View Discussion: Last to First | First to Last
Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 28, 2008, 9:00am

Steve Farkas: 

Good morning and welcome. The discussion we are about to embark upon is predicated upon the assumption that a new deal for teachers is necessary. But before we get into what it would look like, I'd like to ask: Who's really interested in a new deal?  Where's the energy for transforming schools going to come from?  Are teacher unions (local or national) going to be the driving force? Are new teachers going to be enthusiastic advocates? Will district administrators or state legislators spearhead change? Are there particular areas/school districts that are much more ready than others for a new deal, either because of local ideology or need (urban-high poverty)?

Or is this a great idea without a real constituency?

Mike Petrilli Vice President for National Programs and Policy Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Posted October 28, 2008, 10:03am

Mike Petrilli: 

Great questions, Steve. Let’s assume that the “new deal” for teachers is something along the lines of higher pay (particularly early in teachers’ careers) in return for less job security and more modest retirement benefits. While new teachers already support this approach (and not surprisingly, since it’s in their own interests, at least in the short-term), harsh fiscal realities will be the true impetus for these reforms. With the baby boomers retiring en masse, putting pressure on Social Security and Medicare, competition for public funds is going to be fierce. The era of ever-increasing school budgets will come to an end. And it will become clear to policymakers that teachers’ retirement benefits (including healthcare benefits) are unsustainable. This will force the conversation about a new way to compensate teachers, one that relies more on “front-loading” teacher pay and moving to a 401(k) style retirement system. (The Tough Choices or Tough Times report did a good job spelling out this new approach.) None of these discussions will be happy, and the unions will fight these developments tooth and nail. But taxpayers and parents won’t stand for a system in which a huge proportion of school spending goes to support teachers who retired years ago, which is the trajectory we’re currently on. (Read more about this looming inter-generational battle on Fordham’s flypaper blog.)

Michael Mulgrew President United Federation of Teachers

Posted October 28, 2008, 10:53am

Michael Mulgrew: 

Good morning, Steve, and good morning everyone. Throughout history, the teaching profession and teacher unions have become accustomed to changing, adapting and evolving. Teachers are constantly striving to improve outcomes for kids, and they are ready, willing and able to try creative new approaches and take risks so long as they are properly supported and have a professional voice. When it comes to recruiting and retaining a quality teaching workforce and building strong, stable schools, there must first be an understanding of that basic premise.

I think any "new deal" must begin with local, state and district officials believing in and adopting policies that are built on collaboration and cooperation. Districts must commit to providing teachers not only with professional and developmental training to learn new skills, but also professional respect and security so that they can change and take risks without being punished for it. Enhancing teacher quality and improving academic outcomes are goals we all share, but only by working together can we achieve great things.

One of my greatest fears right now is that the economic downturn our country is facing will result in a disinvestment in education and human capital, which would have a profoundly negative affect on our schools.

James Fraser Senior Vice President for Programs Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Posted October 28, 2008, 11:01am

James Fraser: 

I agree with Michael [Petrilli], this is a key question. Without a “new deal” for teachers, the current problems in education are going to get worse and worse. But as the question notes, there won’t be a new deal without a constituency. I am worried about the constituency issue. As the children of baby boomers finish school, baby boomers (who still represent the largest single constituency in the US) will turn from education to other issues. I am much more optimistic than Michael about teachers—and teacher unions—being an important constituency. Teacher unions, through organizations like TURN (Teacher Union Reform Network) have been among the leaders in pressing for changes that reward teachers in return for making teachers more accountable. (Rochester, NY, for example, allows a substantial salary increase for the best teachers in return for their giving up seniority rights and going to the schools where they are needed most.) Certainly not all unions or all union leaders agree, but many of the most articulate do. Whether there is a national constituency for a change in health care policy is yet to be seen, but out-of-control health care costs are a huge issue for schools and school districts just as they are for American industry, and here the constituency for change is much broader. Finally, of course, the current economic crisis may lead more and more people to think longer term and longer term thinking is going to mean thinking seriously about schools. And as the research clearly shows, to think about schools means to focus on teachers. Will all of this add up to a sufficient constituency? … It is too soon to tell.

Philip Howard Chair Common Good

Posted October 28, 2008, 11:21am

Philip Howard: 

There's a bigger opportunity here than just more pay for more accountability. Teachers are crushed by bureaucracy, and, in many schools, have lost the authority to maintain order in part because of legal requirements.

Most of that bureaucracy is designed to protect against incompetence or unfairness. The rules and procedures, or most of them, wouldn't be needed if teachers and principals could be accountable after the fact. You don't need rules telling people how to do things if they can be dismissed for repeated failures.

That doesn't mean there aren't safeguards against unfair accountability—say, a fairness committee to review accountability.

But the opportunity here is to liberate teachers to be professional again. Today, teachers are organized like workers on an assembly line. It's incredibly demoralizing, as studies repeatedly find.

That's what I think a new deal should fix.

Theodore Hershberg Professor of Public Policy and History, Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania

Posted October 28, 2008, 12:01pm

Theodore Hershberg: 

I certainly agree with the premise for this conversation—there has to be a new deal for teachers. In fact, I’ve been working for eight years on what this “Grand Education Bargain” (borrowing a line from Jonathan Alter’s July 12 Newsweek column) would look like. We’ve proposed this title for a book I am co-editing with my colleague Claire Robertson-Kraft (Harvard Education Press: spring 2009) that will lay out the details. We’ll discuss this in subsequent postings, but “investment with accountability” captures its broad outlines.

From where will support for change come is the right question. If Obama wins next week, he’ll use the nation’s bully pulpit to make the case. He was much more open to pay-for-performance concepts in the primaries than Hillary Clinton, and he will find considerable support among young teachers. The key will be identifying progressive union leaders willing to move their locals to embrace fundamental change. Given the greater challenges they face and their national leadership, we expect AFT locals to be more likely than NEA locals to participate in reform.

Ted Kolderie Senior Associate Education|Evolving

Posted October 28, 2008, 1:12pm

Ted Kolderie: 

Steve, I wonder if we can really expect any response from teachers or others without their knowing what the 'new deal' would be. So let me start there—by suggesting there are two separate concepts moving in the national discussion about the future for teachers and teaching. And let me say at the start that both of them need to be tried. (Two rules: when you don't know for sure what will work, try a variety of things! And: always change a losing game!)

The 'old deal' is basically: We don't give you (teachers) professional autonomy and in return you don't give us accountability. This is lose/lose. The new deal—the one I'd suggest we talk more about—is the reverse of that. Albert Shanker used to say: "If you want to hold the teachers accountable, the teachers have to be able to run the school." If that deal is still on the table, let's take it. We are now looking at schools that are run by professional partnerships of teachers, in which the teachers accept collegially the responsibility for school and student success; and accept responsibility for making with integrity the decisions about finance, teacher quality, and student success. The other 'deal' most often advocated is the one Mike Petrilli mentions—the one prominently associated with Michelle Rhee; basically, some modification of the traditional management approach to securing performance from teachers.

Does this distinction work for y'all? It reflects what Richard Ingersoll so nicely describes in his book, Who Controls Teachers' Work?. Right now most of the discussion is within the 'management' theory, and assumes the boss/worker model. We need both theories operating.

