Our current national obsession or "silver bullet de jour" is evaluation; specifically teacher and principal evaluation. Let us be clear. The motivation behind this obsession is about developing a system designed to get rid of ten percent of the "worst teachers." This is not about improving teacher quality, but it should be.

Truth be told, we currently have and have had many high-quality teacher evaluation systems. What we don't have is a high-quality capacity-building system. We don't do a good job of developing teacher capacity.

Inspection will not improve quality in any profession. Standing at the end of the assembly line with a clipboard noting defects will not improve quality. Evaluating teachers with a "better checklist" will not, in and of itself, improve instruction.

A system founded on inspection will only serve to drive teachers from the profession and deter new teachers from entering. Who would want to work in a system set up to determine who passes inspection and who does not? This sounds more like a state vehicle inspection program than it does an education initiative.

The Pledge

I asked our teachers to make a pledge to only hold our students accountable for what we taught them. If, for example, we wanted them to use a specific method of taking notes, it was our responsibility to teach them. 

In return, I pledged to only hold teachers accountable for what I, as principal, taught them. There was, however, one exception and that was knowledge of their content area for which the state had already issued them a license to teach. It was my responsibility to provide the resources, training, and support they needed.

We don't have a teacher problem in this country. We have a capacity problem. Our teachers are, to a fault, dedicated, caring, and hard working. Teachers have faithfully done what we have asked them to do. The problem is we have changed the rules on teachers, but we have not changed the way we prepare and develop teachers.

First, we changed the parameters from some students going to college to all students being college and career-ready. Secondly, we changed the criteria for success from process to product. In the past, we judged teachers on their qualifications based on course work and on their ability to demonstrate sound pedagogy. Today, we judge teachers on student performance on state assessments for which the students themselves are, in most cases, not held accountable.

Improving teaching is about improving the quality of instruction, and we must build in quality through consistent, connected, and ongoing professional development.

Just hire the best teachers!

A researcher friend of mine once told me that I was wrong about school improvement. "All we need to do is hire great teachers and our problems are solved," he said. Since he had never worked in a school, I had to remind him of what happened in the real world.

First, great teachers aren't born. Teachers become great through the combination of ability and years of practice and a lot of hard work.

Second, teaching is a profession. As is the case in any profession, teachers are expected to grow and improve throughout their careers.

Third, many new teachers have had only a few weeks of actual classroom experience. They need a lot of support early in their careers.

Finally, the school leader plays an important role in both the short-term and long-term growth of a new teacher and whether that teacher will remain in the profession. In most districts around the country, the responsibility for providing professional development falls on the school principal.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:26 PM | Permalink

Students want and need interaction with peers, which has been shown to improve learning. When students work in groups, what and how much they learn is directly related to the effectiveness of the interaction with their peers.

Some groups are naturally more productive than others. While some peer groups seem to interact naturally, others "struggle to maintain a balance of participation, leadership, under-standing, and encouragement."

The act of placing students in groups is not in itself an effective instructional strategy. The key is what happens in the groups.

Effective groups are characterized by:

• Questioning
• Explanations using evidence
• Elaboration
• Reflection
• Role Identification (Leader, Time Keeper, Scribe...)

The fact that a course is being conducted online does not alter the needs of the students. The principles of effective group instruction and support apply to both live and online instruction.

The Bottom Line

1. Skilled teachers take the time to instruct students not only in the cognitive skills necessary to learn the subject matter, but also in the social skills they need to work effectively and collaboratively in a team.
2. Students should only be held accountable for what we teach them, and that includes the skills needed to work effectively in groups.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:55 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an effort to close their minority achievement gap, Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools (MCPS) like many other school systems has turned to Disneyland for educational advice.  According to an article in the Washington Post:

”In their ongoing quest to eliminate academic achievement gaps, Montgomery County educators are seeking help from the Magic Kingdom.

“It is not enough, they realized, to spend more on poor children or to promote college-level classes for all if school employees are not fully committed to the cause.

“Maryland’s largest school system sent a delegation to Disney’s complex in Orlando a few years ago for a lesson in motivating employees from a company that specializes in making dreams come true.”

And what advice did this considerable investment of time and money obtain?

“‘People need a reason to come to work. At Disney, we teach our employees the first day that we are here to create happiness,’ said Bruce Jones, programming director for the Disney Institute, which coaches outsiders in the entertainment giant’s business methods. ‘What we talk about with educators is, ‘Let’s not forget why we got into this: These are real kids.’”

No wonder the place is called “Fantasyland”.  Rest assured, any teacher who has stood in front of a classroom filled to overflowing with students fresh from more than two months of summer vacation is well aware that there are “real kids” sitting in those chairs.  And, unfortunately, learning how to derive the quadratic formula does not always equate into “happiness”.

Outside advice is not all bad

Utilizing the thoughts of non-educators can be beneficial.  In previous posts, I have quoted Vince Lombardi, Bill Gates and Mark Twain among others.  What is troubling about the MCPS adventure in the Magic Kingdom is the actual advice being rendered.  While any business as successful as Disney has important lessons to share, the goals of education and those of an amusement park do not significantly overlap.  In the Disney orientation, which is called “Transitions” there is a review of the company history and a screening of clips of old Disney movies, which have reportedly brought many new employees to tears.   Now MCPS has its own orientation for new personnel which is also being titled “Transitions” and includes a history of the county, films about outstanding employees and concludes as a virtual revival meeting.  According to the Post:

“During one session in Rockville on a muggy August afternoon, three dozen recently hired teachers and bus drivers were introduced to their new employer’s vision statement in evangelical call-and-response fashion.

“A high-quality education is a fundamental right for who?” asked a high-energy facilitator. “Every child,” came the muffled response. “For WHO?” the call came again. “Every child,” the group said, a little louder.

“That’s right,” the facilitator said. “Every child.”

While there were no reports of widespread weeping among the participants, based upon my own experiences with such activities it would appear to be a possibility – and not in a good way.

The minority achievement gap is not a fairy tale

All of these machinations are the result of persistently lower academic performances by the district’s Hispanics and African-Americans when compared to Caucasians and Asians.  It is a problem that has existed for decades.  The county’s educational leaders have decided that the root cause of the disparity is low expectations on the part of teachers when dealing with these under performing groups.  It would appear that this latest approach by MCPS is just another attempt at finding an overly simplified answer to a very complex question.  If the significant differences in student performances between certain groups were a statistical blip on the educational radar screen much like an excessively hot summer, it could be explained away by employee incompetence or ignorance.  But these are entrenched problems that have been consistently in place for years.  Instead of soliciting the advice of a successful movie studio, schools need to look for fundamental structural changes that could actually directly address the achievement gap.

Not as entertaining as the seven dwarfs but…

From the point of view of an educator here are seven ways to attack the minority achievement gap:

Improve hiring practices.  Create a process for acquiring new personnel that would determine the quality of their work before they stand in front of a classroom.  Invest the time and resources necessary to make the interviewing of candidates a multi-tiered procedure that would accurately determine the best applicants.

Improve the evaluation process.  Hire professional evaluators who would not only establish the strengths and weaknesses of each staff member, they would have the tools necessary to improve the individuals being observed.

Create an effective termination policy.  Most poor teachers are failures with all of their students not just the ones at-risk.  However, those weaker students are often the most affected by poor teaching.  Schools must institute policies that would allow them to remove under-performing personnel in a timely manner.

Hire statisticians to determine root causes of low academic performances.  Instead of pulling out charts that demonstrate the obvious—certain groups are continually under-performing—do the research necessary to find out the fundamental reasons for these problems.  On numerous occasions it has been clearly demonstrated that low scores are far more about poverty than they are race based.

Encourage underrepresented minorities to take more challenging courses.  Sometimes students need a little encouragement; other times they require a bit of a push.  Establish a school environment where counselors and teachers are continually setting high standards for all students.

Offer incentives to work in low-income schools.  In the accountability-based schools of 2011 it is increasingly difficult to entice quality educators to work in the most difficult schools.  Offer higher pay, more creativity and leadership roles to outstanding personnel to perform in buildings with the greatest need.

Better prepare new teachers.  Instead of revival meetings give meaningful training.  Establish “teaching” high schools much like physicians have “teaching” hospitals and allow new educators to learn their craft appropriately.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:14 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Teaching is a tough, time consuming job.  I knew a high school English teacher who would periodically have to take a day of sick leave for the purpose of grading an overwhelming amount of student work.  With a pair of grocery bags crammed full of essays in hand, he would leave the building provisioned to spend the next day at home pouring over a huge pile of papers for hours.  This ritual would occur at least four times a year.

For most teachers at my former school, the concept of “contract” time was laughable.  Technically the workday began at 7:15 a.m. and ended at 2:45 p.m.  However, the faculty parking lot was always half full by 6:15 a.m. and anyone arriving after 7:00 was hard pressed to find a spot. Even when I left school as late as 5:00 p.m., dozens of cars were still there.  Suffice it to say, a high-school teaching schedule is a full-time job.  Anything that reduces the amount of time available to undertake that task robs individuals of the ability to perform at their maximum level.

With those factors in mind, Mel Riddile has raised a concern about the persistent practice of assigning teachers extra-duties.  He quotes the superintendent of a large school system who is trying to intervene on behalf of teachers who are being overwhelmed with an escalating series of tasks that detract from their primary job of educating.  This is a legitimate concern that continues to have a negative impact on the academic success of schools.

It is not a new problem

This unfortunate tug-of-war between administrators and teachers has been a perennial problem.  It has been the root cause of much of the tension that exists among the two groups.  From the teacher’s perspective there is a sense that the administrative team does not trust them to use non-class time appropriately.  In addition, many of the tasks assigned are viewed as not being part of their job description.  Finally, in this era of high accountability, most teachers feel there is not enough time to both teach effectively and perform other non-educational chores. 

One example of this conflict occurred when my former district expanded the school day from six to seven periods.   The additional class would afford students an opportunity to take four additional classes during their high school careers.  Though the school day was to be lengthened by about thirty minutes, the vast majority of teachers were comfortable with the longer work day.  They assumed they would continue to teach five classes, work with the same number of students for virtually the same amount of time.  The additional period would give the master schedule more flexibility and could offer an increased number of interesting and unique courses.  The expanded school day would be offset by a second planning period which would allow more opportunities for collaborative planning, preparation and grading. 

Unfortunately, the policy makers saw the new schedule differently.  In a move that clearly indicated that they felt teachers could not be trusted with this new “additional” time the “Individual Professional Responsibility” (IPR) was born.   The IPR was a requirement that teachers spend one of those “off” periods engaged in tasks assigned by the local administrative team.  These responsibilities included cafeteria duty, working in the attendance office and returning used library books to their proper place on the shelves.  For several years every teacher in the building would not only be required to perform such mundane tasks, they had to log in their time and give written explanations of precisely how they had spent their IPR time.  To the teachers the entire process conveyed a message that if unsupervised they would simply use non-class time to drink coffee and read the newspaper in lieu of academic pursuits.  Mercifully, thanks to the hard work of some enlightened principals this practice died out over time, although I am not sure it was ever officially terminated.  But the misguided perception that expanding a teacher’s job description has no impact on their classroom work still exists.

Replacing one bad idea with another

 While the IPR faded, there were plenty of other items to take up extra time.  Initiatives were being introduced that would reduce a teacher’s ability to focus on their students.  District programs to monitor student progress (e-Carte and Abacus) were mandated activities - even though they were inferior to the assessment tools already in use at the school.  The staff had a difficult choice.  They could either stop using approaches that had been proven effective or perform the same analysis twice to meet district requirements.  And, of course, all such programs came with lengthy training.  Poorly conceived staff development and unnecessary faculty meetings added to the problem.   What was most frustrating for the teachers was the total disconnect from the inordinate amount of time already being spent on important non-classroom activities such as parent conferences, faculty and department meetings, after school extra-curricular activities, evaluation discussions, recertification requirements, reviewing textbooks, etc.  There was scant recognition that there were already plenty of “extra” duties to fill in any excess time.

The next big thing

The most ominous current demand on teachers concerns remediation of students who are performing poorly on standardized tests.  Ironically, the same superintendent who wanted to ease the pressure on teachers has also requested that his state’s barrier exams be administered earlier in the year with the burden of remediating those who fail to be left to the teachers in an unspecified and unfunded manner.  It is a plan that sounds suspiciously like more extra duty.

It is time to reassess the components of a typical teacher workday.  From the view of both the teacher and administrative staffs the focus must be on finding ways to best utilize the time of every staff member to better serve the academic performance of the student body.  Finding ways to keep staff members occupied with duties that do not move toward that goal is unacceptable.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:58 PM | Permalink

Budget shortfalls are forcing major reductions in the teaching staff in many schools and districts across the country. At the same time, some schools are fortunate enough to be filling vacancies.

For those fortunate few, I have compiled a list of posts from this blog that relate to interviewing and hiring teachers.

Hiring Teachers: Control or Cooperation

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 1

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 2

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 3 The Interview

Building the Best Educational Staff: Part 4 Evaluation

Defining A Good Teacher

Finding the Best Teachers: Who's Interviewing Whom?

Finding the Best Teachers: Interviewing Follow-up

Finding the Best Teachers: Part 1

Finding the Best Teachers: Part 2

Finding the Best Teachers: Part 3

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:27 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Evaluations that have value

Academic success has been directly linked to the quality of a school’s teaching and administrative staffs.  Ideas are constantly being presented for improving educational personnel.  But singular approaches such as merit pay, improved evaluations, and easier termination policies will not individually accomplish that goal.  What is needed is a multi-faceted program that will address all of the shortcomings in the current system. Previously, eight fundamental areas were presented that need to be addressed in order for districts to be able to hire, improve and retain the most talented educators.    

This is the fourth in a series of articles that will detail the steps needed to implement those improvements.  In earlier posts hiring practices and effective interviewing techniques have been discussed. Part 4 will focus on the evaluation process.

Changing more than the format

Nearly every proposal for improving teacher evaluation revolves around the use of data particularly standardized tests.  While that is an important item for consideration, the most pressing reform may well involve redefining who is best qualified to actually perform those evaluations.  The first step in true evaluation reform should be to create a new set of individuals who are responsible for this portion of the process. 

Not the best choice for the job

In most school districts the primary responsibility for this process falls to the local administrative team and there are many assistant principals who are well equipped to review the work of a staff member.  But even though the vast majority undertake this time-consuming task with a high level of commitment, they have an overwhelming array of day-to-day responsibilities. For example, the AP who evaluated the math teachers at my former school was tasked with the discipline of more than three hundred freshmen, administering (and evaluating) three different departments, implementing the testing plan for state barrier exams, hall duty between change of classes, supervising several extra-curricular and athletic events and interviewing candidates for vacancies.  In addition there were the almost daily emergencies that always arise in a high school.  A majority of administrators have similar job descriptions.  It is not surprising to find the time to evaluate teachers falling toward the bottom of this lengthy “to-do” list. 

Creating professional evaluators

A better option for school districts is to train a group of master teachers to become full-time, system-wide professional evaluators.  Such individuals would be significantly better equipped to accurately assess the skill of an instructor than administrators who in all likelihood were not hired primarily for their evaluation skills.  The money required for forming such a cadre could be offset by a reduction in administrative staff and an improved evaluation process.

