Since we’ve added more members to this little Teaching2030 party, it’s only right we address the readership instead of each other. So, lets get it started in here! I am so excited that Shannon and Jennifer have been joining us in this space looking at the future of teaching in 2030. The monthly twitter chats they have been leading with the hashtag #teaching2030 are really fast paced and refreshing conversations being held every third Thursday of the month from 8:30 – 9:30 p.m. I haven’t missed a session because the questions and comments are so interesting and challenging.

Two and 1/2 years ago I became a child development specialist thinking that it was a natural progression. I was studying educational leadership and felt that I needed to leave the classroom to get a taste of what leadership means. I missed the classroom seriously within 2 months. I kept thinking I wanted to be a different kind of leader. One closer to the ones we describe in Teaching 2030. I expressed my concern to my supervisor who was supportive and encouraged me by saying, “It will get easier, I felt the same way.” I struggled through and wrote about it. I have learned a lot in this position. I learned how to be more organized, to nurture young teachers, and to inspire new hope in seasoned ones. I think the most important thing I learned was that I could have been a better teacher. After visiting some of our classrooms I left thinking, “If I only had a second chance.” Then, after holiday break one of our teachers announced her resignation. I thought about it for about a week and 1/2 and then realized, I wanted to go back. I really didn’t think it would happen this year and then Bam!

Today I became a hybrid teacher. Crazy. Starting next Tuesday I will be leaving my full-time child development specialist position with Head Start to teach a class of 17, 3-year-olds. I will also be serving, at least until the end of the year, as the child development specialist for our Early Head Start program. I get to support 12 teachers of children who range in age from six months to 3-years old. I will work my 8 hour schedule like I do now but, I get to hang out with kids.

I have to give a seriously loud “Thank you!” shout out to my supervisor who has supported my career development, encouraged me to take on new responsibilities, and then gave me back my dream job as a teacher. I also want to thank my wife who encouraged me to  go for it. I will let you know how this goes but it will definitely be different.

I have only one word to describe how I am feeling.

“Wheeeee!”

image: http://www.wallpaper4me.com/wallpaper/Finger-Painting/

John -

It feels so good to be back! I’ve only been able to differentiate day and night by the amount of buzz I hear outside. With my newborn’s eating schedule out of rhythm right now, we’ve gently tried to encourage him to take the 2-3 hours route so we can get some sleep in the intervals.

In your blog post, “Learning How To Be Principled,” you said:

“if [Matt Damon] met Kilian, or some of the other former TFA fellows like Sophia Pappas, Executive Director of the NYC Office of Early Childhood Education, or Jennifer Rosenbaum, Director of Instruction and Performance, he might think twice about refusing on principle. He might decide to use the recognition by the NEA as an opportunity to express a more nuanced opinion that might make a substantive difference [...] his refusal to accept a recognition from the National Education Association on principle makes his passion in Washington look more like a publicity stunt than a passionate belief. It also casts whatever strides towards teacher voice that were gained in D.C. in the shadow of Damon as just another education advocate against reform. I don’t really think this is the case but it puts my own perspective in relief. How can we have strong opinions without arguing for arguments’ sake. In this case, disagreeing on principle actually made him seem less principled to me because he squandered an opportunity.”

Well, first, let me say that I found him fairly genuine at the protest, and the earnest with which he approaches his work solidifies his solid reputation. Having said that, I don’t believe that all their contentions about Teach for America (and other alternative certification programs) are prudent. As someone who graduated from NYC Teaching Fellows, I don’t consider myself unprepared for the classroom. Frankly, some of us can jump in to the classroom and learn on the job for different reasons. It really depends on whether or not the school has the right staff to supplement the perceived lack of training for our newest teachers.

But that’s the equivalent of pulling hairs. I do believe in the idea of teacher residency as a model for training teachers, and that seems to get the most bang for its buck. I also believe that we as a country can come up with a handful of tenets that we of like spirit can come up with that will generate the best achievement for students. When I was younger, I used to believe that having a really small unit of people who believed in about 95% of the same things can get the most accomplished. I used to believe that all the groups I saw running together all believed in the same things and had the same behaviors.

