I was invited by National Journal.com, Education Experts blog to share my reaction to the final report of the MET study. Here's what editor Fawn Johnson asked: What is most surprising about the Gates’
findings? What are the easiest ways teacher evaluations can be tweaked to more
accurately reflect effectiveness? How important are student perception surveys?
What lies ahead for videotaping teachers’ lessons? Do we need to learn anything
more about measuring student achievement? Is the task laid out by Gates too
daunting for schools to handle?

I deliberately avoided looking at any of the social media
spin on the final report of
the Gates Foundation funded Measurements of Effective Teaching (MET) study
until after I had done my own reading. I
took the same approach to the release
of the first report back in December 2010.

Then, as now, there are several things about this study that
I admire. Like Fawn Johnson (National
Journal.com Education Experts editor), I am impressed with the seriousness
and sincerity of the researchers in tackling the complex issue of teacher
evaluation, especially since there are too many people who want to oversimplify
it. I’m also glad to know the data from
this study (unlike some of the earlier studies involving value-added measures)
is being made available to the wider research community for independent
investigation of results.

Most delightful of all is the MET researchers’ recognition
of the importance of student voice in determining the quality of teachers’
work. If we are at all serious about preparing our youth to be critical
thinkers and contributing citizens, we must start by listening to what only
they can tell us about what is and is not working in our classrooms and schools.

Also, unlike some critics of the study, I reject the
complaints about the MET’s inclusion of classroom observations by multiple evaluators
as an important way to measure teacher effectiveness.  The research team recommended that those observations
should not be over or under represented in the blend of measures used in a
teacher evaluation system. Here I’m
using my parent lens (my husband and I have raised 11 children and shepherded
them all through public school).  There
is essential information about a teacher’s effectiveness that no test data can
reveal: How does that teacher treat my child? I have known teachers who could
boast impressive student test numbers, but disrespected and demeaned their
students in the process.

The purpose of teacher evaluation is to answer two questions
(not one): How good a job is this teacher doing, AND how can this teacher do
better? Candid, objective feedback from outside evaluators and thoughtful
reflection by teachers on our work is essential for continuing professional
growth.

Teachers submitting video of ourselves teaching for evaluation
purposes is not new.  Part of National
Board Certification, a voluntary process for advanced teaching credential,
requires teachers to not only include video examples, but extensive written
analysis by the teacher candidate of his/her work using the video as evidence.

As a National Board Certified Teacher myself, and now as a
member of the Board of Directors of the National
Board of Professional Teaching Standards, I am gratified that the study
confirms what the National Board has known and proven for 25 years: There are
significant differences in the quality of instruction provided by teachers, and
those differences have critical impact on student achievement and on student
learning.  

It was not the purpose of the MET study to distinguish
between student achievement and
student learning, but their
interchangeable use of those terms in the report further confuses the concepts
in the public conversation. In 2011, a task force commissioned by NBPTS (which
included Robert Linn, Rick Hess, Lloyd Bond, and Lee Shulman) released a report
that supplied much-needed clarification:

Student achievement is the
status of subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in
time.

Student learning is growth
in subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skills over time…It is student
learning—not student achievement—that is most relevant to defining and
assessing accomplished teaching.

Standardized tests are the instruments we use (for now) to
measure student achievement, but there is much, much more that we need to know
about measuring student achievement and student learning. As my higher
education colleagues and many employers will testify, students meeting an
arbitrary state cut score may (or may not) indicate factual recall of certain
immediate learning objectives, but the method falls grievously short as a
measure of what students actually know and can do after the test. How this
scenario will change if, when, and after the “next-generation” assessments
promised under the Common Core Standards are implemented remains to be seen. But
if all we want from teacher evaluation is a way to identify which teachers are
the best bets for raising student test scores, we would be setting a
disgustingly low bar indeed.

Implementing teacher evaluation systems with a balance of
multiple measures as recommended by the MET study will present significant hurdles
to states and school districts, cost being only one of them. However, there are
already some promising starts. Consider what these teachers from
Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington have to say about the challenges of
implementing such a teacher evaluation system. Notably, these teachers have
also decided
not to give the state-required tests to their students this Spring.

Surprise! Effective teacher evaluation not only distinguishes
teachers; it empowers them.

Cross-posted at education.nationaljournal.com

National Board Certified Teacher, Glenda Ritz, presented the voters of Indiana clear, consistent, convincing evidence that she deserved to be the new state school chief.