An even more important argument for this innovation revolves around fairness and consistency.  School-based evaluators cannot help but be somewhat biased by their daily interaction with the staff.  Within a building there is an intuitive sense of which individuals perform well and which perform poorly in the classroom.  These reputations are rarely based on quantitative data; they are the result of comments by students, parents, faculty and other subjective experiences.  Minimally these unsubstantiated ideas can influence the amount of effort spent on an evaluation.  If pressed for time, an argument could be made to shorten the observation of a teacher who is widely “recognized” as being outstanding.  Conversely, negative sentiments from the school community can result in closer scrutiny of less well respected educators.  In either case a measure of fairness is compromised. 

A team of district-based evaluators would eliminate this problem and would also create consistency throughout the system.  The evaluations at school A could be compared with confidence to those at school B.  A number of issues ranging from merit pay, transfers and the termination of contracts could be resolved more reliably.      

What would the process contain?

Here is one hypothetical fix for the ineffective and unproductive teacher evaluations that are sadly typical.  Three professionals would form a teacher’s evaluation team.  One (generalist) would be a highly trained observer who is thoroughly versed in the fundamentals of good teaching.  Another (curriculum specialist) would have similar training but would have taught in the subject field being observed.  The third would be an assistant principal at the school. The generalists and curriculum specialists would be required to have at least ten years of successful teaching experience in addition to extensive training in observing and interpreting classroom activities.  Successful retired teachers could be an outstanding and economical talent pool for these positions. 

The actual evaluation process would be intense.  At least five formal observations would be required.  The generalist and specialist would have two announced and two unannounced.  Additional observations can be done when necessary or desired.  A local assistant principal would perform one unannounced visit.  This experience would familiarize the AP with the teacher being evaluated.  The results of this observation would not be included in the final document but should allow the administrator to better understand and interpret the input from the other team members.  All observations would encompass an entire class period.  The two announced would be videotaped which would become a central component in post-observation conferences.  The videos would also be available to the other members of the team.  When appropriate, standardized test scores and other pertinent data would be included in the overall assessment.  Evaluators will, of course, be carefully trained in analyzing such data and how to utilize it in a fair, accurate manner.  At the end of the process, the three observers would meet and create the overall rating that would then be shared with the teacher.   The primary source of the final conclusions would be the two observers; the role of the AP would be to coordinate the process and provide further input if needed.

The next steps

The purpose of an evaluation should be to both determine the quality of one’s performance and to construct approaches to improve and enhance skills.  Ultimately it should also be a tool in determining pay, advancement and termination.  Those will be the focus of the next part of this series.  

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:09 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Head Blogger's Note: The Teacher Leader references the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Testing Program that employs a rigorous high school assessment system of eleven end-of-course exams, which act as barriers to graduation and are used to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Midway through the teacher evaluation portion of the “Building the Best Educational Staff” series, I came to a startling realization.  It had become obvious that one issue under discussion required separate attention—the use of standardized test scores in the high school evaluation process.

It sounds so good on paper

The hottest ticket in all new evaluation plans is the inclusion of these statistics. Everyone is talking about the need for this component.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan brings it up at every opportunity and Bill Gates has spent millions of his own dollars to research the issue.   Even I have written in favor of it. In the abstract it is such a great idea. These tests are quantitative measures of student achievement that can allow a fair comparison of teacher performances.  It has it all—clarity, accuracy and ease of implementation. There is, however, one serious drawback.  It cannot work.

There are inherent problems

There is one aspect of these arguments that is continually overlooked—the actual percentage of students in high school who take these standardized exams.  Though regulations vary from state to state, using Virginia as an example, the reality is that most teachers do not have state or district tests to evaluate their students’ work.  As the Coordinator of Curriculum at my school one of my responsibilities was to formulate a testing schedule for the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams.  What I discovered as I worked to make the most equitable plan possible was that more than two-thirds of all classes taught in the building were not being tested.    How can the bedrock of an evaluation system be built on a formula that is appropriate for only 33% of the classes?  And this is not a question of core vs. electives.  In Virginia, no Physics classes are tested.  Likewise, 9th, 10th and 12th grade English, pre-calculus, United States Government and all foreign languages are excluded.  Will there be a different evaluation for Biology and Physics teachers?    If a person has a schedule that includes both World History I and Government classes will a hybrid evaluation be necessary?

In an attempt to make the use of test scores more accurate, many systems are working on plans that will measure progress from year to year rather than in a single “snapshot” of a group of results.  While that may work when measuring Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 students, problems quickly arise in science and social studies.  What is the precise impact of the work in Earth Science on performance in Biology or Chemistry?   How can one compare World History 2 to United States History?

Good questions, shaky answers

When the use of test scores in teacher evaluations is given close inspection the aforementioned concerns quickly become apparent.   One example of evaluation idealism colliding with actual reality was presented recently in the Washington Post. The paper had a question and answer session with Jason Kamras chief of human capital for Washington D.C. Public Schools.  Mr. Kamras is the principal architect of the two year old IMPACT teacher evaluation system.  This plan uses test score input as 50% of a teacher’s evaluation.  Unfortunately, Mr. Kamras’s responses to many of the questions were not inspiring.

When asked why so few teachers were being evaluated with the “value-added” test system he responded:

“You know the grades we test [on the DC CAS, 3 through 8 and 10]. You have to knock off third grade because we don’t test second grade, so you have no benchmark. You have to knock out 10th grade because we don’t test in ninth grade, although that’s changing. You always have some [teachers] drop out because they didn’t have enough kids.”

The follow up question was obvious.  What can be done about this shortcoming?  The response concerning alternative evaluations for non-testing teachers was equally troubling and unclear.

“We looked at portfolios and lots of other things. And then you’ve got to push a little bit. How do you do portfolios? Everybody has a different idea of what a portfolio is…Actually it’s really hard to demonstrate growth clearly and quantitatively…When we looked at it in depth, what we came to was that the operational burden to do this well was simply probably beyond the capacity of the school system at this point.”

It is not reassuring to have an evaluation program built on proposals that include “lots of other things.” 

What does it all mean?

The use of student standardized test scores as a segment of teacher evaluations can be valuable if used properly.  It should not be cast aside or ignored as inherently unfair or inaccurate.  But what its proponents must keep in perspective is the limited scope of these data.  It is not a magic formula for determining all teacher success. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:25 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Developing an Effective Interview Process

Academic success has been directly linked to the quality of a school’s teaching and administrative staffs.  Prescriptions are continually being proposed to improve educational personnel.  These plans have included merit pay, improved evaluations, and easier termination policies among others.  But this goal is too complex to be accomplished with singular solutions.  What is required is a multi-faceted program that will address a variety of shortcomings in the current hiring system.  Previously, I have compiled eight fundamental areas that need to be reassessed in order for districts to be able to hire, improve and retain the most talented educators. 

This is the third in a series of articles that will detail the steps needed to implement those improvements.  This post will focus on the interviewing process.

Rule 1:  The interview begins with the resume

One of the most important components to the interview process begins before any face-to-face meetings occur.  Choosing the best interview candidates from among dozens of resumes can be difficult.  No single piece of paper can tell the complete story of an applicant’s strengths or weaknesses.  But there are some items that deserve extra attention. 

What is the candidate’s academic background and teaching experience?

Only applicants with a strong academic background in the subject area should be given serious consideration.  While a major in the field would be preferable, the minimum requirement would be a significant number of successfully completed courses in the curriculum.  In many states the requirements for certification are unrealistically low.  For that reason there should be a thorough examination of the candidate’s GPA particularly in the subject area.  If this information is not contained on the resume, a transcript should be requested.   This extra step can reveal a great deal about a prospective teacher.  For example, one individual who applied for a Chemistry position at my former school had a reasonably good overall GPA.  However, a detailed look at the candidate’s transcript revealed that every course in Chemistry was “C” or lower including a few that had to be repeated.   This information is not trivial.

Previous employment, summer jobs, and areas of interest should also be carefully examined.  Matching an educator to a school is a subtle process.  Different student bodies require different strengths.  Evaluate prior experiences in terms of preparing the candidate for the school’s particular needs.  After determining the top choices the interviewing process should begin.

Rule 2:  Have the right people doing the interview

Teacher interviews should be conducted by the two individuals most directly involved in the development of new staff—the department chair and the supervising assistant principal.  If one of the two does not attend an interview no hiring should take place until both have had an opportunity to talk with the candidate.  Offering a position should require a 2-0 “vote”.  

The inclusion of the chair is particularly important.  No one understands the exact needs of a department as well as a person who works with this group every day.  In addition having a teacher in the process gives the applicant an opportunity to ask specific questions concerning working at that particular school.  While an AP has first-hand knowledge of the learning environment, it is not the equivalent to that of a full-time teacher.  Moreover, if the department chairs have a voice in the hiring, they will also have ownership and accountability.  It is now incumbent on them to make this hire work.  And finally having both the AP and department chair conducting the interviews makes the process more consistent, allows them to develop a coordinated working relationship and gives this somewhat subjective decision making process more objectivity.   

Rule 3:  Everyone should be asking questions

An effective interview is one that allows information to flow in two directions.  As the interviewers assess the qualifications of a candidate through a series of questions, the applicant should be seeking information about the makeup of the student body, an overview of the department personnel and educational philosophy and administrative support and expectations.  This understanding of the educational environment within the building is critical.  Hiring the right teacher is not always about hiring the most talented one.  Good teachers and successful schools are not automatically a perfect fit.  I have known many underperforming teachers who have found great success after transferring to a new location.  People often underestimate the importance of personal chemistry in teaching success. 

Rule 4:  Ask questions that result in meaningful answers

The inquiries posed during an interview should elicit introspection of one’s beliefs about education.  The goal should be to determine the applicant’s beliefs regarding why some students fail to achieve, how to reach different learning styles within a classroom, the most productive student/teacher relationship, and classroom management approaches.  Some of my personal favorites include:

• Within your curriculum what is your favorite topic?  How would you share that enthusiasm with your students?
• Next October when I visit your class, what facet of the lesson I observe will be the most impressive?
• During that visit what will be the most notable aspect of the classroom environment?
• What teaching issues would most likely require you to ask for advice from your colleagues?

A series of such questions should be created that will give true insights into the philosophies and beliefs of the candidate and also express the academic direction of the school.

Rule 5:  The questions are only the beginning

The give and take of the interview should be only a portion of the process in determining who is offered a position.  A comprehensive interview would include the following:

• Writing sample.  The most basic skill required of a successful educator is the ability to communicate.  This talent must exist both verbally and in writing.  Having applicants express their views in words can reveal additional information not necessarily apparent in a question and answer setting.  Sample questions could include “What motivates you to be an educator?”, “What was the primary reason you applied to this particular school?” “Think of your favorite teacher.  What made this person so special to you?”  A written answer to any of these inquiries could give some extremely important insights.
• Teach a lesson.  Tell the applicant in advance that they will be asked to teach a fifteen minute portion of a lesson they have done in the past.  They should be prepared with handouts, power points, board work, etc.  If they are uncomfortable with this request, what does that say about their future in front of a classroom of students?
• Tour the school and visit classrooms.  Remember this is a two-way interview.  Give them a genuine feel for the educational environment.  An interviewer can gather insights about a candidate by observing their reaction to a classroom visit. After one of my interviews a teacher asked me when the students would be dismissed.  She then situated herself in the main office and watched the students as they left the building.  She later told me that the manner in which they conducted themselves and their interaction with adults convinced her that she wanted to be at this school. 
• Make a lunch date.  Prior to offering a position, a highly-rated candidate should be invited to have lunch with the department during a school day.  This setting provides a wonderful opportunity for interaction with potential future colleagues and often served as the final stage in the entire process. 

Rule 6:  Aggressively contact references and previous employers

Some of the worst information acquired during the interviewing process is obtained from references.  Too many people are loath to give honest appraisals or worse they want to get rid of a problem teacher.  Consequently interviewers need to ask pointed questions when contacting these individuals.  The importance of their input needs to be clearly stated and emphasis be given to the need for candor.  Books could be written about the harm caused by misleading references.   Consequently, it is a process that must be undertaken carefully and with caution.

Rule 7:  Use your new hires as a resource

Your new hires can help in improving the interviewing process.  I always asked them why they chose to accept our offer and how our process compared to others.  These conversations revealed some important insights that were used to strengthen our work in the future.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:17 PM | Permalink

The Teacher Leader viewed hiring as his most important responsibility. Sadly, many schools never allow teacher leaders the opportunity to step up and share ownership of their school. When it comes to the important decisions like hiring and scheduling, teacher are too often shut out.

Leaders Grow Leaders

High-performing schools understand that 'hiring the right people and putting them in the right seats on the bus' is critical to laying a solid foundation for continuous school improvement. When asked about the importance of hiring teachers, most school leaders put it at the top of their list. How they deal with hiring new staff is a dead giveaway to their willingness to share decision-making and to distribute leadership and tells us just how collaborative the school really is.

Behavior Doesn't Lie

The real test of a school leader is what the leader does when the pressure is on. How does that leader deal with the critical issues like hiring? Every school leader I know believes that they have a collaborative school environment, but many view hiring as their purview and under their total control.

Accountability Demands Involvement

I love the Bill Parcell's quote, "If you want me to cook the meal, let me shop for the groceries." If we want teachers to hold each other accountable for student achievement, we are going to have to give up our need to control. Notice that I did not mention holding teachers accountable. Holding teachers accountable is about control. High-performing schools seek cooperation not control. They practice shared decision-making, which results in shared responsibility and shared ownership.

If we want voluntary cooperation, we must lead as though we are seeking cooperation. If we want teachers to take ownership, we must treat them as co-owners who have a part in making the key decisions that affect them on a daily basis.

Our teachers always expected more of themselves that anyone ever would. No one could ever compel our teachers to work as hard or care as much as they did.

Yes, it is a scary proposition for a school leader, whose head is on the chopping block every day, to give up control of the destiny of the school. However, I learned from experience that there were tremendous benefits to involving teachers in the hiring process:

They took more time. For me, it was about filling a position. For our teachers, it was about finding the right person, the right fit. Our teachers understood the skills and background knowledge required of the applicant as well as how the prospective teacher would fit into their team.

Better decisions - Our teachers pooled their collective experience and multiple intelligences to make better decisions, and they did.

Ownership - Teachers took ownership of the new hire, because they made the selection. They were invested in the new teacher's success and they did everything possible to help.

Our teachers took hiring personally. Listen to how The Teacher Leader approached hiring process.

"I approached the process as an intense form of competition. In a manner similar to college athletic recruiting or drafting in professional sports, the procedure consisted of carefully studying applications to locate the best candidates, an extensive interviewing process to narrow the focus and then an aggressive recruiting campaign to convince them to become a part of our math team.  I was also aware of the fact that not all of those other schools were as concerned with the endeavor. Hiring is recruiting! We believed that the interview went in both directions. We were interviewing the applicant and the applicants were deciding if they wanted to work in our school."

I often heard from applicants that our school was the only school to talk about what the school could do for them. 'All the other schools were only interested in what I could do for them.' High-performing schools tell applicants what they can do for them. They sell the school and the benefits of working there. They take pride in the school and in their team.

