up anything but some of their autonomy in the classroom. (Personally, I would and some of my colleagues would, give up some of our superivisory duties, you know checking hall passes, reminding students to wear their IDs, etc. to get more collaboration time.)
If we agree that professional development and collaborative time is necessary to improve student learning, why does there need to be a concession on the part of the teachers? I understand the old “just give us more money” concern. Perhaps we invest more money, right now, into teacher prep programs. These teachers who are replacing “bad” or simply retiring teachers would increase teacher quality.
So much pressure on American teachers! So little pay and no respect. I agree we need the best teachers, and we also need the best students, the best schools and communities that support academic acheivement instead of program fluff.
I’d like to see an article about the extreme pressure teachers are under, the untenable difficulties of their jobs and the reasons that most will leave the profession in 3-5 years.
It is easy to criticize (and sometimes accurate, there are bad teachers) and very difficult to make sustainable changes.
You bet, if it works! No different than any other profession…if we can get teaching to be treated like a real profession. Problem is that we know so little about what works here in spite of what LDH claims. We do know a bit about what doesn’t and yes it would be a good idea to compare different models. Hopefully the CO legislature will come to its senses and pass a good teacher ID bill. We can’t look at teacher prep in isolation of the entire teacher pipeline.
Mark,(thanks for the note)
IMO this and class size are really the only issues in ed reform. All other issues will fix themselves if we concentrate on these. As it stands, our PD is woefully inadequate. Every few months some new technology or strategy comes along and never takes off because no one is willing to invest the time or money for PD. Usually the NYCDOE trains one teacher and then expects them to train all the rest. In theory that’s a good idea, but then the school administration expects the trainer to accomplish in 47 minutes what they learned in an entire day of PD. No one at the top pays anything more than lip service to teacher training, and as a result, teachers become frustrated and develop a negative attitude toward it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat through PD that applied to 2-3 teachers, but had no application to the other 47 of us. We actually have an adequate quantity of PD but only about 1% is quality. Most of the people(other than our own teachers) put almost no time into preparation, and it really shows.
AOomes,
Are you serious? We are salivating for support and training that treats us like adult professional learners. If you see low motivation, read what I said above. We HAVE been at the table for quite a long time already, waiting to contribute, not to be ordered around by someone who has no idea what they are doing. We already attend workshops after school, and on weekends, often at our own expense. New teachers here are required to do that. I have to do that to keep certified in NYS.
Mark, is an appeal to other professions really your best argument? Because inertia exists elsewhere, we are all bound by inertia? That is pretty deterministic. Part of why concessions by teacher might actually create some momentum for this is the current state of school and municipal budgets, which is unlikely to change.
I’ll point out once again that I am in favor of increased quality (primarily) and quantity of PD. But the “no pay and no respect, just give us more money and time” argument has not worked so well in the past, but feel free to dig in your heels and keep trying it.
Lsteele (no extra e): Very serious. I suspect that compared to most of the professions with which I believe teaching should equate (lawyers, doctors, etc), the quantity of PD compares pretty well. Quality is a different issue. My question, differently phrased: if you are failing to receive training that treats you like a “adult professional learner,” what would you do about it? Is there no way you can affect change as the saliva pool grows bigger? If not, why not? No one more likely to create change on an issue than the people who care about it the most.
Mark mentions more intensive training – great, but as unpleasant as it might be, there is probably something which has to decrease for this to increase (time and budgets are limited qualities) What would you suggest it be? Why not petition DPS to be an innovation school where teachers get increased control over your PD time and dollars? I’d be glad to support that effort, and I’d hope it would prove a successful model for other schools.
I am saddened by the comments here that show such a lack of respect for the teaching profession. I hear comments comparing teaching and education to business. “If we have to add some here, we have to cut some there.” While education systems can definitely be bureaucratic monsters that could take a few tips from the business world, it’s important to remember a huge distinction between business and education. Business’ primary goal is to make a profit. Education’s primary goal is to grow people. Business creates efficiency and innovation. Great. I want more of that in my school. But, I am not willing to sacrifice the people with whom I work nor the students I serve.
Students need so much. I’m still not giving them everything they need. I’m sure my first year teaching friends would say the same. And they put in between 60 and 100 hours a week of grueling work, physically, mentally, and emotionally.
And I don’t think the teachers and teacher advocates here are arguing simplistically “no pay and no respect, give us more money and time.” I think they’re hoping for a paradigm shift in our society as a whole. What does it say about the U.S. that we are so unwilling to fund schools better? That so much money goes to the war machine? We’re more interested in aggression than in creating citizens that could find creative solutions to the problems behind the aggression.
Yes, there are certainly teachers who could do more. But in response to anyone who asks, what are you willing to sacrifice for better funding and training, I would invite you to follow a teacher around for a day. I have several friends who would be willing to show you the time and labor intensive job that we choose to do in order to help create a better society for you.