Although outspent by a 5 to 1 margin, Glenda defeated incumbent Tony Bennett (R), who had been hailed as a national example of education reform. She was the only Democrat to win a state office in Indiana, and she won it with more votes than almost any other candidate. 

Glenda, a 33-year teaching veteran, is a library/media specialist at Crooked Creek Elementary School in Indianapolis, and serves (as I do) on the Board of Directors of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). 

Glenda's victory came as a result of massive grassroots reaction to Bennett's policy moves, rejected by parents and teachers across the state and across political lines. Glenda's platform, however, was straightforward and student-centered: 

1. Give more time to education, less time to testing.

2. Give more control to local school districts to implement state and federal standards

3. Make sure every child is safe and respected at school and at school activities.

4. Make teacher licensing and evaluation standards top in the nation. 

5.  Clear the barriers to quality vocational education.

Her decision to run and her victory should serve as an encouragement to teacher leaders across the nation: Don't just complain; be the change. 

Hey Jose –

As you know, I have been following the NBPTS search for a new CEO as both a disenchanted NBCT and a passionate teacher. A little while ago the new leader was announced. Ron Thorpe, Vice President & Director, Education for WNET public TV in New York, seems to be just the candidate the NBPTS needs to create a new culture for the organization charged with defining, evaluating, and promoting accomplished teaching in America’s schools. Below is my open letter to Ron that describes what I think he might need to know about accomplished teaching and the NBPTS and what I hope he can accomplish during his tenure.

Dear Ron Thorpe

President & CEO

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS),

We know what great teachers do. When we peek into their classrooms, it’s easy to see. They are engaged with students, they know their content, they assess student learning to improve their teaching, they influence their peers in positive ways, and they work collaboratively with other teachers. While easy to recognize, these traits can be difficult to measure. One organization has made significant headway, though: the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

For 25 years, NBPTS has worked to define excellence in teaching. Its mission is “to establish high and rigorous standards for what teachers should know and be able to do, to certify teachers who meet those standards, and to advance other education reforms for the purpose of improving student learning in American schools” (NBPTS, from What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do, 1989, p. 1). NBPTS has accomplished the first two goals, having established rigorous standards and developed processes for certifying accomplished practitioners, including a performance-based assessment that is widely accepted as scientifically valid.

But now it’s time for NBPTS to tackle its third goal: “to advance other education reforms for the purpose of improving student learning in American schools.” The organization has raised the profile of accomplished teaching in America—but it represents only a fraction of highly accomplished teachers. It is time to extend that reach and also to advocate for the best hopes of the teaching profession.

The Future of NBPTS

I hope you are a special kind of leader: a “boundary spanner” who is future-oriented and ready to collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders, including NBCTs.

What do I mean by “future-oriented”? TEACHING 2030 outlines a hopeful vision for how schools and the teaching profession can change to better serve all students. Improving student outcomes will require educational leaders to work collaboratively, rely on teachers to apply their expertise locally and nationally, to create a more flexible and vibrant teaching profession. And we call upon everyone—teachers, students, parents, policy makers, and national organizations like the National Education Association (NEA) and the NBPTS—to take a solutions-focused approach to creating a better future for ALL students and families.

The job description posted by NBPTS stated the organization seeks a “visionary” individual to “take the helm” of the organization. This metaphor reminds me of a sea captain or old-school “captain of industry”—not a team player (and definitely not an accomplished teacher). Doesn’t NBPTS really need a new type of leader, a passionate professional who will take a collaborative approach to improving the culture, reach, and impact of the organization?

A New Type of Leader

The NBPTS holds at the ready what may be the most powerful untapped resource for educational change in our nation: 91,000 accomplished teachers. Ron, I hope you are prepared (and eager) to collaborate with these expert educators in authentic ways. I hope that you, an accomplished executive, are able to recognize the limits your expertise—learning from and leading with accomplished educators who have a deep understanding of teachers and teaching. Here’s a truly radical idea: what if your right hand person was actually a teacher? Richard Riley took this approach when he moved from Governor to heading up the U.S. Dept. of Ed. In an interview in July 2011 Riley said,

I never made a major decision in Washington dealing with education without a teacher in the room. Normally that was Dr. Terry Dozier, who was Teacher of the Year in South Carolina and National Teacher of the Year, and had a phenomenal record as a social studies teacher. I enjoyed having people there who disagreed with me. I welcomed that and people knew that.