The Bottom Line

Do you have the courage to let go of your illusion of control over the hiring process? Are you willing to trust your staff?

Remember what the Gates survey of teachers found. Teachers most want supportive leadership. How a school leader handles the hiring process goes a long way to defining how supportive that leader really is. Keep in mind that when leadership is distributed throughout the school, we find a much more teacher-friendly school culture.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:39 PM | Permalink

Step 1:  Recognition that hiring is critical to academic performance.

The success of a school system correlates directly to the quality of the educational staff it employs.  Improving student achievement requires finding exceptional individuals who can fill those positions.  In a previous post I listed the eight priorities that were essential for hiring, improving and retaining the most talented educators.  This article is the first in a series that will detail the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that all schools have outstanding personnel.

It is the implementation not the procedure

There is no question that every school district wants to secure the best talent possible.  The vast majority of systems have excellent hiring plans in place that are designed to attract the finest teachers available.  Unfortunately, that process can often become compromised as other concerns are given higher priority.  Some districts do not realize or understand the level of resolve necessary in terms of time and resources to hire the best and the brightest.

Rule 1:  Districts must recognize that the acquisition of new staff is critical.  Significant resources must be dedicated to recruiting top candidates.  These efforts must include input and participation by classroom teachers and school administrators. 

Recruit effectively at the district level

One of the biggest obstacles in acquiring new teachers in my school district was the practice of “early hires”.  Candidates in high-need areas would be interviewed by the personnel office and given guaranteed contracts.  The schools would then have to hire exclusively from that pool until it was exhausted.  In principle it was a sound idea—the district would recruit top-level individuals and pass them on to the schools.  Unfortunately, the expectations did not match the reality.  The selection process was highly erratic and I found myself interviewing people I would have never considered for a position.  Other department chairs would report being equally mystified by selections made in their subject areas.

Rule 2:  When making hiring decisions on early applicants, districts should approach the task in the same way that individual schools do when interviewing prospective candidates.  The process should include members of school staffs and solicit feedback each year on the effectiveness of the selections and suggestions for improvement.  

They are not widgets

Adding to the hiring problem is the misperception held by some that teaching staffs are a collection of interchangeable parts that can be added and subtracted with little effect.  The reality is very different.  A school’s staff is a complex team, which must be assembled while considering multiple variables.  Good teamwork is a critical component at numerous levels.  Departments must function efficiently as students move through the curriculum.  Likewise, there needs to be effective coordination and cooperation between different departments.  The teaching and administrative staffs must share similar aspirations for the academic program.  And of course the personnel of a school must be fine-tuned to best meet the specific needs of the student body.  I can recall two talented teachers, one in math and the other in science, who struggled for a year at my school. They transferred to new locations with very different student populations and had excellent careers. The art of building a successful staff can be that intricate.

Rule 3:  Creating an effective educational staff requires careful consideration of all aspects of a school’s educational environment. 

Their loss was our gain

I firmly believe that hiring teachers was my most important responsibility.  Each of those decisions had potentially long-term positive or negative impacts that could span years.  Since more than two dozen high schools in my district were choosing from a small pool of applicants, I approached the process as an intense form of competition. In a manner similar to college athletic recruiting or drafting in professional sports, the procedure consisted of carefully studying applications to locate the best candidates, an extensive interviewing process to narrow the focus and then an aggressive recruiting campaign to convince them to become a part of our math team.  I was also aware of the fact that not all of those other schools were as concerned with the endeavor.  Here are two such instances that resulted from such indifference.

Great teachers can apply any time

The letter arrived in early February.  It presented the story of a very interesting individual.  He had grown up in the area before attending the University of Florida where he received a degree in mathematics.  After graduating he served as a marine, then a Peace Corps volunteer and finally as a teacher in a poor school district in Los Angeles. His request was simple—since he would be in town later in the month he would like to have an interview.  The letter was sent to all twenty-four high schools in the district.  Only one school agreed to his request.  He related during his interview that few schools responded and those that did told him “…they don’t worry about hiring until May or June so come back then.”  It was their loss.  In June when he accepted a position at our school he told me that since we took the time in the “off-season” to speak with him he was convinced we were a good fit for his teaching.  His tenure has passed the 15-year mark and his work has been stellar.

Rule 4:  Interviewing teachers is not a seasonal activity.  It cannot be done at the sole convenience of the interviewer.

Professionals deserve professional treatment

His goal was to begin a second career in high school education after retiring as a Colonel in the U.S. Army. During his interview, I quickly realized he would be an excellent fit for our department.  He had a military bearing but an easygoing manner, two ingredients that bode well for good classroom management.  He expressed an eagerness to learn how to improve at his craft and a willingness to teach any classes that were available.  Within a week an offer was made, but he told me that he had one more interview before he could make a decision.  Two days later he accepted our job.  The next time I saw him I asked what made the difference.  “Now don’t get me wrong.  I really liked your program and philosophy but my first choice was to teach at another school.  It is where my daughter attends, it is right near the house and it just seemed like the best place for me.  But when I went there for my interview the math chair was out of the building and no assistant principals were available. So I was asked a few questions by the head of the English department.  The next day they offered me a job. But when I thought about it, I knew that proximity to my house was not nearly enough to convince me to accept the other school’s offer. So, here I am.”  He became precisely the teacher I expected based on his interview.  He had a wonderful rapport with the students, was a positive influence in the department and a great team player.

Rule 5:  The hiring process can say as much about the school as it does about the candidate. 

The message is clear—the attitude demonstrated in acquiring staffing says as much about a school and a district as it does about the applicant.  An effective hiring process is multi-faceted, year round activity.   The overall plan must be focused, detailed and productive. Anything is less will not produce the desired results—the best teaching staff possible.

Next:  Creating an effective interview

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:00 AM | Permalink

As measured by gains in student achievement, teachers, even experienced, mid-career classroom instructors, improved as a result of their participation in a formal evaluation process. An Education Week report cites two studies conducted in Cincinnati, which has an extended history using a formal evaluation system consisting of four formal observations. In Cincinnati, teachers are given a rating relating three standards: classroom practices, classroom management, and questioning and discussion techniques.

In addition to discovering that 1. Teacher participation in a formal evaluation process improved student achievement, the first study concluded the following:

2. Classroom Management Improves Math Performance

The study found that "while overall teaching practice was the best predictor of student achievement, classroom management was more highly correlated with better math performance."

3. Questioning Improves Reading

Teacher use of open-ended questions was more highly correlated with student performance than classroom management.

In a second study, also conducted in Cincinnati, student performance not only improved in the year that the mid-career teachers were being evaluated, but the improvement in student performance continued and even increased in the years following the evaluation.

It is important to note that in the Cincinnati evaluation system teachers are not evaluated annually and that the evaluation process does not use a value-added component. In addition, the Cincinnati teacher evaluation system connects to a career ladder for teachers, which may be a motivating factor.

Implications for School Leaders

- Teacher evaluation is not the most enjoyable part of a school leader's job. However, knowing that teacher evaluation improves student achievement makes the process more meaningful.

- If school leaders want to make a difference in student achievement, teacher evaluation is a no-cost way to do so.

- Teacher evaluation is most effective when the teachers are clear on what behaviors will be evaluated, and if both teachers and principals have had extensive, multi-year professional development. Cincinnati was chosen precisely because both factors were present. In addition, many states and districts are proposing similar evaluation models and Cincinnati's decade long experience should help inform future practice.

- Even more encouraging is the fact that student achievement continues to improve in the years following a meaningful evaluation process of even the most experienced teachers.

- It makes sense that questioning improves reading, but I wonder why classroom management makes a bigger difference in math classes. Perhaps the sequential nature of math demands continuous attention and student engagement--students miss out if they miss a step in the process.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:52 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

There is no easy fix

In order to retain its status as a global leader the United States must create a world-class educational system.  To that end, numerous efforts are being made to find the correct formula.  Charter schools advocate longer hours and teacher freedom; a New York City school offers starting salaries of $125,000; Bill Gates has spent millions to study teacher evaluation and policy makers stress the need for accountability by using standardized tests.  Recently Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell offered a new merit pay program designed to assist under-performing schools in finding good staffing.  A variety of other incentive plans have been proposed with the intent of attracting top-level talent. While these and other ideas have varying degrees of merit, individually they are insufficient.   

There is no simple solution

Building a winning team whether on the athletic field or in the classroom requires many ingredients.  Ask successful coaches for their winning secrets and their response will be complex.  They cannot point to one particular element that consistently results in a championship team.  Likewise, no one-dimensional approach can produce outstanding educators in every classroom.  Looking for a “quick-fix” only delays the formulation of the sweeping set of policies required to populate every school with an excellent staff. 

It is a complex problem

In a recent post Mel Riddile has made a strong case that money alone will not create great teachers.   Based on his thoughts and my own educational experiences I believe that the following seven issues must be addressed to guarantee excellence in teaching staffs:

1. A commitment to hiring policies that result in offering job opportunities to the most effective candidates.
2. Establishing an evaluation program that results in a fair, consistent analysis of teacher performance and both improves effectiveness while identifying underperforming staff members.
3. Formulating a policy for removing teachers in an equitable but efficient manner.
4. Abolishing “last hired-first fired”.
5. Creating meaningful staff development programs which have proven quantitative evidence of success in the classroom. 
6. Competitive salaries with common sense rewards for outstanding work that can be measured in a clear and accurate way.
7. Create leadership positions for teachers that will give them consequential input into educational policy.
8. Ensure that all schools, especially those with challenging student bodies, have outstanding staffs.

More philosophical than fiscal

Over the next few weeks I will address these eight issues and present a comprehensive approach for hiring, improving and retaining outstanding educational staffs.  At a time of limited budgets, an important aspect of this plan is the low cost.   The major expenditures are in time and commitment, not dollars.

Next:  Hiring policies and strategies that find great talent

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:41 PM | Permalink

If you have been reading my latest posts, you might jump to the conclusion that I am against accountability, including merit pay for teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I embraced accountability because it forced us to do what we should have been doing all along--hold all students to higher standards. As a principal, I worked in a high-stakes accountability state (Virginia), and that accountability system gave our school the leverage it needed to promote increased rigor and high expectations for all students.

What does a high-stakes accountability environment look like? In a high stakes accountability environment, everyone including students and schools are held accountable.

In too many states, there is accountability for teachers and schools, but no accountability for students. In those states, the destiny of the school and fate of the teachers rests on the good will of the students. If the students feel like taking the state test, they do. If they don't feel like it, they "flag the test." How can so many states hold everyone but the students, who actually take the tests, accountable? It makes absolutely no sense.

I worked in Virginia throughout the first decade of the SOL, Standards of Learning, assessments. Initially, the tests were set up to discredit and embarrass public schools. However, when just about every school failed the tests, the parents revolted and the state threw out the old guard and worked with schools to develop a fair system, which included the following for high school:

Schools were held accountability.

• Eleven end-of-course exams
• Schools had to achieve a 70% proficiency rate or lose state accreditation.
• Schools were held to graduation targets.
• Schools who failed to achieve prescribed targets were required to go through a school improvement process.

Students were held accountable.

• The end-of-course exams acted as barriers to graduation.
• Students were required to pass the courses and six of the eleven end-of-course exams in order to earn a diploma.
• At the urging of the Virginia Association of Secondary Principals, the State strengthened existing attendance laws and stepped up enforcement.
• No students were "Christmas-treeing" tests in Virginia. Students took the test seriously because they counted for them and, even if they had the six required verified credits, they cared because their teachers cared so much.

Note: There was no statistically significant change in graduation rates in the barrier year, 2004, because the State initiated a "Project Graduation" initiative that began in 2000.

Teachers were not held individually accountable.

There was no need to hold teachers personally accountable, because they held themselves to such high standards. Our teachers expected more of themselves than anyone else would ever expect of them. They felt a sense of shared responsibility and a commitment to their students, their colleagues, and to the school as a whole. They understood that test scores reflected on "our school" and on "our students." In fact, teachers were so committed to student success that we had to be very careful how we reported test results, lest we single out or inadvertently identify any one individual teacher. Our teachers took each test score personally. Instead of having to light a fire under our teachers, we had to hold hands and sooth hurt feelings, because they cared so much.

That is the kind of accountability environment we want. We want students to take the tests seriously. We want the teachers to care about the success of their students. We want a collegial environment that encourages collective effort and cooperation. We want the students to say that the "teachers would never give up on us."

Why Do We Need Merit Pay?

Coming from that experience explains why I don't understand the merit pay argument. Anyone who knows teachers knows that money is not a motivator. They don't need to be cajoled with promises of bonuses to dedicate themselves. In fact, like most achievement-motivated professionals, teachers are insulted and demotivated by the use of tangible rewards. Teachers want what Frederick Herzberg called "motivators"--recognition, challenging work, responsibility.

Pay teachers as professionals! Pay them in proportion to their contribution to society. Stop nickel-and-diming them with promises of meager bonuses!

What Teachers Really Want

Supportive Leadership - More than anything else, including higher pay (45%), 40,000 teachers surveyed reported that they want supportive leadership (68%). Supportive leadership ensures that all of the following are available to teachers in the school.

Sense of Purpose - In the long run, what most motivates teachers is a sense of purpose--the desire to make a difference in the lives of their students. After all, that is why we became educators. However, when teachers drive old beaten up cars and they can't even afford to live in the communities in which they teach, it is hard to talk to them about a higher purpose.

Mastery - Teachers want to feel that they are skilled professionals. They want to feel that they are continually growing and improving. They want quality professional development that actually helps them improve their practice.

Self-Direction - Teachers want input into the key decisions that impact their profession on a daily basis. They want opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues.

Team - Teachers want to feel that they are a part of a collective effort. Teaching does not have to be lonely endeavor. Schools work best when teachers are committed to each other and the success of their students.

Professionals - Teachers want to be treated as professionals. They want to be treated like people not workers.

The Bottom Line

Professionals keep score, but their score is actually a true reflection of actual performance. Some of the current practices, such as not holding students accountable for test scores, and some of the proposals like merit pay and value-added teacher evaluations fail to pass the reality test and set up schools to fail. For example, our school wide literacy effort made a big difference in student performance on State assessments. However, since literacy strategies were practiced in every classroom every day, it was impossible to single out an individual teacher to receive a merit pay bonus.

Team efforts should garner collective rewards. Merit systems pit one teacher against another competing for scarce resources--the merit bonus. We need to reward and encourage collective effort not the individual all-stars teachers, who exemplified 20th century assembly line schools.

School leaders want and welcome accountability, but lets make it a meaningful and fair system, not one that singles out individuals for rewards or punishments. School leaders rely on the voluntary cooperation of teachers, students, and parents if the school is to succeed. Set us up to succeed!

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:08 AM | Permalink

"We are purpose maximizers!"--Daniel Pink in Drive

I have to give them credit. So-called school reform experts absolutely refuse to let facts or research get in the way of what they honestly believe is a good idea. One has to go back almost one hundred years to find studies that demonstrate that pay motivates workers and those studies related to factory workers who were engaged in the performance of mechanical tasks.

I have searched and searched, but I have found no research that indicates that merit pay in any way motivates educated professionals or anyone who uses cognitive skills in their work. In fact, there is considerable evidence to indicate that pay for performance schemes actually "demotivate" everyone except workers engaged in mechanical or physical tasks.