As I’ve gotten older and seen how different movements work, I’ve noticed that, whether charitable or nefarious, the most effective movements have a small, malleable, and memorable set of core beliefs and tenets for their congregation. Obviously, the core team of Teaching 2030 represents that. The diversity in ed-thought reigned supreme over the diversity of experiences, but we all held a few core beliefs that make our partnership so unique. Items like student learning, teacher voice, and social value on education all matter to us, and we always took our conversations (and disagreements) back to that. We never needed reminders about respect, professionalism, and care because it was assumed that we had those three tenets concretely affirmed for us.

Some of this plays itself out in other venues where the amount of people is inversely proportional to the amount of tenets these people can agree upon. Once we strike a nice balance between those tenets. That’s why, unlike my colleagues who look for ideological purity, I can shake hands with a much broader set of people. Like Art Wise. Like Deborah Meier. Like Diane Ravitch. Like Pedro Noguera.

Like Matt Damon. I don’t know what else played into the decision of dissenting against the NEA award, but I wonder if there was more space to discuss the nuances of the alternative certification discussion. It’s my background and I wouldn’t know what to do myself if, after graduating from four years of undergraduate school, I’d have to go through another four years for education. Then again, Dr. Carlsson-Paige, Mr. Damon, and I agree on about 90% of things in education. Actually, Mr. Betlach might be in that boat as well. The passion for education is certainly there.

Let’s find a way to find those tenets we hold dear to us and build from there. I’m sure we can think of something.

Dear Jose and John,

Five tweets really caught my attention during our monthly #teaching2030 Twitter chat last Thursday evening. The chat has quickly grown into a dynamic conversation about issues that matter to teachers. Our topic this month was teacher preparation.  Even though they were limited to 140 characters, teachers still shared some amazing insights.  Check out five of my favorite Tweets from our #teaching2030 chat about teacher prep and the context for each tweet:

{Laurence reflects on the best aspects of teacher prep programs and experiences}
@informedteacher: What works is the experience of the true grind of the classroom. #teaching2030

{Amy responds to what is needed from teacher prep programs}
@amykfmurphy: #teaching2030 I think many programs talk about best practices from research but don’t model them nearly enough. Student teachers need to see them model!

{John responds to the question:  How might it have benefited you to have some coursework taught by professors on site in your classroom w/ students?}
@MrBernia: That is a HUGE idea! Wow! Would it look like a “teaching school” much like a “teaching hospital?” #teaching2030

{Mark shares thoughts about the types of experiences needed during teacher preparation}
@jmarkcoleman:  More time working directly with students. Student interaction is a craft and finding your voice doesn’t happen overnight. #teaching2030

{Ryan thinks about what the future holds for teacher prep}
@ryankinser: Virtual coaching has teacher prep promise. Versatile, real-time help from pros. #teaching2030

Wow!  My mind has raced for days thinking about some of the suggestions—more modeling, “teaching schools,” more student interaction, virtual coaching.  I can’t help wonder how panels of practicing teachers might improve teacher prep programs around our nation.  These teachers are speaking.  Are those who prepare teachers for America’s classrooms listening?  I certainly hope so!

Join us for the next #teaching2030 chat on Thursday, February 16^th at 8:30 – 9:30 ET.  The topic will be 21^st-century learning.  Hope to see you there!

Jennifer

Jose -

One of the pitfalls of writing an education blog is that I am constantly taking a position on an issue only to to find a counterpoint to my position that proves my previous opinion less right. I didn’t say wrong, just less right. I have come to the point of view that only allows me to say with intense conviction that I believe in balance. So here is some TFA flavored balance for the policy table.

I am not a fan of Teach for America as a way to “fix” education. I am a fan of many of the people I have met who actually participated in TFA. One of those was our co-author, Kilian Betlach. I know that he went into his teaching experience for all the right reasons. He wanted to make a difference, he cared about the kids he taught, he learned a lot and likely got quite good at teaching. At least that is what his students might say.

