Deb Hansen – Page 3 – West Wind Education Policy

Author: Deb Hansen

Caine’s Arcade

Posted on August 2, 2012May 22, 2020 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Watching a popular video clip on YouTube typically causes me to laugh at a clever bit of irony or to groan at some ridiculous slapstick. More often than not, clips involve cute babies, funny pets, or somebody falling down and being embarrassed – far from intellectually challenging. I recently watched a video that was sentimental, but also thought provoking. Caine’s Arcade features Caine Monroy, a nine year old boy who lives in an East Los Angeles. To keep himself busy while his dad works in his used auto parts store, Caine spends months building an arcade out of cardboard boxes and miscellaneous found objects and dreams of the day when customers will come and play in his arcade. Nirvin Mullick just happens to come into the shop in search of an auto part, notices this little boy and his arcade, and becomes not only the first customer in Caine’s Arcade, but an advocate for creative kids everywhere. Remarkably, Nirvin is a film maker and skillful in the use of social media. He organizes a flash mob to bring customers into Caine’s Arcade and uses Facebook to create interest, which draws in television media and a lot of exposure through reddit. Nirvin films Caine before the surprise flash mob and captures his reaction when he sees the crowd and interacts with a throng of eager customers. The film was posted to the internet. (My viewing was hit # 3,086,106 on YouTube.) Continue reading “Caine’s Arcade”

Should Professional Learning be Required?

Posted on May 15, 2012May 22, 2020 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 3 minutes

I recently observed a conference room full of superintendents sitting in complete silence as they pondered a challenging question, “Should teachers be required to participate in professional learning?” Richard Elmore posed this question, and after what seemed like an uncomfortable amount of wait-time, a superintendent responded in an uncertain voice, “Yes.” The audience was engaged in learning how to improve student learning through the implementation of the Instructional Rounds approach and Elmore was pressing them to think about how to advance reforms that are likely to make a difference in improving student learning. Continue reading “Should Professional Learning be Required?”

Seeing Through and Beyond

Posted on April 2, 2012April 3, 2012 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 4 minutes

I just opened an email from a colleague asking me if I could help her find an article she needed for her work with local district administrators across the state. She was looking for The Singular Power of One Goal (Sparks, 1999) to encourage superintendents and principals to consider the importance of establishing a focused school improvement plan. After locating the article in my files and sending it off, I poured a cup of coffee and re-read this familiar work. The article, featuring an interview with Emily Calhoun, is just as current today as it was twelve years ago, and the message is more important than ever.

Dr.Calhoun is a national expert and author who supports schools, districts and state agencies in designing and implementing school reforms that focus on instruction, curriculum and assessment. In this publication, Emily reminds readers of the importance of setting goals sharply focused on student learning. She contends that one powerful student learning goal is sufficient for a school staff to work on. Having too many goals makes it difficult for educators to work collectively to study teaching practices and results. Focusing on one powerful goal enables teams of teachers to engage in highly focused professional learning, dig into the external knowledge base, thoroughly examine student data, and to carefully study the implementation of strategies identified by the faculty.

One of the most important concepts put forward by Emily in the interview is called “seeing through and beyond,” which is a process of identifying all the changes that will be required to accomplish the goal by looking through the goal to the student performances that are expected. The next step is to determine what teacher behaviors in curriculum, instruction, and assessment are needed to promote the desired student behaviors. Continuing the process, the faculty must see right through the teacher behaviors to what the principal and central office need to do. Seeing through and beyond enables program implementers to make better use of data, to design comprehensive staff development, to employ technical assistance and leadership, and to make critical decisions about the effective use of time and resources. A singular goal helps the faculty to focus and to push through to address the things that everyone must be working on to fully accomplish the goal. Of course, limiting the focus of a school’s improvement plan to a single goal is not easily done and achieving the goal is not that simple, and Dr. Calhoun comments on the many barriers and challenges.

When the article came out twelve years ago, districts were struggling to comply with NCLB and having difficulty managing the expectations to meet student achievement goals in multiple subject areas at the same time. Today, districts are still struggling to figure out how to design reforms that accomplish everything that is expected of them, with even fewer resources. The concept of seeing through and beyond is intriguing to think about in our current context.

Schools are being expected to adjust to newly revised student learning standards, modify curriculum, improve formative assessment processes, add more summative assessments, apply new technologies for both classroom and organizational purposes, implement new data management stems, engage parents more fully, respond to revised teaching standards, add new teacher and leader evaluation procedures, deliver intensive professional development, reform hiring and retention practices …and the list goes on.

How might applying the idea of “seeing through and beyond” to policy development change this picture? What if school leaders and policy makers started the policy making process by considering how the policy would enable districts and schools to focus on fewer priorities rather than adding more. Just as school leaders should look through the learning goal and the desired student performance to consider all the actions needed at various levels of the system, policy makers need to see beyond the specific actions and immediate consequences of the policies and reforms they are promulgating. Are there protocols that could help leaders to think about how their policies affect student learning and how they change the behaviors of teachers, principals, central office staff, and other role groups at all levels of the system? Is there a way to consider whether the policies are likely to lead to systemic changes that yield improved practices in instruction and assessment with enough fidelity to the design of the innovation and with enough teaches to make a difference? Reforms where innovations are done incorrectly or partially by many teachers or reforms that are fully implemented by only a small percentage of the teachers responsible for instruction are not going to yield the intended outcomes.

