Maybe some of our teacher education programs aren't producing enough high quality teachers because they're too busy trying to meet the over 400 reporting requirements demanded by the Federal government?  Working out the newest version of those reporting duties and deciding what counts as proof of a high quality teacher education program is being thrashed out now by a federal panel.

As with other aspects of ESEA, it is the establishment and implementation of these Federal rules and regulations where the law actually touches the life and work of schools, students, and teachers. More on this little-known, but critical component at this piece from Inside Higher Education  (hat tip to my friends at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching).  Also detailed coverage of the two-day meeting over at EdWeek.

On the one hand, some teacher prep programs have come under increasing (some would argue, burdening) regulation, while most alternative, quick-fix programs receive almost no oversight. These double standards and mixed messages have contributed to the educational inequality in this country. I'd advise those genuinely interested in professional preparation of teachers to watch these rules developments closely.

What might happen if we asked a group of teachers who have consistently demonstrated themselves to be highly effective to “craft a new vision of a teaching profession that is led by teachers and ensures teacher and teaching effectiveness”?

As the NEA recently discovered, you might get the unexpected.

After much examination and debate, the Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching (CETT) put forward several recommendations, ideas, and challenges, some specifically to the NEA, but also to teacher preparation programs, school districts, state and federal education agencies, lawmakers, and teachers ourselves.

One of the most significant of these recommendations is the call for a National Council for the Teaching Profession to establish a consistent system of preparation, licensure, and certification of all teachers and teacher educators.

According to our report, this “NCTP will work to ensure that each state’s teaching standards are no less rigorous than the national standards. Alignment among state standards will facilitate teacher quality and mobility from state to state” (7).

Few people realize how difficult it is for teachers who are licensed in one state to move and teach in another. In our increasingly mobile society, that is not just an economic inconvenience, it also makes it unnecessarily difficult for schools and districts to recruit and retain teachers their students desperately need.  A coordinated system would end the confusing patchwork of teacher preparation programs and dissonant licensure rules across the country.

The uneven quality of teaching in America is directly proportional to our chaotic and archaic approaches to teacher preparation, certification, and evaluation.  My Teacher Leader colleagues and I, in our book, Teaching 2030, summarized the sad state of affairs at that point:

• Over 600 alternative certification programs offering abbreviated pedagogical training (usually just a few weeks) to novices before placing them in some of the most challenging teaching situations.
• 43 states require teacher candidates to pass some type of written subject area test, but only five require them to demonstrate knowledge of how to teach the subject.
• Only 39 states require potential teacher candidates to do student teaching, and that may range from 8 to 20 weeks (out of the average 36 week school year).
• In most places there are no requirements for who gets to supervise student teachers and no requirements that those supervisors should themselves be effective teachers who know how to mentor new recruits.

 The CETT calls for a coordinated effort, building on work done by other groups and stakeholders in teacher preparation, accreditation, licensure, and standards to weave this disparate but overlapping work into one coherent system that is “consistent, efficient, and cost effective” (7).  In our vision of such a system, teacher licensure would have a multi-tiered system: initial licensure, awarded by individual states; then one or more additional tiers of fully portable national licenses that “certify accomplished preparation and practice” (7).

 An important part of our recommendations on this point was the idea that those who hold leadership (administrative) positions in education and those who work in teacher preparation programs, should be effective teachers and have earned these same certifications. In fact, this entire national certification process should be led by effective teachers.

 Do you agree with us that teaching should begin to function like a true profession?

What does it mean to be a “highly accomplished” teacher? 

That’s what National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) calls teachers who have achieved its advanced certification in their respective subject areas. 

National Board Certification® is a comprehensive process that requires teachers to show “clear, convincing, and consistent evidence” that they meet a set of scientifically developed, pedagogically sound, rigorous standards that have been proven to lead to high levels of student learning.  

In other words, a highly accomplished teacher is one who truly makes a difference for students. These are the highly effective, high quality teachers whom we keep hearing that we need [more of] in our classrooms.

Board Certification provides a means for identifying experienced teachers who have reached this level of performance. These are not initial standards for licensing beginners, but increasingly, schools of education are adopting all or part of the NBPTS standards to help strengthen their preparation of new teachers.

Each of the 25 National Board certificate areas has its own set of standards for teachers in that subject because teaching is content specific. There are, however, certain characteristics that all highly accomplished teachers practice.  NBPTS calls those The Five Core Propositions:

1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning.
2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from their experiences.
5. Teachers are members of learning communities.