When he left to work for EdTrust, I figured it was a natural progression for him, he is a brilliant writer with well reasoned and researched arguments that support what he wrote about at EdTrust and especially in our book, Teaching 2030. Then Kilian surprised me. He dove back into the deep end of high poverty education as an administrator. He is currently the AP at Elmhurst Community Prep, a small middle school in the Oakland Unified School District. One of the things I always liked about my talks with Kilian is his passionate belief and defense of his ideas. I remember shooting basketball with him and talking passionately about the unused time after school when kids could be making academic gains. He thought the day should be longer or at least have targeted tutoring. I thought that kids needed a break after school. Many of my high poverty students don’t get to play outside after school. Their only opportunity for play was within the school setting where there was less of an opportunity for random danger or little minds to learn things they shouldn’t have to. We came to an impasse, I said, maybe if I taught middle school I would see it from his perspective, but from my view point it I want more play for my young students. He said, I can see your point but I still think after school programs are an important piece of addressing inequality.

We agreed to disagree while both having learned something from it. This is why I say, thank you to Alexander Russo, when he points out educators and their advocates who are generally disagreeable on “principle” with those in power. I read an essay by Michael Walzer (1973) recently that discussed the problem of “dirty hands”. It brought me to the idea that perhaps, when we refuse to get our hands “dirty” we are really refusing to acknowledge that substantive change happens with compromise or at least, the acknowledgement of disagreement while still  finding respect and a way for contrasting visions to be valued. Refusal to participate on principle could actually less morally sound than “getting your hands dirty” and compromising.

According to Russo, Matt Damon refused the NEA recognition to make a statement. He didn’t think the NEA should be in bed with TFA. But, if he met Kilian, or some of the other former TFA fellows like Sophia Pappas, Executive Director of the NYC Office of Early Childhood Education, or Jennifer Rosenbaum, Director of Instruction and Performance, he might think twice about refusing on principle. He might decide to use the recognition by the NEA as an opportunity to express a more nuanced opinion that might make a substantive difference. I know you met Matt at the SOS march and he gave a great speech in Washington but his refusal to accept a recognition from the National Education Association on principle makes his passion in Washington look more like a publicity stunt than a passionate belief. It also casts whatever strides towards teacher voice that were gained in D.C. in the shadow of Damon as just another education advocate against reform. I don’t really think this is the case but it puts my own perspective in relief. How can we have strong opinions without arguing for arguments’ sake. In this case, disagreeing on principle actually made him seem less principled to me because he squandered an opportunity. Maybe he would like to respond here. ;) I’m just sayin’, its the balance that counts.

Hey John and Jose,

I always enjoy this time of year.  Looking ahead to the possibilities of a brand new year fills me with excitement and hope.  Over the last few years we’ve shared our dreams and goals for our profession with one another, much of it outlined in our book, TEACHING 2030.  I’m so glad to see this conversation expand using social media.  Our #teaching2030 Twitter chat every third Thursday of the month continues to draw a crowd passionately interested in advancing our profession.  The December 15 chat on teacher evaluation was no exception!

The conversation began with a discussion on the essentials of teacher evaluation. Some highlights:

• @stephe1234: “We first have to create a culture of relational trust and growth among teacher and administrators.”
• @MsMagiera: “Teacher eval must feel constructive, not punitive. Tchrs must feel safe enough to fail—without failure, there is no growth.” 

While it might seem daunting to deeply discuss a topic in only 140 characters at a time, we moved on to a discussion about peer evaluation.  @ratzelster, @CohenD, and @MWilliamMoran engaged in a lively debate on the role of peers in teacher evaluation.  @ratzelster worried that peer evaluation would take time away from PLCs and that peer evaluation could risks eroding those relationships. But @MWilliamMoran wrote, “Peer evaluation builds community, strengthens morale, and are often more trusted than evals coming from superiors.” 

The participants in the #teaching2030 chat had much to say about the direction teacher evaluation should take in the future. Some highlights from this discussion:

• @TRackowitz:  “Shouldn’t master teachers be held to a higher standard?” 
• @CohenD: “I’d hope we move towards differentiating evaluation just as we do for students.  My needs are quite different from new teachers.” 
• @MoniseLSeward: “There must also be ‘space’ to included things teachers do to foster learning/creativity that cannot be measured.” 
• @rcniman: “Should parents and students have input in evaluations?”  