Despite all the facts saying that merit pay does not work, prominent public and private officials as well as several major foundations insist that merit pay for teachers will raise student achievement. Perhaps this is a clear indication that the so-called reformers don't view teaching as a profession, or at least teaching in public schools is not a profession. Of course, those who teach their children in private schools, are professionals, who deserve to be well-paid and have excellent working conditions, including small class sizes. Those who teach the children of the masses on the assembly line will have to get bye with less.

I learned from practice

Take it from me, I worked in a merit pay system that we were all delighted to see end. Merit pay never improved student achievement and was extremely divisive. It drove a wedge between teachers, who guarded their file cabinets like Fort Knox, lest one of the colleagues find and use one of their ideas in one of their lessons.

Instead of encouraging teachers to work collaboratively, merit pay placed them in competition against each other. In addition, the absence of a growth model or any valid way of measuring student progress, the system degenerated into a “dog and pony show.” Those who could put on the best show were awarded merit pay. Merit pay also put a lot of pressure on principals and assistant principals to overrate teachers. If you, as an evaluator, didn't rate them high enough, they appealed and the district capitulated and then viewed you, the evaluator, as something less than competent. In the end, merit pay became an expectation not an exception. In fact, some schools in our district had 90% of their teachers receiving merit pay.

Research says forget merit pay

Long time school reformer, Michael Fullan, in his book, All Systems Go, directly and pointedly addresses the whole idea of merit pay saying, “Merit pay pleases a few and angers the rest.” He goes on to write at length about what research shows actually motivates teachers and merit pay is not even on the list. By the way, neither are punishment, threats, or coercion.

Here is Fullan’s list of “Incentives That Work for Teachers:

• Realizable Moral Purpose (Fullan cites this as most important)
• Good salaries (not incentives or merit pay)
• Decent Surroundings
• Positive Climate
• Strong Induction
• Extensive Professional Learning
• Opportunity to work with and learn from others
• Supportive, and even assertive, leadership
• Helpful Feedback
• Reasonable Class Size
• Long-term Collective Agreements

More Research on Teacher Pay

Research on motivation does not support the use of financial incentives for long-term professional growth. One study found that merit pay "was very unlikely to have raised employee motivation appreciably; it may indeed have been demotivating on balance." Pay motivates "piece workers" on an assembly line (Taylor), but it is not a factor in motivating professionals or knowledge workers. At best, merit pay is a temporary “satisfier" (Herzberg).

A recent report stated emphatically, "I find no evidence that teacher incentives increase student performance, attendance, or graduation, nor do I find any evidence that the incentives change student or teacher behavior. If anything, teacher incentives may decrease student achievement, especially in larger schools."

In yet another study findings suggested "students taught by incentivized teachers did no better or no worse than students taught by regular salaried teachers.

The incentive scheme "did not set off significant negative reactions of the kind that have attended the introduction of merit pay elsewhere", the researchers wrote. "But neither did it yield consistent and lasting gains in test scores. It simply did not do much of anything."

Is there any case in which pay would motivate teachers? Researchers Akerlof and Yellen, found that "paying great people a little more than the market demands, helped attract better talent, reduce turnover, and boost productivity and morale. In fact, the firms making the irrational and seemingly frivolous choice to "overpay" their employees, rather than construct elaborate incentives, outperformed their competitors."

In Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Daniel Pink reinforces the idea that incentives increase output only for workers engaged in simple, straightforward, mechanical tasks. However, in occupations that involve even "rudimentary cognitive skills," monetary rewards actually lower performance. Pink points out that we are "purpose maximizers." We care about mastery and we want self-direction. Money and the focus on pay and incentives "unmoors us from purpose."

My Take

Teachers deserve to be well compensated, but merit pay is not the answer.

Pay teachers as professionals who engage in high order cognitive skills every minute of every day. Pay teachers like unskilled factory workers, part-time workers, or Peace Corps volunteers and that is what you get. Pay teachers like assembly line workers engaged in simple mechanical tasks and we get assembly line schools that sort students for success. We will never attract top graduates or raise the quality of education by paying teachers less than we pay our bus drivers, which is the case in the Washington, D.C. area. We need to pay teachers enough to take money off of the table, but because we refuse to do so, pay remains an issue.

What Teachers Want

Supportive Leadership - More than anything else, including higher pay (45%), 40,000 teachers surveyed reported that they want supportive leadership (68%). Supportive leadership ensures that all of the following are available to teachers in the school.

Sense of Purpose - In the long run, what most motivates teachers is a sense of purpose--the desire to make a difference in the lives of their students. After all, that is why we became educators. However, when teachers drive old beaten up cars and they can't even afford to live in the communities in which they teach, it is hard to talk to them about a higher purpose.

Mastery - Teachers want to feel that they are skilled professionals. They want to feel that they are continually growing and improving. They want quality professional development that actually helps them improve their practice.

Self-Direction - Teachers want input into the key decisions that impact their profession on a daily basis. They want opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues.

Team - Teachers want to feel that they are a part of a collective effort. Teaching does not have to be lonely endeavor. Schools work best when teachers are committed to each other and the success of their students.

Professionals - Teachers want to be treated as professionals. They want to be treated like people not workers.

Finally, if we insist on rewards, reward teachers with better working conditions and better equipment. Reward the behaviors that we really want. We want schools and teams of teachers to succeed, not individuals. Therefore, if we insist on providing incentives, we should reward schools not individuals.

My Final Take

Principals and school leaders don't control teacher compensation, but we have a big part in providing supportive leadership that focuses on what is important--a higher purpose, mastery, self-direction, team effort, and professionalism. In fact, when you think about it, money can't buy any of the most important things that teachers say they want. Treating teachers like professionals, like people, and not workers will go a long way to reconnecting them with the sense of purpose that they most desire.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:06 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In an essay published in the Outlook section of the Washington Post, John Sener has decided that by successfully making 18 of 20 free throws in a gymnasium he has, using the same criteria used by analysts of standardized testing, successfully proven that he is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.  Using similar logic he dismisses the poor performance of American students on the PISA test as irrelevant.   

When in doubt, ridicule

 When my former school posted outstanding scores in the state’s standardized tests I was surprised by the number of questions other educational leaders raised about our “ethics”.  Mel Riddile would explain to me that when you have poor outcomes you have two options—work harder and smarter or find a way to bring the competition down.  Unfortunately, the latter approach appears to be the one favored by Mr. Sener.

His argument is that standardized tests in general and the PISA international test in specific are inaccurate indicators of the quality of a country’s educational system.  He begins with sarcasm and then drifts into the surreal.

“Once you truly understand the awesome power of test scores, you will embrace them, as I have done — especially after realizing how standardized testing proves that I am a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

“Don’t laugh; I have the test results. I read something in a blog somewhere about how MJ recently made 16 out of 20 free throws in a friendly shooting contest. Pretty good, but I thought I could do better. So I went to my local gym and practiced and practiced until I achieved my aim: 18 out of 20 free throws! I’ll send you the video, if you like. (Or you could do what most people do with PISA scores and simply take my word for it.)”

Making the basket; missing the point

Based on his free-throw shooting (real or otherwise) Mr. Sener reaches several conclusions about the PISA test scores in the United States.

“You may argue that it’s not a fair comparison, but that’s what so great about this — simply use the same rules we apply to judging PISA scores, and it’s perfectly fair.  So what if it’s not a head-to-head competition? PISA’s not a head-to-head competition. The students take the tests at different times in different places under different conditions. Heck, they take the reading test in different languages.”   

His second explanation of the poor performance of U.S. students is their lack of interest.

“…what makes you think that American students take PISA seriously? When I tested my teenage son’s knowledge of the PISA exam, he just looked at me quizzically, since he’d never heard of it…Do you really believe that every student who takes the PISA has the same amount of practice?"  

To assess for yourself whether increased practice would affect the outcome of US students’ scores on the PISA tests, go to http://pisa-sq.acer.edu.au/ .

Not all air balls

Mixed into the misguided basketball analogies Mr. Sener does make some excellent points which should be emphasized.

“Standardized tests don’t measure most skills, yet opinion leaders and policymakers constantly tell us how America’s education is going down the toilet based on those scores...There is no place in standardized tests for creativity...You would be wise to ask these questions, even though standardized tests don’t care about curiosity, either.”

Ignored problems do not go away

There is no question that standardized testing does not answer all of the questions of how to measure learning and good teaching.  I have long argued that the Standards of Learning (SOL) exams given in my state (VA) did not indicate mastery of a subject and the method of administering the tests was poor.  But I also knew that though imperfect this new accountability was a step in the right direction.  Prior to such tests there were virtually no quantitative measures of the relative performances of students from classroom to classroom, school to school or district to district.  These results clearly indicated discernible patterns that, if used correctly, could be of great value. 

While this standardization did not equate to the level of precision that would be optimal, it did offer critical insights into the quality of teaching.  In every school the staff forms subjective conclusions as to which teachers are effective and those that are not.  During the ten years I observed SOL testing (VA) the results of these exams closely matched these informal evaluations.  Based on substantial data, the students of certain teachers routinely outperformed others.  While such statistics can and were misused, they did provide a limited amount of quantitative proof of student comprehension, weaknesses and the quality of the work of their instructors.

These outcomes were not enough.  The testing methods need to be improved to better reflect the actual knowledge acquisition.  They must demonstrate a legitimate understanding of a wide range of material.  This process is still in its infancy and far from a finished product.  The potential for improvement is present if the willingness to keep an open mind is maintained.

But simply ignoring any measurement that indicates a serious problem in American education is reckless.  A country where more than three of every ten students drop out of high school and only 30% attain a college degree is hardly in a position to dismiss a poor global performance with sarcasm and ridicule. 

Note: At the high school level, Virginia administers eleven end-of-course (EOC) exams, which are used both as barriers to graduation and to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP). Only a few states use EOC exams for accountability purposes and as barriers to graduation.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:11 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In previous blogs I have written about the financial and rhetorical issues surrounding the teachers in Wisconsin.  Unfortunately, too little has been written about the performance of those individuals in the classroom.  At a time when high school graduation rates in the United States are at alarmingly low levels, how well are those beleaguered educators in the Badger state performing?

Getting their money’s worth

Based on data compiled in 2008, the nationwide high school graduation rate was 70.1% which translates into only seven of every ten students earning a diploma. In that same year in Wisconsin the rate of success was 85.57%.  Not only was that more than 15% higher than the U.S. average, it was the second highest in the country trailing only Vermont which had a score of 86.63%. Meanwhile, in 2008 the average teacher in Wisconsin ranked 24thin the country in terms of earnings. There is little doubt that the teachers in that state were overachievers. 

Some mathematical expectations

So how much “bang for the buck” are the taxpayers of Wisconsin receiving from their teachers?  In 2008 the national average for teacher salaries was slightly more than $52,000 and the graduation rate was 70%. These numbers would indicate that for every $1,000 in salary the graduation rate is 1.34 (70 divided by 52). In Wisconsin the salary compared to graduation is 1.66 (85 divided by 51). Comparing those two outcomes indicates that the graduation rates in Wisconsin exceeds the national average per dollar by 31% (1.66 – 1.34, then divide by 1.34). In the context of this metric these educators are quite a bargain. 

There are other indicators of their dollar value. When comparing average teacher salaries to the median income in their state, the teachers in Wisconsin earned 89%.  That percentage placed them 28th in comparison to the other 49 states. 

Where is the controversy?

During the very public debate over the fate of teachers and their unions in Wisconsin, much was made of the avarice and selfishness of these educators. And yet the latest round of budget cuts in Wisconsin will result in their salaries being reduced by about 8%. Could it be that the targeted unions are not nearly as good at negotiating as the public is being told?  And are the best interests of the highly successful students in Wisconsin being served?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:31 AM | Permalink

In my last post, I asked Should Your Child Teach? My intent was to point out that, just at the time when we need quality teachers the most; teaching is being made a less attractive profession. This needs to change! A veteran teacher wrote me saying the following:

"Let me start with "amen". This is personal for me.  My daughter-in-law in Texas (who has a degree in English and a master's in Library Science) has decided to pursue a career in Special Education.  She is completing the necessary coursework and testing and now is faced with not getting a job due to budget cuts.  She is very discouraged, as would anyone else in her position. My son in California wanted to be a teacher/coach with his math degree and athletic background.  He is currently earning several times more than a teacher in the private sector.  It was way too easy of a decision for him."

While the search for teaching jobs may discourage some, it turns out that finding a teaching job may be much easier in some regions than in others. This assumes that budget shortfalls will come to an end and local funds will be available to hire new teachers.

Education Daily reports that a recent study from National Center for Education Statistics indicates that public and private elementary and secondary school enrollment increased by 10 percent between 1994 and 2007 and will continue to increase by 6 percent through 2019.

The best place to find a teaching job will be in the South and West. A 12 percent increase in high school graduates is expected in the South and a 9 percent increase is expected in the West. Decreases of 14 percent in the Northeast and 7 percent in the Midwest are expected.

Among the findings in Projections of Education Statistics to 2019:

• Seven states are expected to see enrollment increase by more than 15 percent: North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.

• All of the New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan are expected to see enrollment decrease by more than 5 percent.

• The number of new teacher hires in public schools is projected to increase 40 percent by 2019.

Essential Questions for School Leaders

What does it mean for schools if student enrollments are increasing at the same time that fewer are enrolling in teacher preparation programs? My guess is that, just as the Common Core assessments are implemented, there will be a severe shortage of teachers. Who will suffer the most? As usual, rural schools and schools in less attractive, high-poverty areas will again find themselves at the end of the line when hiring new teachers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:33 AM | Permalink

In response to my recent post about fewer people interested in entering the teaching profession, a colleague sent me this message.

"Sad story - but true. One of my friends is a truly brilliant teacher leader who has been teaching over 25 years. Her daughter, equally brilliant, has wanted to be a teacher her entire life. She is a junior at a state university. A month ago she called her mom and told her she has changed her major because she is so upset with what is happening in the state."

I cannot remember a time in the last forty years when it was more difficult to be a teacher or a principal. Teachers and principals are literally under attack from the press, the feds, the state, and even their own district leaders resulting in schools becoming hostile work environments. As a result, fewer are going into teaching and fewer teachers are training to be principals just at a time when we need them the most.

The core of what we do happens in the classroom and teachers are the lifeblood of a school. According to recent report in the Los Angeles Times, one surefire way to undermine public schools is to cut off the supply of teachers:

1. Make Teaching Less Attractive

"It's kind of difficult to encourage people to become teachers when every time this time of year they hear about 20,000 pink slips going out."

"I think people are seeing it (teaching) as a less attractive career and a more stressful one."

"Potential teachers are discouraged by increasingly crowded classrooms and more emphasis than before on testing and scripted lessons."

2. Reduce Staffing = Fewer Teaching Positions

"Teacher layoffs and other education spending cuts are thinning more than the current ranks of California's classroom instructors. The number of people training to be teachers also is plummeting, and that trend is likely to continue." Fewer teaching positions mean fewer openings and larger class sizes. From experience I have learned that these larger class sizes will never be reduced.

3. Manufacture a teacher shortage

Education experts are warning of a shortage of new teachers in a few years as large numbers of baby boomers start to retire from teaching jobs and larger numbers of youngsters enter elementary school."