In its publication: What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do (2002), NBPTS outlined these Core Propositions in great detail, and the Core continue to serve as the basis for all of the standards.  The document also reminds us of the mission of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards:

“To advance the quality of teaching and learning by:

• Maintaining high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do
• Providing a national voluntary system certifying teachers who meet these standards.
• Advocating for related education reforms to integrate National Board Certification in American education and to capitalize on the expertise of National Board Certified Teachers.

“National Board Certification, developed by teachers, with teachers, and for teachers, is a symbol of professional teaching excellence”(1).

It’s important to note that there are many teachers across this nation who meet the criteria for certification, but have not yet pursued National Boards. Board Certification is, and should remain a voluntary process that over 91,000 teachers have achieved.  However, almost half of the teachers who attempt certification do not achieve it the first time (candidates do have opportunity to retake). Yet most of those who do not achieve will testify that going through the process itself has made them better teachers.

National Board Certification is also an expensive process, for which teachers in many states or districts are neither supported nor compensated after they earn it.  Meanwhile, we continue to chant the mantra that a high quality teacher is the most important factor in a student’s education.  Moreover, many of the teachers who have shown that they are capable of highly accomplished teaching by achieving National Board Certification are in too many places not allowed or not expected to work at that level with their students. I can’t think of a greater waste of human talent or of our children’s potential.

Parents and school board members: Are there National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) in your local school/district? How many? How are they being utilized in and out of the classroom?  Which students do they serve? How are other teachers being encouraged or supported to become NBCTs? 

Until we consistently produce true teacher- leaders, our working lives and conditions will remain at the whims those who don't pay the price or carry the responsibility of shaping children's lives.

Yell

John,

Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion with teacher leader (and Teaching 2030 co-author) Ariel Sacks, CTQ President Barnett Berry, and Dean of the College of Bank Street Jon Synder, moderated by Ronald Thorpe of WNET. The discussion on the future of teacher preparation interested members, held at The Ford Foundation headquarters, touched upon the issues with the current teacher preparation system. Even after re-reading the book we helped co-author, I didn’t know what to expect. Would the audience receive our messages of current teacher preparation well? How do the audience members’ own interest mesh or clash with our thoughts about the future of education, wrought with enough mixed emotions that it’s truly hard to predict?

Having said that, I’d say it went very well.

While Dr. Snyder and Dr. Berry definitely had their pieces to share, including our beautifully done video from Sunni Brown, the audience took particular interest in the teachers’ thoughts on teacher preparation. They hummed when Ariel described her vision for teacherpreneurship, in light of her own experiences as a teacher leader in her school. They paid close attention as I described my own thoughts about alternative certification, particularly with my experience as an NYC Teaching Fellow. For a second there, Ariel and I felt that we were being heard.

Now, if only we can spread that throughout the nation to some of the most vested citizens in education we have.

Teacher voice is critical in any discussion about education. Whether we’re in our schools or in think tanks, the progress we make as educators depends highly on whether the experts within the classroom can determine the parameters of their professionalism individually and collectively. Some people fear this, wondering whether too much teacher voice will elicit petulant jabber or nonsensical “union” talk. They ignore teachers en masse when they step out of the superhero / surrogate parent stereotypes. They pinpoint the one “bad” teacher they had in their lives even when they owe much of their present successes to the plethora of average to terrific teachers who outnumbered their one or two bad experiences.

Interestingly, they treat teachers like politicians in that they love the ones close to them, but detest the whole body of people who consider themselves politicians, even when they’re simply serving their constituency. Unlike politicians, however, teachers lean more towards collaboration and reflection because it’s part of their profession. They see themselves as crucial pieces to the Jenga puzzle that is a school building, and if teachers can’t voice their opinions, then the pieces continue to rumble against the players’ fingers.

There is hope, though. Representatives from all walks of life want to hear teacher leaders speak on how to improve their section of the education world. Principals want to get involved with better preparation for the principals, who are in essence the teacher of teachers. Education thought leaders want to hear what teachers think about how their research and policies might work in practicum. Colleges want to hear how they can improve their programs to better prepare teachers for the realities of the classroom and giving every teacher the opportunity to assume a teacher leader position, and infuse a bit of initiative and spirit into school staff.

As Barnett Berry mentioned in the panel, there’s evidence of our models for teacher leadership right in our schools, pointing to the couple of co-panelists who currently work in the classroom and assist in pushing their schools further. If the evidence is there, we should push for further professionalization, with the ability to discuss our concerns on an equal footing with other allies (and contrarians).

Judging from the conversations at the panel, the teacher voice is something we can all endorse.