Wow!  When teachers gather, the time always flies and leaves us with much more to share and discuss.  Luckily, the next #teaching2030 chat is coming up soon: January 19, 2012 from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. (ET). 

The new year brings great possibilities for teachers.  Teachers curious about exploring, sharing, and engaging in conversations about our profession are invited to participate every third Thursday of each month in our #teaching2030 Twitter chat. I’m looking forward to a wonderful year of hopeful discussions about the future of teaching.

The complete transcript from the December 15 chat is available here.

Jose -

Teacher evaluation is intricately tied to teacher preparation and the future of education. In a recent interview with John Merrow, Barnett Berry and David Stiener compare notes on who and what makes up the current American teaching force. Barnett makes some excellent points that get to the heart of why teacher prep, teacher evaluation, and education reform are all talking about the same thing, what makes quality teaching. He describes the multitude of “easy button” alternative teacher certification that put inexperienced/under-supported teachers in classrooms to fail and leave teaching within five years.

These people that leave teaching so quickly could be great teachers but, they “leave before they get good at it” as Berry says. I want to make a distinction here, Barnett Berry is not talking about teacher quality, he is talking about teaching quality. I firmly believe that we need to talk about the profession of teaching from the standpoint of determining what makes great teaching not great teachers. When we talk about great teachers we always end up talking about great teachers we have known. Invariably these are selfless “super heroes” who sacrifice them selves to the greater good of society. When we talk about great teachers we should also be talking about the context of great teachers, ie great teaching. Great teaching takes place in the space between students and teachers.

Merrow also recently wrote a Huffington Post blog on the academic background of the American teaching force. It is often cited that teachers come from the least academically proficient college graduates in our country. John Merrow did the math to describe who the teachers are that we are talking about. I converted his explanation into 3 infographics. As you can see, we may not recruit the “best and the brightest” into the profession but the average American teacher is clearly above average before they even enter the classroom. Now lets talk about solutions that address teaching quality, not teacher quality. As Merrow says at the close of his post, “Could teacher training be improved? Could working conditions be improved? Could starting salaries and the bizarre compensation system that back-loads rewards be improved? Yes, yes and most definitely yes.”

Hey John,

As the year comes to a close, there’s a collection of very bold and progressive teachers voicing their opinions on the hot item of the moment: teacher evaluation. Some of my favorites include Renee Moore’s The Future Is Now for Teacher Evaluation and Michael Moran’s Context Matters. In each of these essays, there’s accurate and nuanced reflection about the profession and, more importantly, there’s a sense that we can’t rely on a random, outside observer handing out standardized tests as a measure of what the kids actually know and / or what the teacher actually taught.

From Renee:

How can we evaluate such rich complexity with all the varying levels of performance and experience they represent across the largest profession in America—with a few five-minute walk-bys and a checklist? Hardly. The old factory evaluation model, which was never a good fit for education, will be even less so as we move further into the potential of immersed learning and interconnected teaching. One principal trying to evaluate an entire faculty whose members practice a dizzying variety of pedagogical skills will be painfully ineffective. Like our students, teachers need assessment of our work based on a combination of measures and reviewers, with teachers taking responsibility for our own professional growth based on mutually established, student-centered goals.

To get there from here will require transformed thinking and some significant power shifts, neither of which, history reminds us, come easily. But I believe we are on the verge of such a shift as teaching finally morphs into a true profession. One of the trademarks of a profession is peer review of each others’ work against high standards established by the profession.

From Michael:

So, what should teacher evaluations look like? They should look like the teacher. They should look like the students and the classroom in which those students learn. Teacher evaluations should look like the grade level, content area, and community the teacher teaches. They should look like the goals that teachers, students, and administrators set for themselves, their classes, and the school as a whole.

The point I’m trying to make here is that a lot of the evidence that indicates teacher effectiveness is dependent on context. Sure, great teachers are great leaders, and great leaders can lead anywhere, but you run into a problem when an art teacher is evaluated on the standardized test results of one grade level in mathematics. Evaluations need to be multifaceted, taking into consideration not only student performance on standardized tests, but the academic growth of students as demonstrated by a portfolio of artifacts, the relationships that teachers build with students and their parents as demonstrated by student and family evaluative surveys, and observations from not only administrators, but peers and master teachers.