AOoms,
We have given concessions on our last 2 contracts, each time giving up days off in exchange for PD. We agreed to work a longer school day so we could devote more time to small group study. The only good PD we get today is teachers giving PD to teachers. The NYCDOE sets up ARIS for us, promising this great tool for accessing our students’ data, with strategies for our classroom to deal with individual students’ needs. Then we log on, and instead of providing tools, they encourage us to post our best practices, and interact with our colleagues. Their idea of PD is a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movie: Hey, let’s put on a show! When I was a staff developer, I attended some great PD. The workshops were full of administrators, most of whom never interact with teachers on any meaningful basis. IOW, that workshop was not going to get to the classroom. These workshops are given on weekdays during school hours, so as a result, teachers can’t attend. I’m not trying to come up with excuses. The move to reform comes from the top. If they want changes, stop blocking any step that would effect them.
Gwen,
I have great respect for good teachers, and the constraint here is not private business practices, but state and municipal budgets. If teachers want to receive more resources, I think you improve your chances significantly if you have something to contribute in return. I’m not altogether clear how this signifies “a lack of respect” – I’d appreciate if you could explain that to me. Was it the comparison between teachers and doctors and lawyers you found insulting? For I see no other comparison to business in any comments above.
I’ve spent lots of time with teachers (your assumption I have not is its own commentary). And I would be a little careful before you claim the current dysfunctional school system as the moral high ground.
My suggestions were to increase PD by either reducing either time off in the summer or pension benefits; or to petition DPS for freedom for the current system. In response, there has not been a single suggestion of what teachers might relinquish to receive more PD time and dollars. Nor has there been any other proactive ideas of how to make PD better for teachers (I don’t really count the initial article’s admonition to “pour resources into teacher training and support”).
What there has been instead is the predictable litany of “a lack of respect for the teaching profession” and “so little pay and no respect,” so we can all sit around, sad in our agreement, and hope for the paradigm shift that never arrives.
If teachers can’t contribute ideas to get us out of the current quagmire of lousy teacher preparation, who do you expect to do it for you?
Why doesn’t education reform include reforming how we fund education? While I “get” the political complications of today’s economic contraints I do no think it should preclude us from looking at increasing the overall spending on education. We are not going to be able to piecemeal education reform. An increase in funding will not thappen unless we have a larger plan in place that includes more professional development and collaborative time for teachers.
Isn’t increased academic achievement a good enough contribution in return for PD time from teachers? If the judicial system claims that “justice” will improve if more time is given to judges for PD, would we be asking them for someting in return? I think the issue here is that it is hard to place a monetary value on education. So using a traditional market approach is troublesome.
Teacher prep ideas: Year long residencies in which new teachers are paired with a master teacher in their content area and spend the entire year observing and lead teaching in that area? The trend is hopefully going to spread with Duncan’s background in Chicago and its residency program, though the devil’s in the details.
Gradual release for new teachers. The first year is hell. For secondary teachers, teach 1/4 of the full teaching load the first year, 1/2 the second, and 3/4 the third year, full time fourth year and on. Come up with something similar for elementary teachers. There would be greater teacher retention and therefore better, more consistent teachers. Of course, this would require more money, too. New teachers would still need to be paid full time; it takes them longer to do the same thing as experienced teachers so they don’t have time for a second job.
PD ideas: Teachers teach half the day and collaborate and PD the other half of the day. Some of the best professional development happens in building, new teachers learning from master teachers. This would, of course, require more teachers so that all teachers could have more time away from the classroom to rejuvenate to reenter the classroom.
If summers remain some sort of break, structures within the school built in for teachers to meet together to plan the following year’s curriculum and spread out the bigger PD opportunities (conventions and institutes in other cities).
I’ve heard these ideas bandied about by teachers. It’s just a matter of people higher up hearing it and making it happen. That is where I think the conflict arises: between public ed’s bureaucracy and the sometimes, yes, very dysfunctional system and the groundwork of earnest teachers trying to prepare students to be productive, thoughtful, compassionate citizens. But I think the dysfunction of the ed system is often caused by lack of vital resources, monetary and human, which is a result of the greater society’s paradigm that sees education as only ever asking for more money, rarely producing results. That is where I see the lack of respect. We can’t get the resources to do school well because we live in a democracy and the public (of which I am a part) cannot unite behind providing those resources to schools.
My query for ideas for specifically for ones that would help bridge the desire for more money and time with the economic realities of shrinking budgets. Ideas on how to spend money are usually not the issue.
For what it is worth, I think mentoring programs are a very good idea (and there are some of these kicking about on a small scale) provided we select the master teachers carefully; the “gradual release” idea is one Gladwell and others have been kicking about – it is one of my personal favorites. I am less keen on the idea that half of teacher’s time becomes PD.
But I disagree that this is “just a matter of people higher up hearing it and making it happen.” All of these programs require either increased time and/or increasing spending. Again (and maybe for the last time on this thread), the inability to consider any options that contribute either time or dollars make the chances of receiving them more remote.
What often happens is that without proper time and money, the idea is instituted half-heartedly, or in some way where it is unlikely to be successful, the program does not produce the results it could, and the whole thing dies. To break this paradox we need some bold new ideas on how to bridge the divide between the programs and the economics. IN the vast contributions on this blog (and in education in general), these types of ideas are in short supply.