For example, according to a report by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, the number of first- and second-year teachers in California dropped in half between the 2007-08 and 2009-10 academic years.

4. Train fewer teachers

In California, the number of teaching credentials issued annually fell 29% during the last five years. The Cal State University system has seen a 50% decline in enrollment in teacher preparation programs over an eight-year period.

An Essential Question

I will conclude by asking an important question. Given the current climate in public education, would you encourage your child to become a teacher? First, you know that layoffs and budget cuts mean that there are fewer openings. For many new graduates that means incurring sizable debt to pay for an education that will most likely not lead to gainful employment. Second, class sizes will continue to grow. Third, resources will continue to diminish. Fourth, expectations will continue to rise and accountability will continue to increase. Fifth, the blaming will get worse because of unrealistically high expectations and fewer resources. Finally, even if they do find a job, new teachers will most likely receive a pink slip every year for the first three to five years they are teaching. That means every March or April, you, as a parent, will get a depressing call that your son or daughter may not have a job next year. Even though I believe that teaching is among the highest callings, I must admit that I would not advise either of my children to become teachers, not unless there were big changes, and I don't see any on the horizon. Unfortunately, I see that I see things getting worse before they get better.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:20 AM | Permalink

Education Week reports that educator's greatest fears are coming to fruition. We may be unintentionally ruining our chances of raising student achievement by driving out those who we need the most--teachers. Just when we need them the most, budget cuts and the current climate are decimating the teaching ranks. While many veteran teachers are postponing retirement, and layoffs are driving many from the profession, the number of new hires is dropping. In Minnesota alone the number of new hires is down by "more than half in the past 11 years.

Killing the Golden Goose

How could it be a surprise to anyone that "heightened public scrutiny of teachers will discourage even more prospective teachers from entering K-12 schools." Many are asking, "is teaching a viable and respected profession?"

"Why would you go into this (teaching), if there are constant cuts, layoffs, unfair criticism that you are responsible for every flaw in society ... pay freezes [and] elimination of collective bargaining rights?"

Even those who hear the calling to teach are being frozen out of jobs by the current economic conditions. "Fewer people...appear to be waiting it out."

"As baby boomers retire and new teachers quit, a 2010 national report warns that the teaching pipeline will collapse at both ends. First-year teacher attrition has steadily increased and the nation has the oldest workforce in more than half a century, according to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future."

The Bottom Line

At a time when school leaders are feeling even more pressure to raise student achievement, teaching positions are being cut. One principal told me that his staff has been reduced 20% over the last two years while his student population, which is increasingly more diverse and much poorer, has increased 18%.

Teacher prep programs are experiencing declines in enrollment. So, when budgets finally stabilize, school leaders will find many veteran teachers retiring and the pool of applicants significantly diminished--the perfect storm. In this scenario, who suffers the most? If you said the poorest schools who serve the neediest students, you are correct.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:58 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Bill Gates is a marvelous advocate for education in America.  He has clearly demonstrated his commitment both in time and money.  His views as an extraordinarily successful businessman and an educational outsider are both provocative and productive.  In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, Mr. Gates has outlined a series of constructive proposals for improving U. S. student performance despite the significant financial problems confronting so many school districts.

Some great ideas

One aspect of Mr. Gates analysis is the classroom:

“We know that of all the variables under a school's control, the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching. It is astonishing what great teachers can do for their students. Yet compared with the countries that outperform us in education, we do very little to measure, develop and reward excellent teaching. We have been expecting teachers to be effective without giving them feedback and training.”

Most teachers would agree with these comments.  I have long argued that the majority of teacher evaluation programs currently in use need some serious improvement.  There must be a more comprehensive approach which includes professional evaluators, constant feedback and some student input. 

In addition, Mr. Gates is not happy with the use of seniority in teaching.

“The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It's reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that's not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement."

“Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.”

A solution that must be implemented carefully

Mr. Gates concludes with some thoughts about class size.

“Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets - and one of the most unchallenged - is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same."

“What should policymakers do? One approach is to get more students in front of top teachers by identifying the top 25 percent of teachers and asking them to take on four or five more students. Part of the savings could then be used to give the top teachers a raise. (In a 2008 survey funded by the Gates Foundation, 83 percent of teachers said they would be happy to teach more students for more pay.) The rest of the savings could go toward improving teacher support and evaluation systems, to help more teachers become great.”

It is important to note that Mr. Gates is referring to an increase in class size of about 15%.   When individuals less knowledgeable interpret enlargement of class size, things go awry.  Base on their current budget cuts,  the city of Detroit is anticipating classes in excess of 60 in the near future  – an increase of 100%.  Many classes in New York City are already at those levels.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has postulated that, for excellent teachers, working with large classes is no more difficult than working with smaller ones.  He mentioned that he had attended college classes that contained hundreds of students.  Of course those classes were at Princeton and Georgetown Law School which more than likely bear little resemblance to an Algebra 1 class in Detroit or New York or anywhere else for that matter. 

Great teachers not super heroes

The primary flaw in these arguments is the belief that increasing the size of classes only requires additional furniture.  There is no question that an excellent teacher can give high quality instruction to classes of 35 or more while poor ones will struggle no matter how small their audience.  But the belief that student learning is unaffected by significantly larger numbers is misguided.  A successful teacher has a great many tasks in addition to delivering instruction.  Students, like teachers, benefit from consistent and meaningful feedback on their classroom performance.  Twice as many students mandates half as much feedback. Any teacher will tell you that grading papers is easily as time consuming as preparing lesson plans.  Evaluating 60 quizzes or tests per class would be daunting to say the least.  Due entirely to time constraints, comprehensive exams would have to be replaced by short answer or multiple choice ones.  Extended essays and research papers would disappear. Answering student questions and individualizing instructions, the strengths of the best educators, would have to be curtailed.  Science labs would become virtually impossible due to a shortage of equipment and safety concerns.  Group projects and presentations would be untenable.  Even the simple acts of taking attendance, posting grades and parent conferences could become overwhelming. At the very least, they would require far too much valuable time.  The quality of the educational experience for students in these significantly larger classes would suffer greatly.

In the proposal by Mr. Gates he mentions that the vast majority of teachers would gladly take on more students if their pay was increased.  Unfortunately, this survey was of all teachers not just excellent ones.  I suspect that if that question were only asked of the best educators there might be a different result.  But even if the top teachers did agree, one stumbling block would remain.  While tactics could be put in place to increase salaries, no one has found a method of adding more hours to the day. 

It is true that the success of any class rests squarely on the shoulders of the teacher and creating more great teachers is the key to any future improvement of our schools.  They need to be identified, rewarded and emulated.  Having them teach a few more students makes perfect sense on many levels.  But too much of any good thing can lead to bad outcomes resulting in further degradation of the educational process and outcomes in the United States.  Proceed with caution—class size does matter.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:59 PM | Permalink

What impact will the recent changes proposed in the definition of a "highly qualified" teacher, which would allow those in alternative teacher preparation programs to be labeled as "highly qualified," have on the ability of schools, particularly high-poverty, under-resourced schools, to significantly improve student performance? How do school leaders feel about Congress making it easier to become a teacher? Will this change improve the supply of teachers and make it easier for principals in some smaller, more rural areas to recruit and hire teachers?

A friend of mine once told me that I was wrong about school improvement. "All we need to do is hire great teachers and our problems are solved," he said. Since he had never worked in a school, I had to remind him of what happened in the real world. First, great teachers aren't born. Teachers become great through the combination of ability and years of preparation and a lot of hard work. Second, teaching is a profession. As is the case in any profession, teachers are expected to grow and improve throughout their careers. Third, many new teachers have had only a few weeks of actual classroom experience. They need a lot of support early in their careers. Finally, the principal plays an important role in both the short-term and long-term growth of a new teacher and whether that teacher will remain in the profession.

The best teach the neediest

Some object to the use of poor and minority schools as the training grounds for interns, because "alternate route trainees are disproportionately concentrated in low-income, high minority schools," which turn into "exclusive training grounds" for alternative route trainees, who "learn on poor peoples' children--and then move on."

Schools need more experienced, better trained, and more skilled teachers. This is particularly true in under-resourced, high-poverty schools that typically end up with the least experienced teachers and ultimately have the highest teacher and principal turnover.

Instead of saying that "anyone can teach," we need to treat teaching as a true profession. We need to shift the culture away from downgrading teaching, blaming teachers, and encouraging the firing of teachers.

Just as the Peace Corp was a part of an overall effort to improve the economies of third-world countries, programs like Teach for America (TFA) are a part of a solution to help struggling, high-poverty schools. They are short-term fixes to long-term problems. Lowering the requirements for teachers only serves to preserve the status quo.

In the long-run we need real systemic changes including:

• Elevating the status of the teaching profession
• Improving the quality of the applicant pool by encouraging top students to enter education
• Enhancing the quality of teacher preparation programs
• Improving professional development
• Improving teacher compensation
• Improving working conditions

Thanks, but no thanks!

From a principal's perspective, increasing the pool of prospective teachers solved a short-term problem. I could fill hard-to-fill vacancies. However, in the long-run that convenience turned into a curse. I learned the hard way that, even if the alternative route teachers stayed long enough, it took a lot more work to get those people up to speed. In the meantime, their students had much lower success rates.

Schools will never exceed the quality of the teachers. Lowering the requirements to teach might improve the quantity of teachers but the quality will suffer and so too will student performance.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:05 AM | Permalink

Arne Duncan was right when he said to me, "we need to create a culture in which our best teachers and principals want to work with our neediest students."  The problem is that what we are doing is resulting in the exact opposite.

Not only are the best teachers and principals not working in our neediest schools, but the threats of penalties, sanctions and firings are driving them away in droves. Today, working in a high-needs school is more likely to be a career-killing experience.

However, the real damage that high-stakes accountability is having on public education may not be in what happens to those already in education, but in the fact that many will now never enter teaching.

Take special note of what 20-year veteran, Victoria Robinson, wrote in the Chicago Tribune.

"As an undergraduate, many of my non-teaching peers devalued my decision to pursue a teaching degree."

"Along with signing my first contract, I took a vow of poverty."

"The most hurtful public message was that I was to blame for just about every academic, social, economic and political problem in America. American students' test scores are inferior to students in other countries — blame the teachers. American kids are disrespectful — blame the teachers. The American work ethic is slacking — blame the teachers. And if my student doesn't earn all A's, it must be the teacher's fault. I am just a teacher."

"I am just a teacher in a society where nearly 30 percent of the children eat their only hot meal of the day at school. I am just a teacher in a country where out of more than 49 million public school students, 4.5 million have special needs; more than 1 million are abused, of which half are victims of neglect; and tens of thousands of families experience homelessness each night."

The Bottom Line

One leading expert once told me, "All we need to do to improve schools is hire great teachers." While it has never been easy to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession, the current climate of "reform" is making that virtually impossible.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:18 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In any conversation about education, the views of Bill Gates should be given serious consideration.  Unlike many of the other high profile people engaged in this ongoing discussion, his thoughts are not influenced by any professional involvement.  Gates does not have a job description to fulfill as does Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  He does not have to speak for teachers like Randi Weingarten.  He is not a politician, has no profit motive, or even a former career in education to protect.  What he does have is a sincere interest, a powerful commitment and the necessary resources to make competent judgments on the subject.  Consequently when I saw an article about him in a recent issue of Parade Magazine I decided it was a must read.  One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion was his opinion of the qualities of a good teacher.    

Simple but compelling

When asked why there are so many bad teachers and not enough great ones in American public schools Gates replied:

“Very little is invested in understanding great teaching. We've never had a meaningful evaluation system that identifies the dimensions of great teachers so we can transfer the skills to others. The Gates Foundation has learned that two questions can predict how much kids learn: ‘Does your teacher use class time well?’ and, ‘When you're confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out’?”

I found the two questions posed by the Gates Foundation very intriguing.  In my experience with teacher evaluations, the process was exclusively top down – in other words, from the perspective of the teachers and administrators. There would be an evaluator who solicits information from the teacher such as classroom goals and objectives.  This person then attends classes to observe what activities or actions actually do occur.  The evaluation concludes with a discussion of the relevant information with the teacher. 

The Foundation questions, on the other hand, were from the viewpoint of the classroom consumer—the student.  And based on their research the responses were strong indicators of the level of student learning.  Since this outcome is the ultimate goal of education it would seem that some use of this resource would be appropriate.  While student input cannot replace the evaluation process, it could bring into the procedure a group of individuals who have a unique perspective on the work of the teacher. Though the two questions mentioned by Gates are very simple, they have proven to be a strong indicator of student learning.  Expanding on those inquiries might provide a method to define the basic ingredients of successful teaching.  Below I have incorporated them into a ten-part student questionnaire. 

1. Does your teacher use class time well?  (Gates)
2. When you are confused, does your teacher help you get straightened out?  (Gates)
3. Do you believe that your teacher wants you to succeed?
4. Do you think the teacher is fair and consistent?
5. Does your teacher have a broad knowledge of the subject?
6. Does your teacher sincerely care about the subject?
7. Do you believe your teacher enjoys teaching?
8. Do you feel that your teacher will spend extra time to ensure that you learn?
9. Do you look forward to going to this class?
10. Do you listen to what is being said by the teacher during class?

My question for you is this—what should be added to or subtracted from this list?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

In the context of high-stakes accountability, schools must do two things very well. First, schools must have a focus that is so clear and concise that every staff member can articulate it to anyone. Too many schools are fragmenting their efforts and straining limited resources by trying to do too much at the same time.

Secondly, reduced budgets and limited resources demands that schools get the most out of the resources at hand. That means that increasing performance by having each and every staff member work together to help raise student achievement.

In today’s world, a graduate who lacks the skills needed for postsecondary education and training is essentially sentenced to a lifetime of marginal employment and second-class citizenship. Schools cannot reach each and every student working when teachers work in isolation as they did when we were sorting students for success. Reaching every student will require the focused effort of the entire staff.

Working in isolation, the math department can only do so much to improve student math skills in the limited time available. Because science, social studies, math and English texts are written much differently and present the student with different challenges, raising literacy levels of all students requires the efforts of every teacher in every classroom. Each teacher must teach the language of his or her content area.

Since no one has all the answers and every school has its own DNA, we will need to pool our collective intelligence and build our capacity to deliver solutions that are appropriate for our students. Tapping into that collective intelligence requires that every staff member takes ownership of school-wide initiatives and that requires that they have input into key decisions. The kind of top-down leadership characteristic of schools in the past will not realize the requisite level of teacher buy-in. For school leaders, that means working in partnership with teachers and listening to their input.

Everyone Working Together

Because most of our teachers obtained most of their educational experience when teachers worked in isolation and received recognition for singular achievements, overcoming resistance and getting everyone working together is a hard sell for many school leaders. We have the difficult task of convincing our teachers that different times demand different approaches and it is in everyone's best interest to work together.

Who better to talk about the importance of teachers working together than a veteran teacher? In “One for All and All for One—No Thanks,” The Teacher Leader provides principals and school leaders with one of the most poignant conversation starters in recent memory. The Teacher Leader makes a number of important points relating to the impact that teachers have on one another and the need for all of us to work together as well as the consequences of not doing so.