Bob Wise President Alliance for Excellent Education

Posted October 28, 2008, 2:16pm

Bob Wise: 

I’d like to address Steve’s question about if a new deal is actually needed. While I think that yes, a new deal is necessary, it is important to talk about why and who we are trying to reach through a new deal. One serious concern is that not all students have access to a highly effective teacher. There are certainly talented, amazingly hardworking, and effective teachers in our public schools, but too many students in high poverty, high minority, and low performing schools have a far greater number of less qualified, ineffective teachers. The students in those schools are the ones that need a new deal, and it’s vital that we explore options for teachers—to improve working conditions, provide comprehensive induction programs, target comprehensive professional development, and promote career paths and teacher leadership.

Charles Kolb President Committee for Economic Development

Posted October 28, 2008, 3:28pm

Charles Kolb: 

This discussion is extremely interesting—and important for the country.

If there is to be a new deal for teachers, my hope is that the starting point will be a greater recognition that education is perhaps the most important investment this country makes, at all levels—local, state, and federal. A more focused emphasis on the return on those investments should, in my view, be part of the equation.

For example, the Committee for Economic Development has helped to focus greater attention to the ROI from early childhood investments. Working with Nobel laureate in economics James Heckman at the University of Chicago, we have tried to quantify precisely what those dollars return.

This new approach, analysis, and even language have been enormously important as business leaders and others become advocates for the additional targeted spending in a child's early years.

A new contract/deal has to be seen in the context of its importance for economic development and the education of future democratic citizens. It's not just about teachers and teaching but about the future strength of our economy and our democracy.

James Fraser Senior Vice President for Programs Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Posted October 28, 2008, 3:35pm

James Fraser: 

While I agree with most of what is being said, I also want to make sure that we keep a focus on teacher salaries. A recent Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation-sponsored study, Teaching as a Second Career (September 2008), found that fully 42% of all 24- to 60-year-olds in the U.S. who have a college degree would consider teaching but the vast majority would only do so if the starting salary was above $50,000 per year. When teacher salaries are dramatically lower than salaries in other professions, we send a message that teaching really does not matter much in this society—to say nothing of asking people to pursue careers in which they cannot enjoy a reasonable lifestyle. It will be impossible to address the important issues Bob Wise raises unless we show more financial respect for teachers.

Ted Kolderie Senior Associate Education|Evolving

Posted October 28, 2008, 4:57pm

Ted Kolderie: 

How many of us think it's possible to move teacher salaries up to the “professional” level with the job and the career structured as it has traditionally been?

Peter Hutchinson, when superintendent in Minneapolis, used to note that a room with 30 kids contains about $420,000 (at the roughly $14,000-per-student level of Minneapolis today). Of that, the average teacher compensation is, what—$80,000 with benefits? What do you think would happen if a group of teachers—the math department, say—were capitated with the amount to be devoted to 'instruction' and allowed to keep what they did not need to spend? (We asked a group of math teachers this question some years ago. The answer was impressive. I can talk about that if anyone is interested.)

Will Okun Former Teacher Chicago Public Schools

Posted October 28, 2008, 5:49pm

Will Okun: 

In connection to Mr. Wise’s comments, I am assuming there is no need for “transforming schools” and a “new deal for teachers” in upper income communities. That such a dichotomy of educational resources is allowed to exist is obviously reprehensible, but also demonstrates, in my opinion, that most Americans are primarily concerned with the education of their own children in their own communities. Under this current funding structure, how do we recruit and retain the highest quality educators to the poorer schools when double the salary and half the headache reside right down the road at a richer school or in a different profession? As such, how can educational leaders and the public in lower income communities grant autonomy to teachers that they do not trust are of the highest caliber? To reiterate Mr. Fraser’s comments, the profession of teaching should be considered prestigious, not a sacrifice. The problem is that we all already know this.

Mike Petrilli Vice President for National Programs and Policy Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Posted October 28, 2008, 5:58pm

Mike Petrilli: 

If we want to boost teacher salaries, we need to rethink our obsession with smaller class sizes. As my boss, Checker Finn, often notes, if we had invested our K-12 resources into higher pay instead of small classes over the past fifty years, the average teacher would now make $100,000 per year. Instead we opted for quantity over quality. We can’t afford to do it all, so we have to make choices, particularly with a difficult fiscal environment looming.

But raising salaries across the board isn’t likely to solve the problem either. As Mike Podgursky and Dale Ballou wrote back in 1997 in Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality, the United States boosted teacher salaries quite dramatically in the 1980s and saw teacher quality rise only marginally. That’s because we didn’t make much progress breaking down barriers to entry into the profession, so the best-qualified candidates still faced significant costs to becoming a teacher (such as paying colleges for the privilege of doing student teaching), and decided to tackle other careers. Boosting salaries will only make a difference if we boost them differentially—more for the highest-performing teachers, those in shortage subjects, those willing to teach in tough neighborhoods—and combine that with reforms to expedite entry to highly qualified candidates. In other words, we need to treat different teachers differently—anathema to the ethos of unions.

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 28, 2008, 6:02pm

Steve Farkas: 

As today’s discussion draws to a close, thank you all for entertaining the environmental-constraints question facing the new deal, even as you could not avoid bringing into the discussions the principles of what a new deal would actually look like. The talk so far has touched upon the following constraints and opportunities for energizing a new deal: economic tough times, the retirement of baby boomers, reform-minded union leaders, a new President. What are the most promising signals of interest in the new deal that you see? What is the potential for mainstream union leadership on this issue? What is the potential for political leadership on this issue—local or national?

Michael Mulgrew President United Federation of Teachers

Posted October 28, 2008, 6:10pm

Michael Mulgrew: 

I've read the various posts with great interest. We all want more out of public education, and it would appear we can all agree that a 'new deal' could take many different forms and directions. To expand on my earlier post, I would hope that moving forward, the professionalization of the teaching agenda would take center stage. Initiatives that pay for additional responsibilities and additional skills (i.e. lead teacher programs, National Board certification, working in high needs schools, etc.) can and should be part of the discussion. Taking it a step further and to build on several earlier comments, why not consider redesigning schools into "community schools," with longer hours and more activities and services for children and their families? If we're thinking 'new deal', that's a big idea with a lot of possibilities.

Ultimately, however, I want to stress that everyone at the table must be open-minded and ready to listen. To use an example, we here at the UFT have partnered with Green Dot to create a truly remarkable charter school model where commitment to collaboration, fair pay and respect are central tenets. Progressive, forward-thinking solutions such as what we've put together with Green Dot work when teachers have a voice and are part of the dialogue. I think everyone should be thinking along those lines. I also want to point out that fair salaries, decent health benefits and a secure retirement are essential for building a teaching profession in which quality teachers stay. They are important incentives to attract and keep the 'best and the brightest' in education.

Charles Kolb President Committee for Economic Development

Posted October 28, 2008, 8:55pm

Charles Kolb: 

Americans are typically generous and practical people—but they also are not fools.

This fascinating discussion occurs against the backdrop of an economic mess in which too many poorly performing CEOs have made multiples of what we pay our teachers.