Powerful pieces there. Read the rest (and more opinions) here.

We are in a profession that needs voices on the school level discussing teaching. With so much misinformation getting out about the teaching profession, it’s not enough for teachers to stand by and let evaluation happen to that. We ought to shape policy and create our own solutions.

Hey John and Jose,

On November 17, CTQ ventured into its second #teaching2030 Twitter chat. The topic for this chat was measuring student learning, and more than 50 people weighed in. Some were familiar names from CTQ’s Teacher Leaders Network (TLN), but others were new to these conversations and to CTQ. A few people who follow me on Twitter joined in. This chat seemed like the start of a much deeper conversation, as we only had a chance to scratch the surface of the topic. Still, the participants shared some amazing insight (You can view the chat transcript here.)

We began this Twitter adventure to give people a place to discuss and add to the ideas presented in the book TEACHING 2030. I have been on Twitter for a bit more than a year and have participated in chats in this format. But this was only the second one I have facilitated. It can be daunting to express yourself in 140 characters, and even more difficult with a complex topic like assessment. That didn’t limit the free flow of ideas, and the format seemed to pull the essential questions to the surface much faster than a webinar or any other longer discussion could.

Participants raised some powerful issues, such as parents’ involvement in assessment, that provoked deep thinking. Commented one participant: “Parents often only see the final grade. We should teach them to focus on progress/what the child has learned.” The opportunity has never been more present to help parents focus on narratives of student learning.

Several in the group offered suggestions, ranging from making the language we use in assessments more parent-friendly to moving toward more descriptive grades. Teacher Dave Orphal tweeted: “If you see your kid act in the play, you don’t need to see their grade in drama class.” Another teacher shared a positive assessment experience: “We had kids demonstrate proficiencies and showed results to parents. And when we had ‘exhibitions,’ parents were invited.” A Tweeter chimed in with a parent’s point of view: “Pre & post tests are excellent assessments! My son and I just had this discussion.”

The take-home message of all this is that we need a good road map of where we are and where we are going with our students. This is nothing new. What is different is that we are asking the important questions in a medium that allows for real-time conversations among a diverse population. Twitter has been described as a great force for democracy. To pose a question and have a large group of educators, policy folks, and parents probe, think, and answer is both democratic and powerful.

Though we didn’t have time to answer many of the questions posed that night, we have started a conversation that will. Twitter is an amazing format for elevating teacher voices and spreading great ideas and, yes, answering tough questions. The value of the medium is in the diversity and number of the participants. Your voice, your ideas, and your questions are all important. I came away with a dozen new strategies to improve student assessment in my classes. It amazes me that this all happened within the limits of one hour and 140-character tweets. I hope you can join our next #teaching2030 Twitter chat—on teacher evaluation—December 15 at 8:30 p.m. ET.

John,

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to jump on a panel at Bank Street College with a few education colleagues (including representatives from Hechinger Report and Gotham Schools) about education and the media. Save for a few questions about my blog (see: teacher voice), the general topics at the panel centered around perceptions of teachers in the media. Teachers on the panel were asked how they felt about the constant teacher-bashing by the Rush Limbaughs and Fox News pundits while education reporters and researchers discussed how difficult topics like value-added measures and teacher working conditions were to fully write for the American public.

One part of the discussion that struck me was teacher preparation. While I have a hard time recalling every bit of the conversation, I remember I mentioned three things (which you’ll probably recognize)

• We ought to have differentiated pathways into the profession, so long as …
• We find ways to ensure that teachers are adequately prepared for the system they’re encountering
• There’s a certain privilege in attending places like Bank Street in the kind of education those students receive that I didn’t necessarily get

I might have gotten under some people’s skin with the last statement, but there’s an element of truth to it. In no way am I suggesting that we only need to come from so-called elite colleges. Actually, I’m suggesting we need to discuss what we consider “elite.” There’s a functional difference between a college with an awesome name but whose students don’t see a correlation between what they learned in the ivory tower and their experience in the classroom. While most teachers surveyed here believe that their teacher preparation program was satisfactory, they tended to trust in-school dimensions of their preparation much more than anything the college can provide. That probably has to do with the fact that many colleges concentrate too much on theory instead of practice.