"No individuals in a school are as adversely affected by ineffectual teachers than the remainder of the staff." The Teacher Leader emphasizes that teachers impact their students, their fellow teachers, and their school in either a positive or negative way. Whether they realize it or not, they are part of a team and the team is only as strong as the weakest link.

Poor teachers act to "spread an infection throughout the building." A poor teacher creates classroom management problems for everyone." Poor classroom managers make it difficult for their colleagues to establish routines and high expectations for student behavior. For example, teachers who ignore tardiness undermine their peers who are trying to maximize learning time by ensuring the on-time behavior of their students. "It becomes a far more difficult task for teachers to enforce their own behavioral expectations when similar expectations are being ignored in other locations."

"A poor teacher will disrupt not only their own classes, but all subsequent classes in   courses that are taught sequentially." A weak Algebra I teacher makes life difficult for Geometry and Algebra II teachers.  "The worst case scenario for students is to pass a course with poor understanding of the required material.  These students are then doomed to struggle with all successive classes in that sequence."

"A poor teacher results in students losing time in other classes. Most administrators will tell you that suspensions are more frequently the result of misbehavior in a weak teacher’s room than in a strong one.  But a suspension results in students missing all classes not just the one where the infraction occurred. "

"A poor teacher can wreak havoc with the grading system." Consistency is the key to an effective grading system. When individual teachers fail to maintain high standards or are inconsistent, "other teachers will suffer."

The Bottom Line

Working together to "ensure student success" is everyone's job and perhaps the most important challenge confronting today's school leaders. Building unity of purpose means changing the culture of the school from a focus on individual teachers and their wants to a culture in which teams of teachers focus on the needs of each and every student.

While teacher evaluation systems are certainly important, the key to continuous improvement is not inspection of teaching practices, but, rather, in building quality instruction into the teaching process through continuous, connected, and ongoing job-embedded professional development.

I made a commitment to our teachers. Other than the knowledge of your content area, for which you hold a license the state, I will only hold you accountable for what we teach you. Whatever we expect you to know and be able to do, it is our responsibility to teach you. In return, I ask you to make the same commitment to your students. Whatever you want them to know and be able to do, it is your responsibility to teach them.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:06 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

At your next social gathering, bring up the currently hot topic of teacher tenure and you most assuredly will elicit many diverse opinions and emotions.  Some people are adamant that it creates and retains bad teachers.  Others are equally vociferous that without it good teachers are robbed of due process and are at risk of being fired on a principal’s whimsy.  One viewpoint will espouse that lifetime employment destroys motivation; the response will be that job security allows experimentation and innovation.

There is no question that many high-profile educators are firmly convinced that tenure is an absolute necessity.  In a recent post Tom Whitby, an invited participant at the MSNBC “Education Nation” forum, wrote about the critical need for tenure in all schools.  Mr. Whitby was particularly upset by the comments of a young educator who received a great deal of attention when  she stated that she did not feel a need for tenure because she was confident that her classroom performance would ensure her of continued employment.  Clearly, Mr. Whitby disagreed. 

“The sound of fingernails on the blackboard for that statement ripped into me. What she was asking for is what Tenure IS. It is a guarantee of due process. It guarantees that the only thing you can be fired for is that which you are responsible for in your teaching duties. What you CAN be fired for under the Tenure law is: Misconduct, Incompetence, Insubordination, Physical or Mental Disability, Neglect of Duty, or a Lack of Teaching Certificate. Additionally, it cannot be a blind accusation, it must be documented. It is also presented at a hearing with all parties under oath. This guarantees fairness in firing people. Why would any teacher say they don’t need that? If the world were as this young teacher assumes it is, having all teachers judged on the merits of their teaching, it would be a wonderful world. History shows us that it has not always been so.”

A difference of opinion 

While I strongly agree with Mr. Whitby that teachers must be protected against unjustified dismissals, I am not convinced that tenure is the best approach.  The ultimate goal of education must be to produce successful students.   Every day that a weak teacher is in the classroom has the potential of inflicting significant damage to student progress.   Any program that slows the termination process will have a potentially negative impact on academic success.  Thus, based on my own professional observations and after reading about the “rubber rooms” in New York City, I believe there are better methods than tenure to produce a high quality teaching staff.  What is needed is an efficient and effective plan to make good teachers more productive and reduce the number of weak ones.  Here is a four-step approach to building a teaching staff that will give superior results to one that depends primarily on tenure.

A comprehensive hiring process.     The act of selecting the correct candidates is one of the most important functions of a school.   The math of the situation is simple.  Hiring a higher percentage of excellent teachers dramatically lessens the need to find methods to remove poor ones. The job interview should include a sample teaching presentation by the applicant, multiple references, an on-site writing sample, and an extended question and answer period.  Great care should be taken throughout the reference process.  It should be the professional responsibility of all parties to be as honest and candid as possible when discussing the previous work of a candidate.  Far too many times when contacting references faulty or misleading information has lead to inappropriate hires.  The interviewing panel should include the department chair, assistant principal and a teacher from the subject area.  A follow up interview should have classroom observations by the candidate and time interacting with potential colleagues.  This approach will take a great deal of time.  But every minute spent finding the right individual can save hours of suffering with the wrong one.

Have rigorous evaluations during a teacher’s first three years.  The time to determine the potential of an educator is early in their career.  After three years it is highly unlikely that one will improve appreciatively.  But to be able to accurately determine a person’s potential requires a complex process.  Five or more observations by professional evaluators should occur each year.  Several of the sessions should be done by individuals who are certified in the subject area.  Videotapes of classes should be taken and reviewed by both the evaluators and teachers.   If at any point during this period a teacher is determined to be lacking the skills to be successful there should be a clearly established policy for termination.  Again, while such an evaluation system will be time consuming and expensive, dealing with the results of poor teaching will be far more costly and detrimental to students.

Create a continuing system of collaborative “teacher growth”.  After the initial evaluation period, the teaching staff should engage in an ongoing effort to improve each other’s skills.  This program would include a consistent interchange of ideas from colleagues who will observe each other’s classes, share ideas and suggestions, and when appropriate, carefully analyze student test results.  These groupings should include both teachers within a department and those from other subject areas.  It must be clearly understood that this is not an evaluation process but rather an opportunity to improve and refine teaching practices. 

Reduce the influence of the principal in the dismissal process.   I strongly agree with Mr. Whitby’s concern with a potentially capricious decision by a principal to fire a teacher.  (An example of this type of abuse of power will be presented in a follow up to this post)  I endorse two initiatives to eliminate the potential of such an occurrence. Requests for teacher terminations would be the responsibility of a committee rather than the exclusive domain of the principal.  In addition to the principal this committee could include the director of guidance, an assistant principal and the district coordinator of the particular curriculum.   In addition, greater care must be taken in the selection process of principals to ensure that individuals who would perform in an unprofessional manner would be excluded.  A process very similar to the one suggested for teachers should be adopted for administrative hiring.  Once again, the extra time and energy required for such a plan would be ultimately less costly than the damage caused by the wrong person being in this position. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Education has clearly become a white-hot topic.  Recently, NBC dedicated much of an entire week’s programming to the subject.  And one of the most popular items for discussion was the issue of tenure for teachers.  Heated words both pro and con were thrown back and forth. One of the participants, Tom Whitby, stated his adamant belief that if tenure were removed from our schools it would be potentially disastrous.  Although I disagree with many of the arguments he used to support tenure – a topic I will deal with at a later date – my more immediate sense of discomfort was with the overall tone of his piece.

A Chilling Moment

What I found troubling was Mr. Whitby’s displeasure with teachers who express their unhappiness with the current state of education.  He described one comment from the audience in the following manner:

“There was one striking comment however, from one young educator that sent chills down my spine, only to have them go up my spine by the applause that followed her statement. As an educator of 40 years, I was truly in awed (sic) and upset. Her statement was that she did not need Tenure. She only wanted to be evaluated on her teaching and she was confident she would have a Job the next year. She saw no need for Tenure (down the spine). TEACHERS then applauded (back up the spine).”

These remarks would indicate that no teacher should question the value of tenure nor should other educators demonstrate their support.  However, it was Mr. Whitby’s subsequent statements that I found most unsettling.

“The ugliness of this reform movement is in the name calling of teachers by teachers: Public school teachers against Charter school teachers; Young teachers against experienced teachers; Non-Tenured Teachers against Tenured teachers.”

Such statements are both misguided and unfair.  Teachers are not some monolithic group that agrees on every aspect of their profession and are somehow injured if they dare express any difference of opinion.  On the contrary, who better to discuss the proper approach to educational reform (including the role of tenure) than the people most directly impacted by such changes?  More importantly, the concept of teacher versus teacher is not nearly as destructive as Mr. Whitby believes.  The reality is that this confrontation, in a slightly altered form, plays out on a regular basis in schools all over the country.  Indeed, teachers have a highly vested interest in the professional abilities of their colleagues.  This concern is firmly grounded in the fact that, other than the students, no individuals in a school are as adversely affected by ineffectual teachers than the remainder of the staff.

An infection that spreads throughout a building

A poor teacher will disrupt not only their own classes, but all subsequent classes in courses that are taught sequentially.  The worst case scenario for students is to pass a course with poor understanding of the required material.  These students are then doomed to struggle with all successive classes in that sequence.  When this happens due to poor teaching, it is truly tragic. As these students move through the curriculum, they are destined to struggle just to keep up with the other students in the class. The progress of the class as a whole will suffer and competent teachers will face a difficult decision. Should they teach the topics again, resulting in a significant loss of valuable class time or allow some students to be deficient through no fault of their own?  Regardless of the choice, the progress of the class will suffer.

A poor teacher creates classroom management problems for everyone. One of the most common characteristics of an unproductive classroom is weak discipline. Unfortunately this problem can be contagious.  Adolescents do not automatically differentiate between one teacher’s standards and another.  It becomes a far more difficult task for teachers to enforce their own behavioral expectations when similar expectations are being ignored in other locations.  How many times has a teacher heard some form of “But Mr. X allows us to do that”?  Again, more critical class time is spent on problems that should not occur. 

A poor teacher results in students losing time in other classes.  Most administrators will tell you that suspensions are more frequently the result of misbehavior in a weak teacher’s room than in a strong one.  But a suspension results in students missing all classes not just the one where the infraction occurred.  In addition numerous conferences are often the product of such conduct which will also cause more time out of classes.

A poor teacher can affect other class activities. One year a young science teacher had a room adjacent to one of the weakest math teachers in the building.  He once told me that not a day went by without at least one administrator coming to that teacher’s classroom.  He added it was never surprising to find that teacher’s students in the hallways. Whether they were wandering because they had opted to skip the class or had been excused from the room without proper justification, they spent the majority of the time that they should have been learning math, disrupting other classes.

A poor teacher can wreak havoc with the grading system. Consistent grading throughout a building is critical.  Grades influence student class placements as well as the expectations of both the teachers and students.  Any disruption to this process is counterproductive.  The typical ineffectual teacher will assign erratic grades.  Sometimes in an attempt to gain cooperation undeserved high marks are given; conversely, poor grades are often the result of weak instruction or worse, punitive.  Regardless of the direction, other teachers will suffer. 

A needed dialogue

Teachers depend upon the good work of other teachers. They not only have the right but the responsibility to question educational policies, plans for reform and each other.  Teachers need to have a united front on one crucial issue—formulating ways to ensure student success.  Being appalled that teachers do not always reflect a united front on how to reach that goal is foolish and wrongheaded.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Nick Anderson reported on a study that indicated merit pay for teachers did not result in better student test scores.  One of the conclusions presented by Mr. Anderson was:

“Offering teachers incentives of up to $15,000 to improve student test scores produced no discernible difference in academic performance, according to a study released Tuesday, a result likely to reshape the debate about merit pay programs sprouting in D.C. schools and many others nationwide.”

These results, the first major study of the link between bonuses and improving student test scores, brought reactions ranging from disbelief to disillusionment. According to Vanderbilt Education Professor Matthew Springer who led the study "Pay reform is often thought to be a magic bullet. That doesn't appear to be the case here. We need to develop more thoughtful and comprehensive ways of thinking about compensation. But at the same time, we're not even sure whether incentive pay is an effective strategy for improving the system itself.”

As someone who was awarded multiple merit pay bonuses over the course of my career I can answer Dr. Springer’s concern—money will not provide an immediate boost to student test scores.

It may buy happiness but not better teaching

Let me be very clear about my position on merit pay—I think it is a critical and essential part of any successful educational program.  What I do not accept is the belief that such extra funds will make a teacher better.  The amount of effort and skill excellent teachers bring to their classroom is never predicated on the amount of money in their paychecks.  Teachers are a unique breed.  For the best of them merit pay is good; recognition by their colleagues as “skillful” is better; but a “thank you” correspondence from a former student is priceless.  For great educators no student is viewed in terms of dollar signs.  Every student is an individual with a name and a story.   Success is measured by making a difference in a life, not in a bank account.

Confessions of a merit pay teacher

When my district created a program for teachers to earn merit pay I immediately applied for it.  As I saw it, there was virtually no downside.  I was more than willing to fill out the necessary paperwork.  Without hesitation I compiled the required list of “goals and objectives”.  The majority of the time the required “itinerary” of the day’s lesson was dutifully posted even if it was often not completely accurate and had certainly never been a part of my previous classroom procedures.  And when it was time for a pre-arranged observation I always suggested a topic I knew would actively engage my students.  Yes, the lure of several thousand dollars would inspire me to add a few pieces of window dressing to my teaching.  But here is what did not change—the lesson that was observed during my second period Algebra 2 class was taught with exactly the same intensity, content and techniques in the unobserved fourth period Algebra 2 class an hour later.  That lesson was the same the year before there was merit pay and would continue to be unchanged in the future.  Why?  Because like every professional teacher I did not possess skills, techniques or special tricks that I was holding back until there was more money on the table.  The sad fact is that the people who think extra pay will make the best teachers perform better simply do not understand or appreciate the qualities that define those teachers.

Not today but definitely tomorrow

While I do not believe extra money equates into better teaching, I do believe it will result in a better teaching staff.  One of the greatest frustrations in education is the system which determines pay exclusively by years of service and educational level.  The lack of any component that measures the actual performance of the individual is one of the biggest morale killers in the profession.  An effective merit pay system based on the intelligent use of student test scores among other factors is an excellent method of eliminating this problem. To build the best staff possible these are the educators who need to be retained by school districts.  There is little doubt that a teacher who is recognized both with status and money is far more likely to stay in the profession.  Likewise, those who are not given such rewards are more likely to depart.  Over time, these two dynamics—retaining the best, removing the worst— will result in vastly improved teaching staffs.  Given enough time, those positive changes will ultimately bring the improvement to education envisioned by the supporters of merit pay.  And of course, the primary beneficiaries of these changes will be the students. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In a recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson documented the failure of educational reform for the past four decades.  He presents a compelling collection of data that clearly demonstrates that much of the innovation done in this country has been totally ineffectual.  Some of this information included:

The highly reliable National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing scores shows an educational system that is flat-lining.  In 1971, the first year of this testing, the average reading scores (range 0-500) for seventeen-year-olds was 285.  Thirty-seven years later that number was 286.  In the same two years math scores moved from 304 to 306.   A few quick calculator keystrokes reveal that in nearly four decades reading and math scores for our students have improved by a grand total of 0.3% and 0.6% respectively. 