Too many excellent teachers remain underpaid; too many poor CEOs have been overpaid. At the heart of the problem is a misaligned values scale in our society—something which I believe several commenters had in mind when they addressed the importance of higher pay as an incentive along with enhanced professionalism.

Across-the-board raises or cuts (for teachers or CEOs) do not make sense. There has to be some differentiation as to quality and performance for both job groups.

I attended an excellent private school but had a really bad trigonometry teacher. He was a wonderful person, but he just couldn't teach. He was let go after the first year.

I remain convinced that Americans will gladly support higher teacher pay when a far better case has been made as to how these investments will benefit them, their families, their communities, and the nation.

Art Wise President Emeritus The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Posted October 28, 2008, 8:57pm

Art Wise: 

Greetings one and all. I have long believed that we need a consistent and robust approach to managing our schools and the teaching force. This requires, of course, a system of accountability that is aligned with that approach. Philip Howard noted earlier that teachers are crushed by bureaucracy. In fact, our schools and teachers are beset by nearly every form of management and accountability ever devised, some of which is appropriate for schools and none of which has ever been fully or faithfully implemented. The result is school systems and a teaching force in which no one is accountable. Currently we can see varying degrees of regulatory, bureaucratic, managerial, market and professional management theories and practices operating in our schools and on our teachers. The result is lots of management, little accountability, a teaching force of uneven quality and widely varying student outcomes. Most management approaches presume that teachers are not to be trusted and therefore must be micromanaged, an approach that has not served all children well. I have long believed in professional accountability which requires that we devise and implement mechanisms to ensure that every child is taught by a teacher who has been determined to be professionally competent and qualified or is at least being taught by novice teachers who are under the direct supervision of accomplished professional teachers.

Theodore Hershberg Professor of Public Policy and History, Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania

Posted October 28, 2008, 9:09pm

Theodore Hershberg: 

Obama has repeatedly talked about investing more in teachers in return for some (albeit still undefined) new accountability. The AFT has just created a million dollar fund for experiments in differentiated compensation along the lines of Denver’s ProComp. Governors in upwards of 20 states have urged their school districts to move away from the single salary schedule. Young teachers are decidedly more supportive of pay-for-performance approaches than their older colleagues. I suspect that Randi Weingarten, despite some earlier statements in NYC, will want to become more Shankeresque. With Democrats in control of the Congress, it is likely that there will be money to more fully fund a reauthorized and modified NCLB.

One hopes that with the realities of global economic competition, coupled with growing awareness of a school system in which one-third of our students fail to graduate high school and another third leave with skills well below what is required for success in higher education, the workplace and the military will catalyze leadership at all levels of government. Finally, don’t underestimate how much good can come from Obama’s dissatisfaction with the failure of the status quo to educate inner-city kids.

Ted Kolderie Senior Associate Education|Evolving

Posted October 28, 2008, 9:11pm

Ted Kolderie: 

In our second day, what say we try to have some more concrete discussion about what might represent a 'new deal' for teachers? Let's go back: What is now the teacher's job? What is now the teacher's role in the school? What is now the teacher's career? How, specifically, might these change?

Steve, let me try an answer to your opening question about the interest in, or demand for, a new deal. It's one that goes back to your own work with Public Agenda—to the 2003 Stand By Me report. Here's a note I wrote about it at the time.

Subject: The Public Agenda report on teachers

The upshot is this. Steve asks now what's the potential for a new deal. What interests teachers seems an important part of that 'potential.' My note is about what the Public Agenda survey found by way of the teachers' interest in being able to "run and manage" the school as a professional group. The numbers are important: 58% of the teachers said they'd be somewhat or very interested in working in that arrangement; two-thirds of the under-five-year teachers and half of the over-20-year teachers.

Michael Mulgrew, what do you sense listening to newer/younger teachers, about their career aspirations?

Bob Wise President Alliance for Excellent Education

Posted October 29, 2008, 10:11am

Bob Wise: 

Despite the many constraints, not the least are massive budget shortfalls at the federal, state and district levels, we need to remember that the last true “New Deal” occurred during the same type of dire economic conditions. Sometimes when the ox is truly in the ditch, everyone recognizes the need to jump in and help.

Facing such significant budget issues, states and districts are losing the ability to simply give another traditional across-the-board raise and move on. This combined with a new generation of teacher—as well as union leader—offers opportunity. Combine this with evolving models of change that are proving successful. For Example, Guilford County, North Carolina, has developed programs, Mission Possible and the Cumulative Effect, to provide incentives and support to effective teachers working in high needs schools. We all can cite other examples.

Ted Kolderie reminds us that teachers need to know what the new deal would be. As this vision is presented, we will find more young people interested in signing up. Likewise, smart union leaders who are recognizing that changing times require changed approaches.

Theodore Hershberg Professor of Public Policy and History, Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania

Posted October 29, 2008, 11:02am

Theodore Hershberg: 

A number of participants want to talk about the substance of the “new deal” for teachers. Value-added models (based on student growth rather than absolute achievement) can fairly and accurately identify the “tails” of the teacher distribution (the best and worst performers). When this empirical component is coupled with sophisticated observation protocols that provide multiple measures and appropriate human safeguards, we have a solid foundation for a new approach to evaluation and compensation. In the upcoming “Grand Education Bargain: New Rewards, New Supports, New Accountability,” educator incentives, both positive and negative, are aligned with the goal of increased student learning. The new deal we’ve developed consists of two quid-pro-quos:

An Expanded Role for Teachers in Return for Individual Responsibility for Student Learning
In return for accepting individual-level accountability, teachers would win an expanded role in their schools: peer review, a key part in the process of remediating their struggling colleagues, and equal say in major issues that affect their classrooms. Once the classroom rather than the bargaining table becomes the venue in which teacher career success is determined, administrators can no longer impose on them selections of professional development, curriculum or assessments not mandated by the state.

New Investment in the Public Schools in Return for Adopting the Framework
In return for accepting individual-level accountability for educators (all administrators as well as teachers), the public sector—federal, state or local government—would increase its investment in the schools, by providing funds (for additional compensation for top performers and expanded professional development for all educators) that are necessary to sustain the reforms over time.

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 29, 2008, 11:48am

Steve Farkas: 

We can devote more time for each of you to talk about the specifics of this new deal, but I do think it’s worth pointing out that a consensus appears to be emerging that any new deal must be predicated upon some reciprocal sacrifice.

For example, improving working conditions (increased respect and higher pay) will require teachers to assume more professional obligations. Less micro-management will require increased accountability. But how will the thousands of political school districts and the states advance such new deals? Who will enforce these new arrangements when parents are typically disengaged and political leaders lack will? In light of current economic conditions, is it even realistic to put on the table increasing school budgets? If we agree teachers should be paid more, what should be cut?

Ted Kolderie Senior Associate Education|Evolving

Posted October 29, 2008, 12:49pm

Ted Kolderie: 

Ted Hershberg talks about 'individual accountability' for the teacher. Is that better than collegial accountability for the group of teachers? Is individual accountability even workable? How would it work?

The answer to Steve's question about finances probably is that, near-term at least, it is not realistic to think about significantly increasing the financing for K-12 and for salaries. There is growing concern that the current model is economically unsustainable.

