Pages

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Successful mentoring program for teachers still needs Seattle's support

WEDNESDAY 27, JANUARY 2016 Successful mentoring program for teachers still needs Seattle’s support: by Ken Zeichner

The Seattle Teacher Residency Program (http://www.seattleteacherresidency.org/) is a master’s degree level teacher preparation program in Seattle Public Schools that began in 2014. This rich resource for teacher development and equity in the city is at risk, along with the important partnership it has created between the Seattle Public Schools, the UW College of Education, the Seattle Education Association, and the Alliance for Education.

The Seattle program is, in fact, the only teacher residency program in the country in which the local teachers’ association is a full partner. Each of the partners has committed both human and financial resources to the program during its first three years of operation that includes funding from several local foundations for development and start‐up costs, and some of the operating costs. The plan for the program has been for the Seattle Teacher Residency to become an important part of Seattle Public School’s human capital strategy and for the district to pick up an increasing share of the cost of the program, using in part the savings that become available from decreased teacher attrition in low‐income schools. The plan has been for the district to ultimately assume responsibility for one‐third of the program’s costs in 2017‐2018 making STR a genuine public‐private partnership.

STR is an important equity initiative that has the potential to make an important contribution to reducing the student learning gaps that have plagued the district for many years. It is crucial that the district contribute its share of the cost of continuing this innovative program. The consequences of the district not doing its part to financially support the continuation of the program in Seattle Public Schools will mean that the program that was specifically created to benefit students in Seattle will probably eventually migrate to other nearby districts that understand and appreciate its value in supporting greater educational equity.

A recent Seattle Times editorial (http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/seattle‐public‐ schools‐and‐the‐alliance‐for‐education‐should‐salvage‐their‐relationship/) reported that the district intends to cut its financial contribution to the Seattle Teacher Residency program next year from $250,000 to $50,000 because the district believes that “the program is financially unstable, takes up too many resources, and hasn’t generated enough recruits per year.” As a practitioner and researcher of teacher education for the past 40 years, I believe that this is a shortsighted decision that is not in the best interest of students in the district.

STR has prepared 25‐30 teachers a year to teach in low‐income Seattle schools since 2013. The residents are prepared in elementary or special education and commit to teach for at least five years in a low‐income school in Seattle Public Schools. All elementary STR teachers also complete dual certification in teaching English learners or special education. STR teachers participate in a 14‐ month supervised residency under the guidance of carefully selected and trained mentor teachers and complete course work that was jointly developed by faculty at the UW and district staff to be aligned with the curriculum and practices in Seattle schools. Two of the goals of the STR are to increase the proportion of teachers of color in the district and to reduce teacher attrition in low‐income schools. Research strongly suggests that increasing the diversity of the teaching staff and increasing teacher stability in schools with significant teacher turnover will help reduce learning gaps in the district.

In the first three years of STR, an average of 44 percent of the 78 residents and teachers who have entered the district have been teachers of color compared to 12 percent of the district’s other “new to the profession” hires. One hundred percent of the first cohort of STR graduates are still teaching in Seattle Public Schools in their second year. Nationally, teacher residency programs that meet the high standards of the National Center for Teacher Residencies (STR is one of these) have a retention rate of 84 per cent after three years. The $250,000 that Seattle Public Schools contributes to the program this year translates into a cost of $8,064 for each of the 31 residents in cohort three.

There are several ways that the district will save money in the long run by continuing to support this program. Everything about the new teachers’ preparation is closely aligned with the policies and practices of the district. This means that the costs of training new teachers in district practices will be reduced. Second, STR invests substantially in both the selection of the mentors and their training and support. This helps build the leadership skills of district teachers and contributes to the overall learning and development of the mentors and their pupils. Finally, using the formula for calculating the cost of teacher turnover developed by the National Council for Teaching and America’s Future, the annual cost of teacher turnover in Seattle Public Schools is estimated to be about $10.6 million. SPS spends around $26,483 per teacher on all new teacher hires. The financial savings to the district and the increased teacher retention and diversity will positively impact equity in student learning. In Boston, Denver, San Francisco and other urban districts across the U.S., teacher residency programs have recently become an important component of districts’ hiring strategies to reduce disparities in student learning. Seattle Public Schools would be wise to look at the long‐term benefits of the program and continue to fund its share of the program costs.