And the new leader must be able to collaborate effectively with external organizations, too. As NBPTS works to spread the expertise of thousands of NBCTs, organizations like the Center for Teaching Quality could be valuable partners. And of course, developing productive partnerships will be critical to the NBPTS’s financial sustainability. For example, consider the local, state, and national partnerships developed by the National Endowment for the Arts, which have improved the funding structures and impact of the arts by linking local and federal support.

Finally, I hope you are willing to support a flexible teaching profession, encouraging NBCT leaders to advocate for accomplished teaching and the changes necessary to spread our best teachers’ expertise. What if NBPTS worked with local systems to create hybrid roles that let NBCTs continue to teach while also applying their skills and knowledge to schools’ most pressing problems? For example, what if NBPTS helped a terrific teacher to spend part of her day teaching third graders—and part of her day mentoring future NBCTs in a high-poverty, hard-to-staff school?

The key point made in NBPTS’s job description were that the new CEO needs to be visionary: the word “vision” was included three times. I sincerely hope that your “vision” is truly future-oriented. I hope it is not the singular vision of a Captain Ahab type, but a shared vision, incorporating the hopes of thousands of accomplished NBCTs who have the potential to dramatically change the teaching profession.

John,

I must say I appreciated your views on National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in a way that only a non-NBCT can. You brought out an important aspect of finding the appropriate leader for such a prestigious organization: finding the right archetype. Much of the criticisms you laid out, particularly where you call out the leadership for their bureaucratic style, point to the need to create different visions for leadership.

Missing in the dialogue to improve schools is this aspect of who evaluates teachers. People discussed items like common rubrics to use as a lens to limit the biases these evaluators come in with when looking at teaching in the classroom. Doesn’t that beg the question: shouldn’t the person who evaluates the teacher in the classroom have ultimately been an educator themselves? By that, I mean that they could have been a teacher, a principal, an instructional coach, or any level of academic savant in the building, and done so at a competent level.

(Not ironically, “competent” tends to be judged best by the very people who work right next to each other and those learning from those people).

Your choice of Renee Moore speaks volumes of what you believe about the profession. Yes, her voice demonstrates the awesome possibilities of having someone who understands the inner workings of teaching from a policy standpoint that’s ripe with depth about all types of children, not just the ones that stand to benefit from our current policy. She amalgamates the best from the past, present, and future of education, certainly. What we most appreciate about Renee is that she is a teacher’s teacher. I’ve never had a chance to traverse the Mississippi Delta, but I’ll put all my money on the fact that people observe her teaching as the barometer for effective teaching.

Yet, the power of people like her isn’t just in their teaching; it’s in their ability to translate that to those that don’t understand teaching on different levels. Yes, the first step to getting to this point is by elevating the teacher voice to where it’s less like a teachers’ lounge and more like a teachers’ roundtable, with teachers like Renee at the fore. In the comments, I noticed that Renee declined the offer for head of NBPTS, but the prototype makes sense: a person who can talk about the heights of good teaching and can translate that to a captive audience of non-educators and simultaneously has done that which they’ve spoken about to the masses.

While we try and find another one of her [we won't], the future has to push us in a direction where we elevate the profession from within our ranks. We have to lead the charge on these pieces, and if it means we develop the standards internally, then that’s what we’re doing. If it means setting up ways for all these expert teachers to run up to the lead to 2030, then that’s what we’re doing. We can even model this right in our schools, where we’re visiting each others’ classroom not to criticize, but to critique and offer questions.

Thus, when these leaders ascend into positions where they naturally bring forth into positions where they’re not just thinking of teaching in one classroom, but in multiple classrooms. I believe that was the principle, rather principal, premise of having a principal, or any leader really.

p.s. – This was a belated posting for Leadership Day 2011 hosted by Scott McLeod.

I've got an interesting speech to give this week.  I'm talking about what exactly teacher leadership means to a group of teachers in my district who just earned certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. 

In it, I begin a list of things that I would consider to be examples of "teacher leadership."  My goal is to provide concrete definitions of teacher leadership for teachers and principals to refer to. Read through my speech and see if you can add some more specific roles that teacher leaders fill in the comment section:

First, whenever I speak to a group of teachers like this, I like to be completely sure that I'm actually speaking to National Board Certified teachers.  Call it my own little "letter of verification."  So I'm going to share a collection of statements with you, and I want you to raise your hands each time you hear one that resonates with you.

Let's start simply:  Raise your hand if you thought the little blue box that landed on your doorstep last fall looked pretty harmless when it first arrived.  Now raise your hand if your mind changed round about December when your spouse and children were distant memories and your computer had replaced your best friends.