How many of us think higher salaries should be the primary element of a 'new deal' for teachers?

Will Okun Former Teacher Chicago Public Schools

Posted October 29, 2008, 2:19pm

Will Okun: 

Intelligent students used to ask me, “If you know so much, why are you a teacher?” Why do teachers deserve a new deal when the prevailing attitude is still that anyone can be a teacher? In the eyes of the general public, teaching still remains a profession of “can’ts.” How do we change this perception but through higher salaries generating greater competition between talented individuals who will logically be trusted with more autonomy in their classrooms? Within individual schools and school systems, there is much wasteful bureaucracy and a system of “assistants” that is currently in place because we do not believe teachers are capable of instructing their classrooms without additional supports. Also, a more respected and talented workforce will decrease the absurd amount of budgeting earmarked for teacher trainings and consultants that are usually of little value to classroom teachers. Of course, nationally, the money does exist to increase educational spending and teacher salaries, if the education of our children was a national priority. Lastly, as we discuss a new deal for teachers, I am wondering how any new deal will significantly improve student achievement, especially in low-income traditional schools, when parental involvement in a child’s education is a far more important factor in student success than teachers’ job satisfaction.

Michael Mulgrew President United Federation of Teachers

Posted October 29, 2008, 3:22pm

Michael Mulgrew: 

Steve—good questions all regarding how a new deal could be advanced. It obviously has to be a collective effort that involves not only teachers but higher education, school districts and school boards, advocates, elected officials, parents, etc. There must be some sort of shared responsibility and shared accountability among all stakeholders.

I want to get back to what the substance of a "new deal" could look like. Looking beyond the aforementioned issues such as teacher pay and teacher accountability, a "new deal" must also include a renewed commitment to expanding and enhancing teacher preparation programs. Let's analyze what we're teaching and how we're teaching it, and look for ways that we can better prepare tomorrow's workforce.

We need a comprehensive, informed state-of-the-art curriculum, of course, but we also need to take teacher preparation to a new level by focusing more on engagement techniques and how to teach base academic skills in a contextual environment. Teachers must be able to look beyond the lesson plan and find ways to integrate the happenings of our rapidly-changing world into their discussions. Today's students are literally wired into that world through their computers and portable electronics, and teachers must compete with that drone of multi-media distraction.

Impossible? No. But it will take a great deal of time and effort. If we want a quality workforce and we want that workforce to buy into any sort of new deal, it's well worth that effort.

Ted Kolderie Senior Associate Education|Evolving

Posted October 29, 2008, 4:41pm

Ted Kolderie: 

Let me ask: Do we assume that any 'new deal' would have to be general—uniform, implemented all at once everywhere for everybody? Or could we be trying different deals, different places at different times? Experimenting; testing, in other words.

I might be wrong, but I sense that the fundamental at the bottom of all this is the teachers' insistence that they cannot be held accountable for things they do not control. Think back to John Merrow's series for PBS on that "turnaround" principal in Richmond, VA. Some distance into his struggle in that 750-student middle school he appeals to the teachers for help. "Hey, you're in charge," they say. "It's your problem." Maybe it's possible to buy accountability with a high salary. Do we think so?

Art Wise President Emeritus The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Posted October 29, 2008, 4:48pm

Art Wise: 

One cannot think about a new deal for teachers absent a consideration of the outmoded model of schooling that prevents fresh thinking about teaching. As I wrote in an Education Week Commentary, Teaching Teams, a few years ago, teaching remains the only professional work conducted by solo practitioners. All other professional services are delivered by teams, with senior professionals in charge and a mix of novices and others doing much of the actual work. Senior professionals are fully accountable for the results even as the novices are learning by doing, generally at the expense of the client. The new deal for teachers—with high compensation for those who mange to become senior professionals—must involve a staged career, with the development of novices firmly under the supervision of accomplished professionals.

Charles Kolb President Committee for Economic Development

Posted October 29, 2008, 4:53pm

Charles Kolb: 

Fascinating discussion today. Let me add a thought about how to achieve change here.

We need to avoid having the debate evolve into the "traditional channels" where the usual parties square off against each other with the usual arguments, thereby producing a "rut."

If we can bring some new players into the argument—strange bedfellows—there's a better likelihood of changing the dynamic, broadening the discussion, and getting more people to invest in the type of change we need.

Specifically, I'm thinking about Wal-Mart and the SEIU pursuing together some broad principles around health care reform.

Is it possible, therefore, to identify such principles here as an initial step in forging a new, unusual, and dynamic coalition that might change the traditional debate and actually accomplish something?

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 29, 2008, 5:09pm

Steve Farkas: 

Several of the comments refer to 'what teachers want' and I'd like to throw into the mix some lessons I've learned over the too many years doing research on teacher attitudes: 1) It's extremely difficult to get teachers to admit they can control student learning—they have to tick up the litany of factors that stand in their way—and they are quick to point out that one year they look like great teachers the next year incompetent because of the students; 2) They are open to differential rewards based upon teacher effort and sacrifice (hard to teach students and schools), resistant to tying it to student achievement, and extremely resistant to tying it to hard measures (test scores); 3) They are much less attached to teacher tenure than many experts believe; and, 4) They are very wary of incentives and managerial schemes imported from the business sector—and this can only have gotten worse in today's economic context.

Theodore Hershberg Professor of Public Policy and History, Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania

Posted October 29, 2008, 5:38pm

Theodore Hershberg: 

We should definitely be experimenting with many "new deals," provided they are carefully evaluated so we can understand the impact of different reform strategies. Investment from the public sector—federal, state and local levels—can provide funds to sustain the pilots. If they prove successful in generating substantial gains in student achievement, voters can be asked if they are willing to pay higher taxes in return for these results. Recall that Denver voters, by a margin of 2 to 1, agreed to pay a surcharge on their real estate taxes that generated a 12 percent increase in total compensation for DPS teachers.

I sense that many of you may be unaware of how sophisticated growth models can be used to isolate the impact of instruction and thereby provide an empirical component in teacher evaluation. Data sets can now be created that track individual students over time and match their scores in all tested subjects with the teachers who taught them. Much empirical research has been conducted in recent years that confirms the accuracy of these models in identifying the "tails" of the teacher distribution—that is, the most effective and the least effective performers. For the first time, we can have a fair and accurate measure of instructional effectiveness. When used appropriately—as part of a balanced system (inputs and outputs), among multiple measures, and accompanied by safeguards to ensure that consequential personnel decisions are made in a process of peer assistance and review—it is an entirely new approach to human capital development in pubic education. When scores are aggregated for schools and districts, we have an empirical component to use in the evaluation of all administrators.

James Fraser Senior Vice President for Programs Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Posted October 29, 2008, 9:10pm

James Fraser: 

I am not quite as confident as Ted Hershberg about the current status of the research to track individual student achievement over time. That work is terribly important, but still in the early stages and full of problems. Nevertheless he is completely right—this is the future of a new deal for teachers. As many have said in these exchanges, we need to focus on a new tradeoff of professional autonomy for accountability. It is not fair to control every aspect of a teacher’s working life and then hold them accountable for student outcomes. On the other hand, autonomy without accountability makes no sense either. It is long past time to allow any teacher to say, “I can’t make a difference….these kids have too many problems.” The Education Trust, among others, has research that makes a very compelling case that, as they say, “Good Teaching Matters . . . A lot.” And in time we will have the student outcome measures that we need to evaluate what good teaching really looks like and who is doing it. And that will be the key to a new deal that many can support.

