The high cost of low salaries.

Now that my daughter (RHS Class of 07) has begun working on her Master’s and started student teaching at an elementary school in New Hampshire, I’m getting a fascinating look at the process of becoming a teacher. The view from the very first days of one’s career is so interesting – especially when that career is constantly in the news and the topic of blog posts, speeches, political posturing, national debate and local ridicule. More than a few young or aspiring teachers are asking themselves, “What am I doing? Is this really the smartest thing for me to do with my life?” For most young adults who enter the teaching profession right out of college, teaching is a calling. They’ve always wanted to be a teacher, or they’ve always know they wanted to work with children. Teaching is certainly not the career one lands on when scanning the list of Top 10 Starting Salaries or Top 10 Growth Careers, where it seems the primary focus is on how fast can you get out and how much money can you leave with. Teaching is no way to get rich – there are much higher starting salaries and much more lucrative fields. This fact, I believe, is directly related to the current worries about the quality of our schools.

I read a great piece in the NY Times about teacher compensation and the high cost of turnover -- as 46% of teachers quit before their fifth year. (The High Cost of Low Salaries, 4/30/11) According to the piece:

WHEN we don’t get the results we want in our military endeavors, we don’t blame the soldiers. We don’t say, “It’s these lazy soldiers and their bloated benefits plans! That’s why we haven’t done better in Afghanistan!” No, if the results aren’t there, we blame the planners. We blame the generals, the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No one contemplates blaming the men and women fighting every day in the trenches for little pay and scant recognition.

And yet in education we do just that. When we don’t like the way our students score on international standardized tests, we blame the teachers. When we don’t like the way particular schools perform, we blame the teachers and restrict their resources.

Compare this with our approach to our military: when results on the ground are not what we hoped, we think of ways to better support soldiers. We try to give them better tools, better weapons, better protection, better training. And when recruiting is down, we offer incentives.

We have a rare chance now, with many teachers near retirement, to prove we’re serious about education. The first step is to make the teaching profession more attractive to college graduates.

I find it difficult to argue with this premise. What do you say?

The article discusses a McKinsey study that looked at countries with successful education systems – you know, the countries frequently cited as shining examples of school systems that are “better” than ours, namely Singapore, Finland and South Korea. The study found:

Turns out these countries have an entirely different approach to the profession. First, the governments in these countries recruit top graduates to the profession. (We don’t.) In Finland and Singapore they pay for training. (We don’t.) In terms of purchasing power, South Korea pays teachers on average 250 percent of what we do.

The authors also remark that “turnover in these countries is startlingly low: In South Korea, it’s 1 percent per year. In Finland, it’s 2 percent. In Singapore, 3 percent.”

Is this a coincidence? I don’t think so. Great teachers are going to be the key to improving our education system, and great teachers – who possess the best and brightest minds and who can afford to teach and contribute for the long haul – will cost money.

The NY Times column concludes:

For those who say, “How do we pay for this?” — well, how are we paying for three concurrent wars? How did we pay for the interstate highway system? Or the bailout of the savings and loans in 1989 and that of the investment banks in 2008? How did we pay for the equally ambitious project of sending Americans to the moon? We had the vision and we had the will and we found a way.

To which I add, it’s time to rustle up our collective will, leave the politics out, and make it happen. This is not to say it must happen by being fully funded by local property taxes. It's a federal issue. Right? Isn't our nation's overall approach to education a national issue? Hello? Is this thing on?

And to the young teachers just starting their careers now, perhaps in your first classrooms this week: Hang in there. Don’t be discouraged. Think for yourself and not your union’s political agenda. Be part of the conversation. And thank you.

Christie proposes education reform bills that would eliminate current tenure system for teachers.

This entire post is reprinted from NJ.com:

Gov. Chris Christie sent a package of education reform bills to the Legislature Wednesday that would eliminate tenure as teachers know it and offer job protection only to those who consistently show a high level of performance based on new statewide evaluation system.

Under the tenure proposal, teachers would be given one of four ratings — highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective — based equally on student performance and classroom observations. Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf first unveiled the evaluation system during an address at Princeton University in February.
Teachers who receive the two highest ratings three years in a row would be eligible for tenure and merit pay, at their district’s discretion. Educators rated partially effective for two consecutive years or ineffective for one year — even if they have previously been highly rated — would lose tenure and could be fired.

"We want tenure to become something good teachers earn," said Christie, who has been advocating education reform for months. "It will not protect bad teachers who stay in front of the classroom.

"What we want is the most effective teachers at the front of every classroom regardless of seniority. Teachers who are effective are not worried about losing their jobs."

Under the current system, most teachers receive tenure after three years and one day on the job. The state has revoked tenure from just 17 teachers over the past 10 years. The process can drag out for years and be very costly to districts.

The tenure proposal is one of seven education reform bills Christie said he hopes will move through the Democrat-controlled Legislature quickly and be implemented by the 2012-13 school year.

Other proposals include:

• Ending the practice known as "last in, first out," which requires districts to lay off less experienced teachers first.

• Promoting what’s known as "mutual consent," which requires principals and teachers to agree on teachers’ assignments to schools.