Yup.  National Board Certified Teachers.

Now raise your hand if the term 'assessment center' still gives you nightmares.  Me too!  Raise your hand if you ever cursed the margin and font size rules of the Board, just knowing that if you had a little more space you would be SURE to certify.  Raise your hand if you ever panicked after sealing one of your entries in those seemingly indestructible plastic baggies because you weren't sure that you put the right entry in the bag.

Those guys are National Board Certified!

Now for the real test, though.  Raise your hand if you drew a few strange looks when you stumbled completely exhausted into the post office last spring clutching your little blue box and willing to pay $10,000 to guarantee on time delivery to San Antonio?  And raise your hand if you nearly wore out the mouse button on your computer in November hitting the refresh button trying to get your results to load.

Definitely National Board Certified teachers!

Let me start by offering my sincere congratulations on a job well done!  As a fellow National Board Certified teacher, I know only too well exactly how much sacrifice and commitment that you had to invest to get to this point in your profession.  The countless hours of reading, writing, revising and reflecting culminate here where you get the public praise that you so clearly deserve.

And you definitely deserve it, don't you!  After all, you were willing to take a risk that few others are willing to take.  The chances are good that before you even attempted to certify that you felt pretty good about what you were doing in your classroom.  But you weren't satisfied with good feelings.  You chose to make what you do transparent and to set it open for critique.  Imagine how you would have felt had you not certified.  That's a fear that keeps hundreds of teachers from diving in the National Board waters.

The good news is that along with great risk comes great reward.  I mean, think about this:  You no longer have to wonder whether or not what you're doing in the classroom is right for kids.  Your practice has stood up against the most rigorous standards of excellence in our profession and been deemed accomplished.  What a good feeling, huh?

I think you'd all agree with me, though, that along with great reward comes great responsibility.  Our county, state and nation have set some pretty ambitious goals for public education.  You can see that ambition in the language that surrounds our profession.  We're charged with "Leaving No Child Behind," and "Ensuring Student Success."  "Failure's Not an Option" for us because failure means that students struggle---and that's something we cannot be okay with.

Sometimes this language just plain scares me.  It's intimidating to think of how much is expected of me as a classroom teacher.  I often have to remind myself that these challenges are really opportunities to be embraced.  The only hitch is that in order for us to succeed, each of you needs to be willing to step forward and lead.

That's a catchy little phrase, isn't it? 

Ever since I certified back in 1997, people have been telling me that I'm a teacher leader.  The funny part is that no one ever bothered to explain to me exactly what being a teacher leader meant!  So I've spent the better part of the past 12 years stumbling through the professional dark trying to figure it all out, and luckily for you, I've got a definition to share with you today:

Teacher leaders are practicing educators who are committed to driving change.

Nice, huh?  The only hitch is that the first group of teachers that I presented my definition to hated it!  "That doesn't help us at all, Bill," they said.  "What we really need is for someone to tell us exactly what teacher leaders do.  What does teacher leadership look like in action?"

So I decided to put together a list:

For me, teacher leadership started by simply engaging my colleagues in meaningful conversations about teaching and learning.  I figured that it was impossible to drive change unless we had some real transparency around what it was that we were doing with students. 

Teacher leadership probably also means supporting new colleagues, don't you think?  No matter how good university education programs are, nothing can really prepare you for this gig!  Driving change means lending a hand to the teachers on our hallway who need us the most. 

And I reckon that driving change requires a deep and meaningful understanding of current practices, too.  Teacher leaders, then, are constantly researching and reading about effective instruction.  They've got an almost unsettling fear of stagnation!

Driving change also requires a willingness to raise your voice a bit.  Teacher leaders are always willing to speak up in faculty and team meetings to lend guidance or expertise.  They're presenting at conferences and finding new ways to use digital tools like blogs and wikis to share ideas and resources with the world.  

But most importantly, driving change means having a steadfast belief that reform rests in our hands.  Teacher leaders don't stand around patiently waiting for others to take action.  Instead, they're always acting.  They don't see National Board Certification as an ending.  Instead, they see it as a new beginning--as an invitation to become a forerunner in our profession.

I can honestly say that I'm jazzed to welcome you as my Board Certified colleagues because I'm confident that there isn't anything that we can't do as long as we're willing to walk forward together.

And what an incredible journey that could be!

(Image credit:  365 Day 29 by Shiznotty, licensed Creative Commons: Attribution)