Charles Kolb President Committee for Economic Development

Posted October 29, 2008, 10:24pm

Charles Kolb: 

The idea of experimentation is quite important. The earlier welfare-reform model—in which states received federal waivers to conduct innovative approaches—involved a "bottom up" approach to reform that ultimately informed and shaped the resulting federal legislation.

I am increasingly skeptical of a grand bargain or compact in today's climate. We are more likely to see incrementalism rather than a blockbuster, one-size-fits-all approach.

Grand bargains are more likely to be realized sooner in healthcare reform, deficit reform, and entitlement reform. NCLB absorbed a lot of policy airtime over the last eight years. There may be some public fatigue here (look at the difficulty the Gates and Broad Foundations had in positioning education as a top election issue).

That fatigue, however, is no excuse for not continuing to pursue policy innovation at state and local levels.

Philip Howard Chair Common Good

Posted October 30, 2008, 9:18am

Philip Howard: 

I never disagree with Charlie Kolb, but I will this once. The new deal I see is professional freedom in exchange for personal accountability. This is not an incremental change but a major shift.

We don't acknowledge the inherently individual aspect of teacher effectiveness. All the organization stifles the personality needed to hold student attention. Teachers hate all this bureaucracy, and understand that it impedes their ability to succeed.

Freedom goes a long way. Visit any successful school, and you will find a culture in which educators feel free to be themselves.

James Fraser Senior Vice President for Programs Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Posted October 30, 2008, 9:36am

James Fraser: 

I agree with Charles about the reality of a general fatigue with education reform . . . and also the fact that the fatigue is no excuse for not pursuing what is needed. I think there are at least two sources of the fatigue that we need to address—the fact that so much energy has gone into education reform (with NCLB but one among many ventures) with so little to show, but also the fact that the population bulge known as the baby boomers now have seen most of their children graduate from school and have moved on to other concerns. Education today is a concern about “other people’s children” for many voters.

Before this exchange is over I hope we can also talk about teacher education. If we are serious about a new deal for teachers, one key is certainly a complete reinvention of the way teachers are prepared.

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 30, 2008, 9:43am

Steve Farkas: 

Good morning all. As we embark upon our final day of the discussion, let's sharpen the specifics of a possible new deal. If we want less bureaucracy and more individual accountability, what might that look like, practically speaking? How do we evaluate "good teaching" without bureaucracy? Who will decide what good teaching is? While it may not be possible to start with a clean slate, what core operating principles would you insist upon in designing a successful school? And, recognizing the political and fiscal constraints on major reforms, would experimental pilots be the best path forward for developing this model?

Charles Kolb President Committee for Economic Development

Posted October 30, 2008, 10:34am

Charles Kolb: 

Please let me clarify. I NEVER disagree with Philip. My point was that I believe a new deal will be difficult to achieve in the current climate. I very much agree with and support Philip’s vision and the fact that it would represent major change.

My concern is that we need some detailed tactical thinking about how to achieve it and over what period of time. It won’t be a “big bang” result, in my view.

Effective teacher training needs to be part of that overall tactical approach.

Mike Petrilli Vice President for National Programs and Policy Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Posted October 30, 2008, 10:58am

Mike Petrilli: 

It’s striking to me that we can have a conversation about “less bureaucracy and more individual accountability” in K-12 education and not mention charter schools. So let me do it: charter schools. These are excellent vehicles for experimenting with a “new deal” for teachers. Of course, the best charters have already been doing this for many years—recruiting top-flight talent, engaging teachers as true professionals, holding them accountable for results, recognizing their contributions with additional pay, and keeping bureaucracy at bay. And now the very best among charter schools—I’m thinking of the “charter management organizations” KIPP, Achievement First, and Uncommon Schools—are getting into the teacher education business, too. (Separately, so is High Tech High.) We don’t have to dream up a new deal for teachers—these real-live initiatives are already showing the way.

Theodore Hershberg Professor of Public Policy and History, Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania

Posted October 30, 2008, 11:08am

Theodore Hershberg: 

The book we've just completed, with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, provides the details. Here are some highlights.

We propose a system in which half of a teacher's evaluation is based on observation and half on student learning results measured through value-added assessment. For the observation portion we use the Framework for Teaching developed by Charlotte Danielson. It provides multiple measures through 22 components in four broad domains (planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities) and provides rubrics to identify different levels of expertise from unsatisfactory to distinguished. Teachers, not administrators, are responsible for the evaluation of their colleagues through a peer review process.

The results from value-added assessment can be used to create three categories of instruction: highly effective, effective and ineffective (using three-year running averages). Using an external growth standard means teachers compete only with themselves—not with each other—to exceed growth targets. There is no “Darwinian” competition undermining teacher collaboration.

The system includes a career ladder. Teachers move up the ladder provided they meet the requirements at each rung. Increasingly higher salary is built into each rung and each rung provides base pay and variable pay; variable pay is divided into an individual award (teacher) and a group award (school). Steps within rungs are tied not to longevity, but to maintaining the value-added requirements at each rung.

One-time bonuses—not salary—are paid for graduate degrees; ditto for National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. No salary increases are provided for graduate courses taken after the BA and MA. Mandated remediation is provided for struggling teachers, who have ample time and support to improve; but failing to do so leads to dismissal through a process in which teachers and administrators agree on the decision.

Administrators are treated in a parallel fashion.

Ted Kolderie Senior Associate Education|Evolving

Posted October 30, 2008, 11:25am

Ted Kolderie: 

If the accountability for teachers were collegial (rather than individual) then decisions about recruitment, quality, performance, evaluation, assignment, termination and perhaps even compensation could be internalized within the teacher group. This probably is the preferred model for professionals in most occupations. The group holds it members accountable, and accepts responsibility for success. And this professional model is now appearing in K-12, in teaching. It works. In this arrangement, teacher attitudes and teacher behaviors change dramatically. It's not a model to impose on anybody. But most change isn't imposed. Something new appears; those that like it 'buy' it; others stick with the traditional. Over time, new models gradually replace old models. Isn't that the concept of change we want to use in education? Isn't that the only really practical approach? In a way I'm saying ''Yes" here to Steve's question about 'experimental pilots' as the way forward. If anyone wants to look at the cases, let me know. We can get specific about what that professional-partnership model looks like. There is a version that is fully union-compatible. Again: these exist. They work.

Theodore Hershberg Professor of Public Policy and History, Director of the Center for Greater Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania

Posted October 30, 2008, 11:53am

Theodore Hershberg: 

The successful charter schools all have outstanding teachers. The new empirical research using value-added models makes clear that they are the most important factor in the academic progress of students. The problem with believing that charters are the answer is that they cannot go to scale unless the pool of talented teachers increases significantly.

For this to happen we will have to: (1) recruit a larger share of our best and the brightest college graduates and retain the top performers already in our classrooms; and, (2) develop a new system for professional development, with both positive and negative incentives, for upgrading the human capital of the large majority of our current teachers. This will not happen unless we change how we evaluate and compensate teachers—pay the highly effective ones considerably more money and permit them to earn these salaries based on performance rather than longevity so they can earn top dollar within 7-8 years rather than 30.