Recently, I spent an afternoon at Van Asselt elementary school in Beacon Hill where principal Chanda Oatis has hired nine graduates from the first two cohorts of STR. Ms. Oatis is very enthusiastic about the high quality of preparation and skills that these former residents have brought to her school, and she would gladly hire more residents. She has been particularly pleased by the ways in which these STR graduates arrived on the job and immediately started to learn about the surrounding community and reach out to students’ families to connect in positive ways. I had the opportunity that afternoon to observe five of these teachers in their classrooms and I came away with two major impressions. The first thing that struck me was the poise and maturity that was displayed by these first and second year teachers. One would never know from just watching them in action that they were beginning teachers. The second impression was the high level of engagement among their students, and their enthusiasm for the math and literacy tasks that I observed. I have been preparing teachers for nearly 40 years, and I have rarely seen such poise and confidence in beginning teachers. I would hate to see my cities’ schools walk away from such a promising effort in improving the educational opportunities for all students.

Published in Crosscut 1/30/16

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

A plea to maintain high standards for teachers. Member voices: Bringing teacher educators to the ESSA implementation table

Op-ed in the weekly newsletter of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: A plea to maintain high standards for teachers. Member Voices: Bringing Teacher Educators to the ESSA Implementation Table
By  
The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of AACTE.

In December 2015, I published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which I discussed my concerns with some of the teacher education provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). I focused my comments on a section within the law that gives states the authority to use some of their Title II funds to establish “teacher preparation academies.” These academies would, in my opinion, lower standards for preparing teachers and would also support a general downward spiral in standards beyond the academies that would weaken public education.

The academies provision is the most prescriptive option under Title II and could require states to change laws that would lower standards for teacher education programs. For example, if states choose to support teacher preparation academies, then they would not be allowed to place any “unnecessary restrictions on the methods of the academy” which includes requiring faculty to have advanced degrees or placing any restrictions on undergraduate or professional course work. While it is not certain that programs with lower standards would be funded under the academy provision, this option opens the door to that possibility.

I think the most important thing we can do, now that ESSA has been signed into law, is to make sure we are at the table as our states prepare their applications for Title II funds. When we are working with our states on their applications, it is important that we do our homework and be aware of the options that are available in the law that will maintain high standards for all teacher education programs and that will help us address pressing problems such as teacher shortages and the inequitable distribution of fully qualified and effective teachers.

There are 21 different ways in which the state funds allocated through Title II can be spent to support teacher quality. Some of the options other than academies that are available to fund are teacher residency programs, induction programs, improving equitable access to a diverse teaching staff and effective teachers, integrating technology into the curriculum and instruction, and—yes—even establishing, expanding, or improving alternative routes to certification. There are also 21 options available for the use of Title II funds for local-agency activities, such as providing greater access to high-quality professional learning opportunities for staff.

It is not necessary for states to sponsor academies if they want to support alternative teacher preparation programs. The difference is that when these programs receive funding as teacher preparation academies, they are able to lower standards. When the alternative programs are funded outside of the academy mechanism, the states have the option to require them to meet the same high standards as other programs.

One of the things that I strongly believe that we should pursue in our involvement in Title II-funded efforts is to work to establish new hybrid partnerships with schools, local communities, and professional associations in which the expertise of faculty, teachers and administrators, and local community members is accessed to support the preparation of professional teachers that have knowledge and expertise about content, pedagogy, and the knowledge of and respect for culture and communities that is needed to be an effective teacher in our public schools.

Currently, there is a lot of media attention to actual and projected teacher shortages in particular fields, such as special education, and in particular geographical locations, such as rural and urban schools, serving students living in poverty. We know from research that the main issue with regard to these shortages is teacher retention and that factors such as high-quality preparation, good compensation and working conditions, the ability to exercise their judgment in the classroom, and access to high-quality professional learning opportunities responsive to teachers’ identified goals will help keep good teachers in the classroom. We also know that some of the options available for funding under Title II such as induction programs and rigorous teacher residency programs will support our ability to address teacher shortages and help us provide everyone’s children with fully prepared and effective professional teachers.

Last September, Hilary Conklin of DePaul University and I published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which we showed how some critics misrepresent research to present an exaggerated narrative of failure of university teacher education and an exaggerated narrative of success about the new entrepreneurial programs. As we work with our states and communicate to the public about the work that we are doing and want to do, it is important that we do not commit the same mistake as some of our critics and ignore the gaps between our ideals and our performance and what we may be able to learn from our critics.

Although we should be proud of our accomplishments, we also need to acknowledge where our current practice falls short and strive to do the work that is needed to provide a highly qualified and effective teacher for everyone’s children. This work requires a rigorous bar for all teacher education programs. The most important thing for us now is to be at the table and be actively and constructively involved when decisions are made about how states and districts will choose to use the funds available under Title II.

Kenneth Zeichner is Boeing Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Washington.