• Offering bonuses to teachers who work in high needs districts and difficult to staff subject areas like math or science.

• Placing a 30-day deadline on tenure revocation decisions.

• Allowing school districts to opt out of the civil service system.

None of the bills has a sponsor, leaving some legislators questioning the likelihood they will move forward at all.
Tom Hester Jr., a spokesman for the Assembly Democrats, said the caucus would review the bills and may introduce competing legislation.

Assembly Education Committee Chairman Patrick Diegnan (D-Middlesex) said he does not support any of the measures, as proposed, and would likely vote against them if they came before his committee.

"Everyone in education agrees that there are no reliable evaluation tools to accomplish what the governor continues to say should be the standard for hiring and retaining teachers," Diegnan said. "Test scores have been tried across the country and consistently produce unreliable results."

Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, said an evaluation system might drive performance in the corporate world, but won’t in the state’s public schools.

"You should not use standardized test scores to make high stakes personnel decisions," said Wollmer, whose union has consistently battled the governor over education reform. "There are too many factors that affect student test scores that teachers cannot control."

Adam Bauer, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans, said it is "highly likely" the bills will garner support — and sponsors — from the Republican caucus, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (R-Union), who supports the governor’s education reform agenda.

"(Sen. Kean) looks forward to continuing to work with the administration on their shared commitment to saving kids from failing schools and measuring educational success based on outcomes," Bauer said.

Kean could not be reached for comment.

Lynne Strickland, executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, a group of about 100 suburban districts, said Christie’s proposals will prompt "a real dialogue and conversation" about education reform in New Jersey.

She said a number of "stumbling blocks" from teachers’ perspectives, including the proposed changes to teacher compensation and the evaluation process based on assessment.

"The details in the legislation are going to be dramatically important," Strickland said. "That’s why it’s clear this is going to be hashed out. It should be, because this is significant change."

Click here to read original story and accompanying video and reader comments (always one of my favorite parts of any story!).

Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology.

In a year-end wrap-up of education stories from Columbia Teachers College, I read a review of a late 2009 book titled, Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology. The most notable paragraph gave me food for thought:

The book systematically reveals a compelling picture of the “seeds of a new system of education” that are being sown all around us. The explosive growth of home schooling, workplace learning, distance education, learning centers, educational TV, videos and software, and Internet cafes are testimony not only to technology’s expanding role in learning, but also the new ways, venues, paradigm, and ages for and of learning. The authors argue that these, coupled with the mechanics of a global information economy, are ushering in the third era of education after the apprenticeship and universal schooling eras. Distinct shifts are the defining elements of the critical transformations in all three of these eras. Responsibility shifts from parents to the state to individuals and parents once more, thus seemingly completing a virtuous cycle of evolution; expectations shift from social reproduction to success for all to individual choice; content shifts from practical skills to disciplinary knowledge to learning how to learn; pedagogy shifts from apprenticeship to didacticism to interaction; location shifts from home to school to anywhere.

Such a fascinating time for schools. I'll add this to my (huge) "to read" list.

What are schools for?

I ran across this fascinating essay by John Goodlad, regarding the state of our education system and the time (now) for us (all of us) to make some real changes. You can click here to read the entire essay, but I'm going to extract the heart of the essay here:

[Begin quote...]
Unless we get above the endless bickering that has kept our system of schooling stranded in the deep structure that hardened into place many decades ago, we will find ourselves only tinkering with school reform one more time. Enough already! There are children here.

There are some obvious improvements to be made that will arouse little controversy, such as upgrading the infrastructure of schooling and providing high-level equity in instructional and curricular learning and teaching resources. And there is a rich array of ideas that have been briefly implemented in innovative school programs that were not brought to scale and sustained. Their stories are readily accessible but have been virtually ignored by policymakers, even by federally appointed committees such as the National Commission on Excellence in Education that in 1983 produced the influential report A Nation at Risk. In all probability, some of these will be rediscovered, funded, not brought to scale, and fade, largely because of the ideological differences embedded in our multilayered system of schooling.

Over a period of sixty years, I have taught in a one-room school and school for delinquent boys, taught in every grade from the first through graduate school, been a dean for sixteen years, and studied in depth and breadth educational change, schooling, the education of educators, and more. I now look back in wonderment, anger, and near-despair at the stark reality of we the people scarcely murmuring for eight years over the imposition of the No Child Left Behind Act on our PUBLIC SCHOOLS. No powerful intellect is required for coming to the conclusion that we the people are grossly undereducated in what education is and negligent in the informed care of our irreplaceable asset, the public school. Where art thou, Horace Mann, arguably its founder, who proclaimed over 150 years ago that “the public school is the greatest discovery made by man”?

I have concluded that we will never have the schools our democracy requires until their well-being is a major priority of local communities. And we will not have them until policymakers, business roundtables, educational organizations, teacher-preparing institutions, and community leaders agree on what all schools are for. The challenges are enormous and, unless we take them seriously and begin the necessary learning now, our century-old tinkering with schooling will continue.

These are not tasks to delegate to national commissions. They are for all of us—the “yes we can” people, the young and the old, and everyone in between.

[End Quote]

Something to think about. What do you think schools are for?