We absolutely should continue to promote experimentation in charters, but unless we create a “new deal” for teachers, we will not succeed in transforming our schools in the time demanded by the rapidly changing economy.

Philip Howard Chair Common Good

Posted October 30, 2008, 11:58am

Philip Howard: 

Of course I agree with Mike Petrilli that the best charter schools do this. But the challenge on the table is getting past the dynamics of World War I trench warfare between unaccountable teachers and micromanaging superintendents. What I'm suggesting is that there's an enormous possible benefit to teachers—purging most bureaucracy in exchange for a practical way of making judgments about whether particular teachers are doing the job.

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 30, 2008, 3:38pm

Steve Farkas: 

We’re winding down to our final hours, and I just want to ensure that everyone has a chance to contribute any additional practical proposals, and to respond with comments, amendments, or foreseeable difficulties to those already on the table, before we end today.

Bob Wise President Alliance for Excellent Education

Posted October 30, 2008, 4:06pm

Bob Wise: 

This has been a very helpful discussion which I am sure will be expanded upon in the next few months. There is one other element I would add to it—as we discuss what we want in a “new deal” for teachers, what do we want teachers of the 21st century to be? For instance, NCLB requires a “highly qualified” teacher in the classroom. But given fast evolving technology applications, does the teacher need to be fully certified in a subject? Or is it sufficient that the teacher be able to guide the discussion about the information that is being brought to the students via the internet or other medium? There are some traditional roles of teachers that are timeless, especially those involving personalization. There are other roles that should be reexamined. This process may lead to making the profession more appealing, attracting motivated individuals, and resulting in a more positive learning experience.

This issue becomes very important to elected policymakers. Will they continue fighting out the longstanding battles on the familiar battlegrounds, or will many of the suggestions made here over the last three days also reflect the extent to which the role of teaching is changing to meet the needs of students of the 21st century?

James Fraser Senior Vice President for Programs Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Posted October 30, 2008, 4:14pm

James Fraser: 

I very much like the proposals that Theodore Hershberg discusses in his 11:08am posting. It seems to me that those proposals take “value-added” seriously but also reflect the fact that this is not yet a perfect science. I do want to come back to something I said yesterday, I would also add that as teachers move up in pay and position they should also shed (rather than gain) certain other “rights” and be expected to go where they are most needed. The union in Rochester, NY proposed this years ago and it is an important part of their system.

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 30, 2008, 4:42pm

Steve Farkas: 

There seems to be a struggle between idealized programs (sometimes on a small scale, sometimes theoretical) on the one hand and what the real world needs and can achieve practically on the other. Somehow we will have to confront the limits of the real world. But, if this is all about limits then no grand change will happen.

James Fraser Senior Vice President for Programs Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Posted October 30, 2008, 5:38pm

James Fraser: 

Bob Wise raises very important questions. Part of a new deal for teachers is in the terms we have been discussing in such interesting ways—issues of accountability and autonomy. But another part of the issue is what the larger democratic society wants of teachers. For all the talk of "highly qualified" teachers, our society is less than clear on what it means to be highly qualified and thus to be prepared to be highly qualified. While I deeply believe that we need to fundamentally rethink how we prepare teachers, it is hard to do that until we have a clearer public consensus on "prepare for what?" Perhaps a topic for a future discussion.

Steve Farkas President Farkas Duffett Research Group
MODERATOR

Posted October 30, 2008, 6:00pm

Steve Farkas: 

While the time does appear ripe for a new deal, much work remains to be done to move it from discussion to reality. Many solid proposals have been put on the table here, and I hope they will help fuel future real-world models.

Regrettably, our forum must end, but no doubt the gears will continue to turn in the larger dialogue across the nation. Thank you all for a thoughtful, engaging and productive discussion. It’s been a pleasure!

Participating

Steve Farkas Farkas Duffett Research Group
James Fraser Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation
Theodore Hershberg University of Pennsylvania
Frederick Hess American Enterprise Institute
Philip Howard Common Good
Charles Kolb Committee for Economic Development
Ted Kolderie Education|Evolving
Michael Mulgrew United Federation of Teachers
Will Okun Chicago Public Schools
Mike Petrilli Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Art Wise The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
Bob Wise Alliance for Excellent Education

RSS Feeds

Tools

Reader Comments

For me, the question of whether we need a “new deal” for teachers suggests a return to an old question of what arrangement in schools or what opportunities beyond will result in a critical mass of what were once called “empowered” teachers – transformed and transformative leaders of the positive change we envision is possible within schools or among a system of schools. Well, of course we need such a new deal, but with the compelling arguments for it going back twenty or more years, plus the countless, diverse, and oftentimes contradictory and counterproductive ways that schools, districts, cities, states, education reform organizations, and foundations have sought to respond to the call such a kaleidoscopic vision in our minds, I must wonder whether there’s at least a better way to ask the question.

For example, in South Carolina, we have decided to develop a “teacher renewal center” modeled partly on North Carolina’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching and incorporating at least much of the intent of practices developed by the Center for Courage and Renewal. Beyond these important influences, the center will seek to become what it becomes as a reflection of the local resources, imprimatur, and most importantly the will of the teachers themselves that will fuel its evolution into a unique identity. Certainly, its purpose will be to promote a “new deal” for South Carolina teachers – meaning a new outlook, a fresh way to understand and negotiate the dilemmas and paradoxes of teaching in public schools, a rekindled passion about their subject at the center of engaging kids in learning, a bridge to dialogue with other educators in question about the larger issues of leading a meaningful, worthwhile life as a teacher and as a person, and some tools for shaping their school environment into the redesigned places for living and learning that more authentically meet their kids’ needs. But I’d want the new deal to be not so much about “for teachers” as it could be about “by & of” teachers - - that is, in its core of day-to-day activity, notwithstanding its origin as an external intervention, another tinkering toward the utopia we envision out there. With much of the discussion thus far focused around salary issues and bureaucratic limits on teacher freedom, however, I fear that my distinction of “for” and “by & of” may not lead us very far, at least at the “for” level, though I might add that I would also characterize the effort to grant teacher-partnership control of schools as another promising “by & of” direction of a new deal.

-- Jack Blodgett

A pilot program I have daydreamed about, particularly for the primary grades would focus on increasing the return on teaching talent. This concept would assign one master teacher for twice the average class size and corresponding amount of space (2 classrooms or a doubled space). This master teacher would be allowed 2 dedicated aides or teaching technicians sought out and SELECTED by the master teacher to help implement his/her teaching plan. They would in essence work for the teacher. This team would cost less or about the same as two qualified teachers and lower student teacher ratio, which is critical in the early years. (Here I differ with Michael Petrilli on the obsession of class size at least at the elementary level.) The team put together by the teacher would be chosen because they "bought into" the teacher's passionate desire for academic achievement and plans for achieving it. While I see the master teacher as the one with the accountability, if he/she is wise, ideas offered by the assistants will be given value and consideration during ongoing reevaluation and retailoring of teaching plans and a really cohesive team who all feel "the mission" will evolve. A team that really is motivated to "kick ass" with the academic and social achievment of the students entrusted to them. The master teacher in this senerio is more like a head coach, mentoring not only the students, but her academic team as well. At least this is something I always be interested to try.