Mr. Samuelson then reveals some surprising statistics.  During that same time period the percentage of teachers has increased by almost 800% when compared to the additional number of students (61% more teachers; 8% more students).  Not surprisingly student-teacher ratios have plummeted.  In 1955 this comparison stood at 27 to 1; in 2007 each teacher on average had fifteen students.  Even the image of the underpaid teacher is a tough sell—in 2008 the average teacher earned $53,230.  While this wage hardly translates into great wealth it is equally far removed from poverty.  Finally, the number of students in preschool has seen a nearly five-fold increase from 11% to 53%. 

Mr. Samuelson closes his argument by stating that the ultimate reason for the lack of improvement is a dearth of student motivation.  Too many adolescents do little work in high school and a significant number need remedial work in both reading and math when entering either a community college or a four-year institution.  And as illustrated by his data, teacher pay, student-teacher ratios, and mandatory standardized tests have scant impact on this shortcoming.  But the writer saves his harshest criticism for those in charge of reform:

“Against these realities, school ‘reform’ rhetoric is blissfully evasive. It is often an exercise in extravagant expectations. Even if George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program had been phenomenally successful (it wasn't), many thousands of children would have been left behind. Now (Secretary of Education Arne) Duncan routinely urges ‘a great teacher’ in every classroom. That would be about 3.7 million "great" teachers -- a feat akin to having every college football team composed of all-Americans. With this sort of intellectual rigor, what school ‘reform’ promises is more disillusion.”

Changes that make a difference

Mel Riddile and I have written at length about our concerns with the current structure of public education in the United States and potential adjustments that could improve the system.  As Mr. Samuelson has aptly demonstrated throwing meaningless platitudes and feel-good non-solutions has not made any discernable difference.  Significant improvement demands equally significant change.  If there is to be any major advancement, here are four places to start:

Lengthen the school year.  Learning must become a year-long activity.  How many other important, sequential endeavors take a break of thirteen weeks after thirty-nine weeks of work?  Will paying teachers for 240 days instead of 190 cost more money?  Absolutely, but the educational gains both in student performance and the retention and development of the staff will be more than worth it.  How many extra dollars are spent every year due to failure?

Expand the school week.  Use Saturdays for remediation and extra contact time.  Lengthen the school day to eight or more hours.  Remove distractions—athletic programs should become community activities.  Get educational institutions out of the sports business.  The academic standards currently in place to participate could be maintained but far too much educational time is given to these events.  I loved being a long-time football and tennis coach but if we are really serious about improving our students’ academic achievement we must narrow our focus.

Remove poor teachers.  The newest fad for removing weak educators is to fire the entire staff of a school.  While this may give the appearance of progress, it merely serves to rob districts of their competent teachers as well as their worst.  And most of all it does not make anyone better.    Schools with great teachers succeed.  But acquiring the best teachers is only part of the solution.  Other than the recent mass firings, when was the last time you knew a teacher who was terminated for ineptitude?  And how long did it take the system to remove that individual from the classroom?  In my forty years of teaching I saw two teachers removed for ineffectiveness.  And in each case it took more than five years of diligent work to make these changes occur.  What is needed is an evaluation system that improves good teachers and dismisses poor ones in an expedient manner. Great teachers make great schools; bad teachers give unmotivated students credibility. 

Increase the role of teachers as leaders.  Creating school policy should include a significant input from the entire staff.  While the roles of department chairs should be strengthened, all staff members should be given an opportunity to have an integral involvement in all components of the school.  Collaborative evaluations including other teachers should become common place.  A building’s philosophy should bubble up from every part of the culture not trickle down exclusively from the administrative wing.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:00 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

As everyone knows by now, the Los Angeles United School District decided to publish a list ranking all of the system’s  6,000 elementary school teachers based on students’ standardized test results.  One of the most prominent proponents of the proposal was Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who said that the decision was an excellent way to recognize the best educators in the district.  I and many other people who have made a career of standing in front of students in a classroom found these remarks both troubling and inaccurate.   I find Secretary Duncan’s latest argument in favor of the practice very predictable.  According to Mr. Duncan, “In other fields, we talk about success constantly, with statistics and other measures to demonstrate it…Why, in education, are we scared to talk about what success looks like? What is there to hide?" Duncan added, "Every state and district should be collecting and sharing information about teacher effectiveness with teachers and - in the context of other important measures - with parents."  Unfortunately in an attempt to connect all of the dots to justify this decision Mr. Duncan has used some very suspect reasoning.

Misconception Number 1

The Secretary’s first mistake is to equate the LAUSD rankings to the use of statistics in other professions.  A quick look at the use of data in the most number-consumed vocation, major league baseball, shows the weakness of Mr. Duncan’s argument.  Every day on the nation’s sports pages one can find a listing of the best batting averages, home runs, victories, strikeouts, etc.  However, a baseball fan with even a minimum knowledge of the game understands the complexity of such numbers. They are aware that the player with the highest batting average or the pitcher with the most victories is not automatically the best in their league.  There are a significant number of other factors that must be considered when evaluating MLB data.  What is the quality of the player’s teammates?  For how many years has this athlete performed at this level?  Is this season an anomaly or is it the continuation of years of excellence?  What additional talents does the player bring to his team?  The actual value of a Derek Jeter cannot be measured with a few numbers.  In fact, sometimes such figures are completely upside down.  Several years ago there was a pitcher who lost twenty games in a single season. This number represented the most defeats by a wide margin. Using this singular measure this player would be viewed as the worst pitcher in the league.  But anyone with a basic knowledge of the game knew that was not necessarily the case.  At the time, a strong argument was made that in order to lose that many times, a team actually had to have a great deal of confidence in the talent of the individual. Only a pitcher who was adjudged to be competitive would be allowed to continue to play enough games to reach that level.  Thus a highly negative number, after all is said and done, proves positive.  That statistical disconnect presents a question to be asked of Secretary Duncan.  Would the average L.A. parent understand enough of the subtleties of teaching and testing to make equally educated judgments?  Can a single number next to a name give that kind of perspective?  And of equal importance do the tests measuring student performance have the same validity as the extremely precise numbers used to evaluate a baseball player?

Misconception Number 2

The marriage of the media and teacher evaluations that Mr. Duncan envisions may not end in wedded bliss.  Unlike the Education Secretary, the media is not enamored with good news stories.   Bold headlines are reserved for disasters not celebrations.  This approach was demonstrated in the original article about the release of the teacher rankings by the LA Times.  In a related link to the story was a picture of a teacher in front of a room full of students.   The caption read:  “Over seven years, John Smith's fifth-graders have started out slightly ahead of those just down the hall but by year's end have been far behind.”  While showing the more successful fifth-grade teacher would have been in line with Mr. Duncan’s stated desire to celebrate great teaching, this approach was a demonstration of traditional journalistic instincts.  Consequently, the story becomes a negative for Mr. Smith and his students or teachers and education in general.

Misconception Number 3

Mr. Duncan does not appear to understand the subjective nature of many measurement tools in education.  He may approve of the “one number tells all” LAUSD approach to rank teachers but would he approve of similar methods directed toward students?  Would he endorse evaluating a student’s overall performance with a simple look at the numbers in the grade book?  Or would he prefer a more nuanced approach that takes into consideration whether the student was in an ELL class and had a deficit in English?  Should a long-term absence for illness be factored into the mix?  Does the student have a learning disability or an unstable home life?  If a student transfers from another school with a weak background should some extra time be considered?  Evaluations of students and teachers require different tools but there are parallels.  The data being considered in both cases requires a high degree of sophistication.

Improving education is complicated.

The need to create an evaluation process that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of teachers is critical. Finding a tool that will improve a successful educator’s performance and expedites the removal of an under-performing one is an essential goal.  Creating precise tests to determine student mastery should be a priority.  But the Secretary of Education and other leaders must understand that using public exposure through the media, although easily accomplished, is not the best avenue toward achieving these objectives. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 09:23 AM | Permalink

Middle schools in the Silicon Valley have a math problem.  In an area densely populated with engineers, only 30% of the students have been able to master Algebra 1 by the end of the 8^th grade.  The general consensus is that the blame for this situation rests squarely on the backs of the math teachers.  In an effort to improve the situation the Krause Center for Innovation (KFI) of Foothill College, a local community college, has created a very unique solution.  The school’s faculty has begun to implement the FAME (Faculty Academy for Mathematics Excellence) program for middle school math teachers in the area.  Professors from the school work with math faculty in the middle schools using a model from Korea where the use of real world problems is a focal point of the instruction.  The emphasis is on reviewing the material in Pre-algebra and Algebra 1.  The goal is to improve the math skills of these educators and help them better prepare their students for success in Algebra 1.

A plan that will help but…

There is little question that some form of intervention was necessary in these schools.  According to an article in the Los Angeles Crier, the reasons for these shortcomings are quite apparent.

“The Silicon Valley continues to experience a shortage of engineers from its own backyard, because most students are not prepared for advanced math,” according to Rebecca Salner, spokeswoman for the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which funds FAME. “In fact, 70 percent of its students fail to master Algebra I by the end of eighth grade,” she said.

“Many students get bored with math,” said KCI Executive Director Gay Krause, a former middle school principal.

“A lot of teachers in the middle-school level had limited math training, one course training,” said FAME Program Director Joe Chee. They know how to do the math problems but don’t have conceptual understanding to explain why the answer is wrong and to diagnose (the problem) when students aren’t getting it.  Most teachers concentrate on procedure instead of showing students how to apply the underlying concepts,” Chee said. “Teachers present students with a simple problem and show them how to solve it, leaving students to replicate the solution in answering similar questions without full comprehension of the fundamental theories.”

All of these observations make it quite obvious that the status quo is not working in these schools and there is little doubt that the work of FAME will improve what is clearly a bad situation

Is this really the best solution?

As well intended and even successful as the FAME program may be there is, however, an 800-pound gorilla in the classroom that no one seems to want to acknowledge.  Is it really all that surprising that teachers equipped with only a single process course addressing the nuances of teaching Algebra 1 were unable to prepare their students to acquire mastery of a critical gateway math course?  This lack of success is no more surprising than if someone attempted to teach high school Spanish after completing a Berlitz course.

The fundamental flaw in this set of circumstances is that teachers with such limited math skills should have never been placed into these classrooms.  A school district that allows someone to teach Algebra 1 with a single “add-on” class may be fortunate to have even 30% of the students succeed.  Of course, the definition of “mastery” has not been clearly stated so even that number may be inflated.  Success in middle school Algebra 1 is a tricky proposition under the best of circumstances.  Hiring educators without a strong knowledge of the curriculum is a formula for disaster.  A program like FAME could be a positive addition to any school system regardless of the level of its success and in a variety of subject areas.  But it should be utilized as an accessory teaching tool rather than the primary component.

A Better Approach

Placing teachers with insufficient credentials in charge of crucial math classes that occur at a pivotal point in a student’s education is a dangerous policy.  The potential for damage is too great to allow for on-the-job training in an Algebra 1 classroom.  Preparing teachers to be competent must occur before they enter the classroom, not after it has been determined they are unqualified.  Relying on an intervention program like FAME rather than rigorous academic teacher preparation means that improvements will be obtained only after students have been academically impaired. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:54 PM | Permalink

“The interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.”—The Teacher Leader

Note: Thanks to the passage of a $26 billion jobs bill to protect 300,000 teachers and other non-federal government workers, principals and school leaders may have the opportunity to actually add or save teaching positions.The interview process may be more important than you thought!

I thought long and hard after I read Finding the Best Teachers, which emphasized the importance of the interview process in hiring and retaining the best teachers. In doing so I arrived at one conclusion. The process of interviewing prospective teachers is the culmination of hundreds of small interviews, not of teacher candidates, but interviews that our staff conducted with me every day.

Every interaction I had with our staff was an interview of sorts. What occurred in those interviews of teacher candidates was the result of thousands of interactions that we had over months and years that cumulatively formed the culture of our school. It was our culture that we revealed to teacher candidates. It was our culture, our beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and commitment to each other that either attracted or repulsed would be candidates. Over a ten-year period of hiring teachers, the staff we ended up with was a direct reflection of our thinking and our mindset.

A school cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. In this respect, the moment of truth for school leaders is the teacher interview process, for the future of our school is determined by the team members we attract and those we fail to attract in those interviews.

Reputation: It’s all we have!

I once had an assistant principal who told me, “the only thing wrong with this school is its reputation.” I turned to him and said, “Our reputation is all we have!” When we interviewed teacher candidates, we kept in mind that they were probably interviewing at other schools. Even if they never ended up working at our school, we knew that the candidates would remember that first impression for a long time and they will not hesitate to share that impression, particularly if it was a bad one. We knew that how we greeted and welcomed teacher candidates as well as who conducted the interview and the manner in which the interview was conducted said much about our school and us. As Teacher Leader pointed out, “The interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.”

How do you want to be remembered?

We knew that the manner in which our school approached the interview process would reveal our school culture to the candidate. So, think carefully about the impression you want to make on candidates. Do you want to be remembered as formal and professional or warm and inviting? Do you want to be viewed as a collaborative, cohesive team that shares key decisions or as a top-down, more formal school organization?

Teammate or Employee?

As a new teacher, I was interviewed and hired by the principal. I was introduced to the department chair on the first day teachers reported. Instead of being warmly greeted and embraced, it took me quite a while to gain acceptance and to find my place in the department. Ask yourself, are you looking for a teammate or an employee? In my case, I was hired to fill a vacancy not to be a team member.  If you want the candidate to be a member of a cohesive team, you will want to involve members of that team in the interview process. Yes, you may have to give up some control and the process may take longer, but the benefits will far outweigh the costs. Involving more people in the interview process will increase the staff’s sense of ownership and will help to ensure that the new teacher is welcomed and embraced upon arrival.

The Answer to Retaining Teachers

Teachers who get off to a bad start don’t last long. Some believe that the key to retaining teachers is a quality induction and mentoring program. However, I have come to believe that the solution to teacher-retention may begin with the interview process. Involving future team members in the process of selecting their new teammates will not only increase their sense of commitment, but, more importantly, it will ensure that those team members are committed to the success of the new hire.

Control or Cooperation?

Hiring new teachers may be our most important responsibility. How we deal with that responsibility may tell more about us than anything we say. If we want our staff’s cooperation, buy-in, and a sense of ownership, we must be willing to give up the illusion of control. If we are serious about collaboration, distributing leadership, and growing new leaders, we must provide our staff opportunities for meaningful involvement in key decisions, and what decision is more important than hiring staff.

Involving more people in the process will let the staff know that they are trusted and respected. Experience has taught me that our staff would take more time and be more cautious in hiring a teammate than I would be in “filling a vacancy,” particularly if time is short and we had a number of staff to hire.

Hiring or Recruiting

Real estate is all about location, location, and location. The same holds true for schools. Unfortunately, we can still accurately predict student test scores by zip code. Like most under-resourced schools, our school was both economically and geographically challenged. A vast majority of our teachers lived in affordable housing that was a long distance from our school. Their daily commute would find them driving past a half dozen schools in more advantaged neighborhoods with fewer needy students. We had to convince teacher candidates that the extra commute and time away from their family was worth it, and the best convincers are the teachers in your school. If they believe in what the school is doing, they will convey that belief to the candidate. 