Thus, the place doesn’t have to be elite in name, but functionality.

I know plenty of folks who graduated from a smaller school, but whose professors gave them the rigorous, thorough foundations to at least get the technical sides of the profession right before they came in the classroom. Things like lesson plans, unit plans, rubrics, assessments, creating independent thinkers, differentiation, and questioning don’t come naturally to people and have to be taught. Some of this stuff requires tons of professional development from inside and outside sources. Walking into the classroom and surviving (!) the first year is hard enough without knowing how to create a critical question from the top of the lesson, but if we’re given the tools and techniques to withstand the culture shock of standing in front of a live audience for 10 months out of the year, then that goes a long way in creating a stronger teaching core.

In a way, educators who believe in this Teaching 2030 vision are, in fact, seeking a secret technocracy, where the merits of our most expert individuals hold more merit than the whims of an appointed few. In this case, the experts happen to be educators, educational researchers, and those who seek to enhance this valuable profession for our students. We can’t rely on the unreliable (i.e. standardized tests) to tell us whether teachers actually matter. We have lots of evidence for things that do matter, though, and one of those is whether people can push out of their comfort zones and into the mode of a professional teacher.

New teachers entering in the profession deserve the best foundation possible, and secretly, we’re going to need a few more technocrats like us.

Jose -

I wanted to share a guest post I did for the online discussion portion of Learning Matters, John Merrow’s education show. I wanted to write, “I am thankful to you for standing up for teachers for 30 years.” I knew that wasn’t what he wanted when he asked,

“What about the current state of education are you most thankful for?”
I am most thankful for increased focus on accomplished teaching in our public schools. Over the past several years the rhetoric about teaching has been mostly focused on the mediocre and failing teachers in our public schools. A crescendo of teacher bashing, which began in 2010 with the L.A. Times use of value-added measures to publicly “out” good and bad teachers reached fevered pitch in February, 2011  when Gov. Scott Walker stripped collective bargaining rights from teachers, seems to have abated. The likes of Joel Klien, Michelle Rhee, and Chester Finn have changed their tone in the popular media these days. It may be due to several thousand teachers standing up for themselves in July at the Save Our Schools march or it may be due to the increased number of young and seasoned teachers speaking out about education.

One might call me foolish. I don’t spend much time reading local newspapers online so I am not so exposed to the everyday comment venom spat by Joe the Plumber types across our nation.  I have spent some time listening to the bigger pundits and it seems that many of those that felt safe bashing teachers less than six months ago have taken a step back from trying to push us off that particular cliff. As recently as July John Merrow described David Brooks as one of the band of conquistadors in the education wars.

Yet, in September I attended the New York Times Schools for Tomorrow technology and innovation conference and was pleasantly surprised by David Brooks. All of the panelists, including Klien and Finn, seemed to show a little more understanding of the learning process than they previously seemed capable. In the opening session David Brooks said,

“… people learn from people they love, they don’t learn from computers they love, and anything that gets in the way between the relationship between the teacher and the student is something I’m likely to be skeptical of.”

This step back from the edge of blaming teachers and increased focus on the relationships great teachers have with their students is new. It may have been because the NY Times made a big deal about inviting some teachers to come to their education conference, after a bit of fuss was made about the lack of educators on the panels but, this too is heartening. The fact that the NY Times would back track even a little bit to include teachers means that teachers will no longer be left out of the public discussion about what happens in our classrooms.

BIO: John M. Holland has dedicated his career to serving the neediest and youngest school children as an NBCT preschool teacher of 3- and 4-year-olds from Richmond, Virginia’s toughest neighborhoods. Currently he writes about Pre-K issues on his blog Emergent Learner.  His passions include educational policy, teacher leadership, creativity, and 21st-century learning.  He is a coauthor of TEACHING 2030 and continues to explore the Future of Teaching.