The term "competition" has evolved as such a negative word in the last few years, but for me it has always had an exciting connotation and one that spurs me on do my best. In that same vein of competition, someone else's success in terms of student achievemnt thrills me as well as my own, because I may find something in their performance that will in turn enhance my performance. In other words while I taught, I always was striving for the highest test scores, the happiest students, the best relationships with my students and parents, the most attractive room, the most exciting projects, the most successful innovations, such as a highly sucessful after school chess club for 2nd graders, and I wasn't doing these things to show off. I really wanted everyone I taught with to be striving in the same way or be "showing off" equally. This is the kind of competition where students are the ultimate winners. I wish more principals were fostering this type of overt competition, or "showing off" for academic success within their schools, and giving teachers the freedom to go for Results! I say too often the exact opposite happens and UNIFORM rigid frameworks established to enhance performance stimie it instead. Competition exists in most arenas of life and it might help cull those who sully the profession of education. I think schools should be giving teacher's the autonomy to "try new plays" and fostering competition from school to school as well. Those who don't perform should ultimately dissolve.

At the moment education in general has the esteem in many people minds equivalent to their esteem for politicians. NOT TOO HIGH and "in general" that is a pretty fair assessment! I agree with several of the commentators who argue that salaries should be higher, and I agree with the concept of merit pay. I also believe that teachers themselves need a strong voice in establishing the criteria upon which merit pay will be apportioned. Like two children spliting a candy bar, when teachers have a say in spliting the spoils they will probably be able to hash out ways to handle it "fairly." We must also listen to the public saying "Show us the results and then we may feel more amenable to "Showing Education the Money!" A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and money for "superior teaching" is a good investment for America.

-- Sue Ann Lockard

Upcoming See All

  • Risk and Legal Fear in Schools
    With Lenore Skenazy, Frederick Hess, Megan Rosker, Walter Olson, and Nancy McDermott. Start date: June 5

Reader Comments (5)

Add Yours
1. October 27, 2008 8:12 PM

Yes, we need a new deal for teachers. One that need not recommend changes in salary, facilities or materials. Teaching can be a very rewarding profession, but in my opinion over the last 30 years the variety of constraints teachers are asked to manage has robbed the joy from teaching/learning from many teachers as well as students.

Some of those constraints are societal. More children are coming to school desperately physically and emotionally needy. In addition the dissolution of societal values is also evident in increasing numbers of emotionally needy and immature teachers.

Some of the strongest constraints are coming from the gross layers of bureaucracy found at the administrative levels of the central office of most school districts. There are curriculum directors upon curriculum directors casting aside textbooks (at least in Texas which cost taxpayers untold dollars) in order to put in place their own very restrictive guidelines on both what and more particularly HOW curriculum will be presented. We have heard a great deal of talk in recent years about “learning styles” and the importance of recognizing individual differences in the way children process information, yet at the same time very little due is paid to the individual differences of teachers and giving them the freedom to exercise their own creativity in presenting the material at hand. In my mind, the end result should be the measure of the teacher, rather than the level of adherence to the method processes. I am also referring to strict guidelines on classroom operation and management as well. I also recognize here the importance of having principals who know their staff well and understand “that one size does not fit all” The most creative genius will abdicate when forced to conform to rigid standards which can all but obliterate that creativity.

Speaking of curriculum directors, another of the constraints I will saddle them with is the “about face” change of methodology. Ten years ago in the prominent district I taught in, to even whisper the word “phonics” would have put one”s teaching credentials in peril. Sight reading was the “buzz word.” I took a brief sabbatical from the classroom only to find upon my return that 30 min. of “phonics” was required daily. My favorable opinion of blending both phonics and sight words had not changed, but the stress I felt while surreptitiously teaching phonics when it was so out of favor was high. This “about face” mentality rears it”s ugly head often and it continues to be a stressor. The presentation of new approaches and techniques is wonderful, BUT an all or none dictatorial approach is extremely constraining and a BAD DEAL for both student and teacher.

In my opinion two of the most glaring constraints of the day are the “politically correct” laws of the land, “inclusion”, and heterogeneous grouping. I realize that by mentioning these sacred cows I am igniting the wrath of many, but remember, you ask the question! In any heterogeneous group the range of background knowledge and ability is vast. The scaffolding and vocabulary necessary for one student may have been several years in the past for another. The amount of individualization necessary often means leaving school at 7-8:00 at night and taking work home. Throw in on top of that several emotionally disturbed children who need vast amounts of one on one and encouragement, as well as a couple of students who can not focus, or are labeled with Asbergers, or Autism, and expect exceptional performance from all and you have exceeded the ability of even a strong and competent person. Obviously I am a proponent of at least a move toward ability grouping, not only for the teacher but more importantly for the student. One could argue that “the least restrictive environment” for one child will create a more restrictive environment for another. I believe that it is not just the special ed students who deserve “the least restrictive environment.” Even the most capable students deserve to travel academically as far and fast as they joyfully can each year. Who is the advocate for the more capable student” I am not one who buys into the oft quoted theory that the stronger students will really learn the material if they can teach it to those who have not yet mastered it. If that is such a wonderful technique, how sad for those weaker students that must miss out on a similar quantity of that teaching experience. Even in classes that are homogeneously grouped there is still a range of both ability and knowledge and at any level my experience has been both teacher and student find both more joy and progress. I do however believe that homogenous groups should be very fluid.

Another stressful constraint for me personally is departmentalizing students 3rd grade or below, because knowing students well is integral to building the relationship between teacher and student necessary for optimum academic performance and positive behavior. I have been in on departmentalizing schemes as low as 1st grade, and find it abhorrent to all I believe about teaching young children.

Finally a constraint to any school are those underachieving teachers who are passed from grade to grade and often put in situations they cannot handle with every hope that they will choose to leave. I believe beginning teachers should be carefully mentored and then have several years of probation with continuing guidance, at the end of which they sink or float on their own merit. If they sink they need to try another profession instead of stealing years of instructional growth from students and impart their often negative attitudes on others.

I realize that I have gone over the word allowance, but if I this is not published I would still greatly appreciate any comments or opinions about what I have written.

-- Sue Ann Lockard
2. October 28, 2008 4:12 PM

For me, the question of whether we need a “new deal” for teachers suggests a return to an old question of what arrangement in schools or what opportunities beyond will result in a critical mass of what were once called “empowered” teachers – transformed and transformative leaders of the positive change we envision is possible within schools or among a system of schools. Well, of course we need such a new deal, but with the compelling arguments for it going back twenty or more years, plus the countless, diverse, and oftentimes contradictory and counterproductive ways that schools, districts, cities, states, education reform organizations, and foundations have sought to respond to the call such a kaleidoscopic vision in our minds, I must wonder whether there’s at least a better way to ask the question.