We learned that, in under-resourced schools, we were recruiting and hiring at the same time. Time after time, teacher candidates would tell us, “All the other schools I interviewed with wanted to know what I could do for them. You were the only school that told me what you could do for me.”

The Best Recruiters

No school has too many top-notch teachers. One of the defining qualities of high-performing schools is that they are able to attract and retain the best teachers. Conversely, under-performing schools typically have high turnover and teachers with the least experience. As the years went on, we learned that our best recruiters were our own teachers. Our teachers were so proud of our school and what we were accomplishing that they couldn’t stop talking about it. Word of mouth became our best recruiting strategy. Schools in more advantaged areas simply could not believe that high-quality teachers would want to teach in a school like ours. The reality is that teachers want to work where they are a part of making a difference and they want to work in a teacher-friendly school.

A Teacher-Friendly School

When asked  by a group of visitors, what is different about this school, one of our teachers replied, “I have worked in schools all over the country, but this is the most teacher-friendly school that I have ever worked in.” When asked to explain she said, “In this school, our opinion counts. We get to make decisions like bell schedules and exam schedules. We approve field trips. We are constantly asked for our input. When we come up with ideas, we are encouraged to try them out.” Anyone can create a school culture that is teacher-friendly. It takes no money, but it does take time and effort. The Teacher Leader and I learned through experience that, if we build a teacher-friendly school, they (teachers) would come.

Interviewing is Year-Round

Hiring and interviewing the best teachers is a full-time, year-round activity. Every thing we do and say reflects on our school and its culture and it is the culture that attracts teachers. Instead of change for the sake of change, we must stand for responsible change—change that seeks to improve student performance on a solid foundation of positive beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and a growth mindset.

“Culture eats strategies for breakfast.” In the right culture virtually any interviewing strategy will work. In the wrong culture, the best interviewing strategies are doomed to fail.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:40 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In the past I have discussed the need to hire and retain the best teachers for our schools.  The choice of which candidates to interview and how that process should progress have been the focal points.  As those thoughts were being constructed, I reflected on some of the interviews and hires I have made in the past and what they said about the process. 

The Good

His letter of introduction arrived in early February.  It said that he had grown up in the area attending a school in the district before enrolling at the University of Florida where he received his degree in mathematics.  After graduating he served as a marine, then a Peace Corps volunteer and finally a teacher in an East Los Angeles school district.  His goal was to return to his home area and acquire a teaching job for the next school year.  He asked if he could talk to someone while he was in the area during the latter part of February.  The letter was sent to all twenty-four high schools in the district.  While no job offers could be made until June, I felt that his resume was too good to ignore and immediately set up a time for us to meet.  His interview matched his resume.  During our discussion I asked him about the situation and he responded, “You were the only one who was willing to talk to me.  Everyone told me that they don’t worry about hiring until May or June and to come back later.”   In May he did interview with some other schools many of whom made offers.  But as he told me after joining our staff he remembered who took the time in the “off-season” to speak with him and that convinced him of the level of our dedication.  In the following fifteen years he became an integral part of the school and the department.  He was the assistant coach of cross-country and track as well as the lead IB math teacher.  The lesson was clear—hiring the best teachers is a full-time, year-round activity.

The Bad

His goal was to begin a second career in high school education.  His credentials were impeccable.  He was retiring as a Colonel in the U.S. Army.  In the later years of his career he had served as an instructor and his undergraduate degree was in mathematics.  During his interview I quickly realized he would be an excellent fit for our department.  He had a military bearing but an easy-going manner, two ingredients that bode well for good classroom management.  He expressed an eagerness to learn how to improve his craft and a willingness to teach any classes that were available.  Within a week an offer was made but he told me that he had one more interview before he could make a decision.  Two days later he accepted our job.  The next time I saw him I asked what made the difference.  “Now don’t get me wrong.  I really liked your program and philosophy but my first choice was to teach at another school.  It is where my daughter attends, it is right near the house and it just seemed like the best place for me.  But when I went there for the interview the math chair was out of the building and no assistant principals were available. So I was asked a few questions by the head of the English department.  The next day they offered me a job.  But when I thought about it, I knew that proximity to my house was not nearly enough to convince me to accept the other school’s offer. So, here I am.”  He became precisely the teacher I expected based on his interview.  He had a wonderful rapport with the students, was a positive influence in the department and a great team player.  On more than one occasion he told me how happy he was with the decision he had made.  The message I took from the experience was simply that the interviewing process says as much about the school as it does about the candidate.  The tone of an entire career can be set during that time.

The Ugly

We were in desperate straits.  It was less than two weeks before the start of the school year and one of our top teachers was suddenly retiring due to a devastating disease.  I was on vacation 3000 miles away and the entire focus of the school was on the start of the year.  By phone I contacted my assistant principal who was poring over the resumes that were still available.  One was for a teacher who as a result of Katrina had moved to our area from Louisiana and had been given a one-year contract at another school in our district as a Physics teacher.  Because of his contract he had been destaffed and was available for hire.  A form was sent to the corresponding AP at the other school asking questions about the abilities of this individual.  The response that finalized our decision was to the query “Would you rank this individual in the top 75%, 50%, 25% or 10% of teachers you have worked with in the past?”  The answer was top 10%.  Every other response was equally positive from the administrator. As a result the job offer was made and accepted. 

The results were disastrous.  He was arguably the worst teacher I had ever had in my department.  His lessons were incomprehensible and his classes were totally chaotic.  The complaints started on day one and never let up.  At back to school night we posted an AP in his room to deal with the expected parental rage.  While the hiring process took about three days, the firing process took two years with hundreds of students the ultimate victims. During the first year I attended a district math department chair meeting and asked the chair at the teacher’s former school what she knew about him.  “Oh, they (the administration) suggested that we hire him for our department, but there was no way that was going to happen.  The science people were just happy to get rid of him.” 

The major issue here may be the fact that the best way to remove a teacher from a school is to inflict them on another.  After this experience I made a pledge to never exaggerate the talents of an individual on a recommendation or minimize their deficiencies.  “Passing” teachers through a system hurts everyone but especially the students. It is a practice that must stop.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:08 PM | Permalink

According to a recent study, from 2003 to 2007, the turnover rate for Chicago principals was 73%, meaning that 61% of the lowest performing elementary schools have had three or more principals since 2000. Likewise, researchers Ed Fuller and Michelle Young examined data on Texas public schools from 1996 through 2008. They found that only 50% of newly hired principals stay on the job for three years. Seventy percent leave before their five-year anniversary.

The researchers point out that the impact of principal turnover on the schools is devastating:

• Principals assigned to low-performing schools generally are less experienced
• They received their training from less selective programs
• Inexperienced, under-qualified principals tend not to stick around long;
• They are less adept attracting and hiring the best teachers.
• They have high teacher turnover because they good at retaining well-qualified teachers.
• They are likely to be replaced by yet another inexperienced, under-qualified principal

Speaking before the Texas House Public Education Committee, Fuller testified that, “A “revolving door” pattern among principals makes it difficult for most reform efforts to gain traction. For high-needs schools, the average principal needs to remain in place for four to five years at the elementary level and five to seven years at the secondary level, Fuller says, adding that it takes a minimum of three years on average for principals to make a “substantial, lasting difference.” The larger the school, the longer it takes,” Fuller says. “The longer the school has been without a stable principal, the longer it takes. The greater the teacher turnover, the longer it takes. The lower the achievement, the longer it takes.”

Furthermore, Fuller pointed out that “Contrary to popular belief, principals do not leave because of low pay, but because they feel “micromanaged” by central office staff or they lack the necessary resources to be successful. They also report frustration with a rigorous and punitive accountability system. “Principals get really frustrated when that happens,” Fuller says. “They don’t have the tools and autonomy to do their jobs well.” Surprisingly, characteristics such as race, age, gender, rural versus urban districts, and certification test results had a negligible impact on retention.”

Let me get this straight. The poorest schools attract the least experienced principals who, in turn, attract the least experienced teachers, and the least experienced principals leave earlier, which results in more teacher turnover.

And the national strategy to turn around the lowest performing schools is to perpetuate the turnover problem by creating more turnover? Furthermore, principals have only two years instead of the four to seven years needed to improve student performance before they must be replaced. How do you think that will work out?

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The idea is deceptively simple.  Place the best teachers possible into every classroom.  Recently we have spent a great deal of time discussing that objective.  An evaluation system that identifies and removes weak teachers while also strengthening good ones has been proposed. There has been a lengthy discussion of what hiring practices ensure securing the best potential talents in the field. But there is one educational policy that continually works to thwart the goal of improving the teaching pool.  The villain of this piece is the practice known as “last hired, first fired”.  Under this set of guidelines when reductions in staffing are necessary due to either budget restraints or lower enrollment the decision is based exclusively on seniority.  This procedure that rewards longevity over talent, checklists over effectiveness, and status quo over student needs must disappear.  While a few school systems have put plans into place that remove this policy (Last Teacher In, First Out? City Has Another Idea) its demise must be universal.  In both design and implementation the practice fails to ensure that the top teachers will be in the classroom.

The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem

Making a strong argument against the policy with analogies is simple.  Which is better, the journeyman thirty-seven year old second baseman or the twenty-two year old power hitter with unlimited potential?  How about the undistinguished veteran lawyer or the recent cum laude Harvard Law School grad?  To give any more examples would be easy but extraneous.  What is almost as disturbing as the policy itself is that while the negatives of “last hired, first fired” are so obvious, they have been insufficient to bring about change in most cases.

Mandated staff reductions are painful and complicated decisions.  Since teaching positions cannot be realistically broken into fractional parts, such cutbacks usually impact one or two departments in a disproportionate manner.  Cutting a full position from a single department can profoundly affect the class sizes and effectiveness of that subject area.   It is not surprising that many will view these difficult decisions as unfair and unpopular.  Consequently, there is an unsettling sense that one of the strongest arguments for last hired/first fired is that it makes the decision of who stays and who goes easier.  Just consult the seniority chart, go over to the pertinent column, down to the required row and bingo—the decision is made.  Retaining a policy to ease school leaders of tough choices is not only impossible to support it is demeaning to professionals placed in such positions.  The easy path in education is almost never the best one for students. 

Some supporters of the concept will argue that it is necessary because many principals cannot be trusted to make good decisions in staffing.  The plan is designed to protect teachers from being removed as a result of random “retaliation” or inappropriate “favoritism”.  Teacher unions often use this rationale when arguing in favor of this policy and others that “protect” teachers from similar injustices.  Such reasoning is disturbing, misguided and counterproductive.  If potential unprofessional behavior on the part of a school principal is a viable rationale for keeping this policy, then a much larger problem needs to be addressed.  If true (and I would agree that it may well exist in some situations), then a thorough investigation of the selection and evaluation process of school leaders is necessary.  A principal who makes personnel decisions based on such inappropriate criteria is potentially a far greater source of educational failure than any ill-advised formula for reducing teachers.  Justifying one flawed policy to counteract a defective situation is clearly not the best approach to improving education.

Better Arguments

There are, however, more sophisticated reasons to argue against the practice.  Creating the best possible staff is more complicated than simply getting only talented teachers.  Like any team, a teaching staff requires both talent and chemistry.  When I was assembling my math department I looked at a number of variables.  The goal was always finding a blend of stability with an infusion of fresh ideas, reasonable gender and ethnic balance, a plethora of educational viewpoints, and the ability and willingness to work well with others.  Each year as vacancies would occur; I would study the departmental strengths and weaknesses and then in my hiring plan look to find the individuals whom would best fill those particular needs.  All strict, inflexible guidelines such as “first fired” defeat any such narrative and should not continue.

Extinction by Improvement

The impact of “Last hired, first fired” can be mitigated without being legislatively removed.  It will wane if three critical components of education are significantly upgraded.  Schools must be lead by principals who are true personnel managers.  When tough staffing issues arise, they need to be capable of making the right choices for the overall system.  A staff that understands that this level of competency is the backbone of all employee decisions will be supportive and eventually flourish.  Strong, coherent hiring practices will populate schools with the individuals with the highest potential for success.  An efficient and effective evaluation system will quickly identify and remove weak teachers while improving the performance of its best prospects.   In a building where every teacher is of the highest quality, the impact of staff reductions will be significantly reduced. While there is no easy way to avoid the disruption and loss of such actions, the nightmare scenario of losing a talented young teacher for a far less talented but more senior will diminish. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:38 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

My comments concerning the qualifications necessary for teaching high school math, Determining the right candidates, created a great deal of discussion both in comments sent to “The Principal Difference” and to me personally.  A wide spectrum of individuals ranging from    readers to former colleagues to friends and even members of my family all took exception to my contention that I would require a degree in mathematics before I would interview a potential hire.  The assessments of my views ranged from totally clueless to sadly misguided.    I prefer to think that I was merely misunderstood. I would like to take a few paragraphs to clarify my contentions.

Not Merely Black and White

For many readers, what I wrote apparently translated into an assumption that any person with a math degree is automatically a better teacher than someone without one.  This interpretation brought forth a series of anecdotes about nightmare high school or college classroom experiences with “math geniuses” who had a brilliant knowledge of the subject but zero ability to explain the material.  Rest assured I have many of the same terrifying memories.  While I can understand how a reader might think that I was postulating that a degree in math automatically qualified one to teach, this was not my ultimate point.  Perhaps my mistake was   my decision to publish the thoughts on selecting the candidates before sharing the actual interviewing process.  In that article I stated that one portion of the interview would include a fifteen-minute teaching demonstration.  During this exercise as well as the rest of the lengthy and intense process, the teacher who prefers to talk mathematical jargon to his chalk board rather than communicate critical math skills to his students would be discovered and rejected.

One More Try

Let me explain my position more clearly.  After looking over all available resumes when beginning the hiring process I look first at those who have had previous successful high school teaching experience.  For those who have not previously taught, I find the ones who possess a degree in math.  These two groups formed the initial selection pool.  After looking at the total background—previous experiences professional and recreational—references, transcripts, etc., the top candidates are brought in for interviews.  This process includes teaching lessons, writing samples, and question and answer sessions.   Phone calls are made to previous employers.  After that process is complete the best prospects are selected and jobs are offered.

If there are still vacancies and no good candidates remain from the original group, I would not automatically hire the next available but less-talented candidate who has a math degree on their resume.  Rather, I would then look for the best remaining candidate regardless of their precise math background.  It is important to note that there is a wide range of requirements between a degree and certification.  Twenty-four hours of math can get one certified in the state of Virginia while most colleges in the state require thirty-eight hours for a degree.  In the situation where a position needs to be filled someone like the commenter who had thirty hours of math courses would certainly have to be considered. 

No Reprise of My Fair Lady

Finally, I want to clarify the comment that I would rather make a math person into a teacher than transform a teacher into a mathematician.  I was not advocating that it would be easy or wise to take a horrific teacher with a math degree and believe they could be transformed Elisa Doolittle-style into a great educator.  Rather, the point was that, in the long-term, it was easier to resolve an individual who had a minor weakness in their teaching skills over one who was lacking in knowledge of the subject.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:31 AM | Permalink