For example, in South Carolina, we have decided to develop a “teacher renewal center” modeled partly on North Carolina’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching and incorporating at least much of the intent of practices developed by the Center for Courage and Renewal. Beyond these important influences, the center will seek to become what it becomes as a reflection of the local resources, imprimatur, and most importantly the will of the teachers themselves that will fuel its evolution into a unique identity. Certainly, its purpose will be to promote a “new deal” for South Carolina teachers – meaning a new outlook, a fresh way to understand and negotiate the dilemmas and paradoxes of teaching in public schools, a rekindled passion about their subject at the center of engaging kids in learning, a bridge to dialogue with other educators in question about the larger issues of leading a meaningful, worthwhile life as a teacher and as a person, and some tools for shaping their school environment into the redesigned places for living and learning that more authentically meet their kids’ needs. But I’d want the new deal to be not so much about “for teachers” as it could be about “by & of” teachers - - that is, in its core of day-to-day activity, notwithstanding its origin as an external intervention, another tinkering toward the utopia we envision out there. With much of the discussion thus far focused around salary issues and bureaucratic limits on teacher freedom, however, I fear that my distinction of “for” and “by & of” may not lead us very far, at least at the “for” level, though I might add that I would also characterize the effort to grant teacher-partnership control of schools as another promising “by & of” direction of a new deal.

-- Jack Blodgett
3. October 29, 2008 1:52 PM

Increasing teacher pay would of course be great. But, if we* agree that a new deal should broker some form of merit-based pay, how would "merit" be quantified, or qualified? And by whom? Is something like a student evaluation model feasible? That seems unlikely anywhere below higher education (if even there). The idea of monitoring class achievement or test scores doesn't seem to help diffuse the existent bureaucratic problems - grades can easily be tailored; classes can be geared narrowly toward how to succeed on a specific test... We've already seen this happening in reaction to No Child Left Behind.

What other alternatives are there? Or does a new deal for teachers require a broad restructuring of the very fundamentals of the education system?

*("we" probably does not include the unions, whose job it is to advocate for all their members.)

-- Carl Snodgrass
4. October 30, 2008 12:52 AM

A pilot program I have daydreamed about, particularly for the primary grades would focus on increasing the return on teaching talent. This concept would assign one master teacher for twice the average class size and corresponding amount of space (2 classrooms or a doubled space). This master teacher would be allowed 2 dedicated aides or teaching technicians sought out and SELECTED by the master teacher to help implement his/her teaching plan. They would in essence work for the teacher. This team would cost less or about the same as two qualified teachers and lower student teacher ratio, which is critical in the early years. (Here I differ with Michael Petrilli on the obsession of class size at least at the elementary level.) The team put together by the teacher would be chosen because they "bought into" the teacher's passionate desire for academic achievement and plans for achieving it. While I see the master teacher as the one with the accountability, if he/she is wise, ideas offered by the assistants will be given value and consideration during ongoing reevaluation and retailoring of teaching plans and a really cohesive team who all feel "the mission" will evolve. A team that really is motivated to "kick ass" with the academic and social achievment of the students entrusted to them. The master teacher in this senerio is more like a head coach, mentoring not only the students, but her academic team as well. At least this is something I always be interested to try.

The term "competition" has evolved as such a negative word in the last few years, but for me it has always had an exciting connotation and one that spurs me on do my best. In that same vein of competition, someone else's success in terms of student achievemnt thrills me as well as my own, because I may find something in their performance that will in turn enhance my performance. In other words while I taught, I always was striving for the highest test scores, the happiest students, the best relationships with my students and parents, the most attractive room, the most exciting projects, the most successful innovations, such as a highly sucessful after school chess club for 2nd graders, and I wasn't doing these things to show off. I really wanted everyone I taught with to be striving in the same way or be "showing off" equally. This is the kind of competition where students are the ultimate winners. I wish more principals were fostering this type of overt competition, or "showing off" for academic success within their schools, and giving teachers the freedom to go for Results! I say too often the exact opposite happens and UNIFORM rigid frameworks established to enhance performance stimie it instead. Competition exists in most arenas of life and it might help cull those who sully the profession of education. I think schools should be giving teacher's the autonomy to "try new plays" and fostering competition from school to school as well. Those who don't perform should ultimately dissolve.

At the moment education in general has the esteem in many people minds equivalent to their esteem for politicians. NOT TOO HIGH and "in general" that is a pretty fair assessment! I agree with several of the commentators who argue that salaries should be higher, and I agree with the concept of merit pay. I also believe that teachers themselves need a strong voice in establishing the criteria upon which merit pay will be apportioned. Like two children spliting a candy bar, when teachers have a say in spliting the spoils they will probably be able to hash out ways to handle it "fairly." We must also listen to the public saying "Show us the results and then we may feel more amenable to "Showing Education the Money!" A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and money for "superior teaching" is a good investment for America.

-- Sue Ann Lockard
5. October 30, 2008 7:43 PM

On the question of "highly qualified" teachers, I think it is most important to find "highly intelligent" people who get a charge out of problem solving and enjoy helping students discover and exhaust their potential. Certainly education students need the basic classes but more importantly they need exposure to school settings and time in classrooms with teachers who are excited about what they are doing.

My husband had a sign made for his company which says "The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes 64 days." This is a reference to a telecom support project for a major oil company which even the oil company's internal telecom group said could NOT be accomplished by a certain deadline. Several outside groups had been approached nationally and all gave the same response. Our company thoughtfully and with a large degree of excitment took on the challenge and did indeed pull it off with 100% success in spite of all the naysayers! The sign is up as a reminder of the rewards that come from taking calculated risks when approaching what seem to be an insurmountable challenge.

Something in the human spirit responds to a challenge, especially in the young human spirit. I think people give their best when they are out to prove something and the end result is what counts. Especially so when there is an extrinsic reward beyond the norm at the end, even if it is nothing more than special recognition. With administrative support such a scenerio provides the exciting freedom to "get it figured out." Conversely there a dampening of spirit if a fear of failure permeates the environment. This is true for students and well as teachers who are actually students of the learning process.

I have been thinking a lot about this discussion as a catalyst for improving education in the future. I do think salary, and more autonomy for teachers is critical. Salary was never so important for me, because my husband' s income provided for our family very comfortably: however as my own children were of the age to begin considering their professions I found myself subtly directing them away from education. When one of my daughter's finished college a semester early she did some substituting which she enjoyed. When she mentioned the possibility of following that interest, I was silently panicking that she would pass on the full scholarship she had for law school the next fall. I know she would have been one of those exceptional teachers because she had the heart for it, but I wanted to know that she would be financially independent.
She is thirty now and has two young children, and after 5 years as a successful attorney ironically she will begin a 2nd career teaching construction law at the university level. I have a neice who is in an alternative education certification program at the University of Texas. She talks to me often about her classes and kids she is mentoring. I find myself straddling my career in education. One foot is one the side of loving the relationships and rewards, and the other side is on hating the constraints I felt. Unless there is a change which allows teachers more autonomy to "make a difference," and feel like a professional I can't really recommend teaching as a totally satisfying career. Also as a grandmother of preschoolers I find myself scrutinizing educational possibilities public, private and homeschool or some mix of these which will be the very best for "my" kids. Fortunately getting a primo education for "my" kids is a given. Unfortunately that is not so for all, and it is something I will continue to be interested in.

-- Sue Ann Lockard