There are processes available to help planners to see through and beyond the policy goal. The new field of implementation science offers strategies for increasing fidelity and ways of accomplishing full scale replication across a large system. The work of Dean Fixsen and the National Implementation Network give policy makers and practitioners a way to intentionally explore and adopt the innovation, consider the various organizational complexities and the context that contributes to the success or failure of an implementation, and address both expected and unexpected barriers to putting a reform in place. Attending to the factors of implementation early in the planning process by using implementation science would give reformers tools they need to increase the likely hood that the policies they advance will make a difference.

In her article from over a decade ago, Emily advised that it takes both leadership and willpower to face the challenges of school reform. It will take leadership to intentionally use today’s implementation science and other processes to “see through and beyond”. It will take will power to narrow the focus of reforms, to selectively abandon projects and reforms that aren’t working, to eliminate barriers to reforms that are likely to accomplish goals of improved teaching and learning and to target actions to the ultimate goal – student learning.

Sparks, D.(1999). The singular power of one goal: Action researcher narrows focus to broaden effectiveness. JSD, Winter, 54-58. Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org/news/jsd/calhoun201.cfm

Image from Flickr user: Kristin Mckee

Attendance as a Reform Agenda

Posted on February 9, 2012February 22, 2012 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 5 minutes

In the recent State of the Union address, President Obama challenged states to address the required age of school attendance. The President stated, “… when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state — every state — requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.“

For the eighteen states that use sixteen years of age as the attendance requirement and the eleven states that require attendance until seventeen years of age, Obama’s expectation that they raise the age requirement is probably causing some lively discussions among school reformers.[1] The Education Week blog Obama Rekindles State Debates on Dropout Age by Lesli A. Maxwell sheds some light on this highly relevant topic. According to Maxwell, experts on this issue contend that changing attendance laws will do little by itself to decrease national dropout rates and that without comprehensive strategies for making school engaging and relevant and for identifying and addressing early signs of dropping out, states and districts are not likely to have much success with increasing graduation rates.

The blog goes on to cite national statistics on dropout rates, stating that nationally 8.1 percent of people between 16 and 24 years of age are considered dropouts. The blog fails to report on the graduation rates of students of color. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2007-2008 dropout rate for white students was 2.8 percent, with the Hispanic dropout rate at 6.0 percent, the Black dropout rate at 6.7 percent, and the American Indian/Alaska Native dropout rates at 7.3 percent.[2]

A study by the Schott Foundation for Public Education points out that only 47 percent of Black males graduate, while 78 percent of white male students graduate.[3]

President Obama’s advocacy to raise the required graduation rates and the points offered in the Education Week blog cause me to wonder about the students’ experiences on day-in and day-out basis. I contend that if what the student experiences everyday isn’t dramatically changed, having more of the same thing is not likely to improve the outcomes for students, even if they do stay in school longer. The Education Week piece does make the case that other strategies are needed beyond mandates for required years in school to make a difference in graduation rates. As an example of efforts underway to increase school attendance and improve graduation rates, New Hampshire reforms are presented as a case study. Paul Leather, New Hampshire’s Deputy Education Commissioner, stressed the importance of tackling the dropout problem by providing extended learning opportunities, creating multiple pathways to graduation, and making the state’s programs in career and technical education and adult education more accessible. New Hampshire’s data suggests that their approach is making head-way — the cohort rate for students who had dropped out of school (and did not earn a GED) was 3.3% in 2010-11 – down from 4.4% the previous year. Interestingly, Maxwell cites a 2010 report by the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins that suggests that of the six states that increased the compulsory-attendance age between 2002 and 2008, only Nevada accomplished a decrease in graduation rates. Illinois and South Dakota saw an increase in their high school graduation rates.

I am reminded of the comments made by Richard Elmore of Harvard University. In various presentations, I have heard Dr. Elmore comment on his observations of classrooms that he believes are “excruciatingly boring”. He goes further by stating that educators have a moral responsibility to save students from being bored and disenfranchised by ensuring they are given engaging and challenging tasks. Anecdotally, I have personally visited many classrooms where students are politely engaged in lessons and tasks that are designed to address the expected standards and curriculum. The noteworthy commonality across these observations was that the students seemed bored and that the lessons and tasks were not particularly relevant or student focused.

Ethan Yazzie-Mintz, a scientist at the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy at Indiana University and director of the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) reports findings from the HSSSE annual survey of students’ perceptions about their school experience, the learning environment , and their interactions with the school community. According to the 2009 analysis of this survey, students report that boredom is a major factor in deciding to drop out. The report lists these findings: “Two out of three respondents (66%) in 2009 are bored at least every day in class in high school; nearly half of the students (49%) are bored every day and approximately one out of every six students (17%) are bored in every class. Only 2% report never being bored, and 4% report being bored “once or twice.”[4]

Education policy makers may hope that, with the stroke of a pen, they can make a significant difference in the graduation rates by changing the policies that set the age of mandatory attendance. Keeping students in school longer does have some face validity, but as suggested by the states that have changed the mandatory age without results, it may not yield the quick- fix that is desired. If students anticipate being bored and disappointed by what they are asked to learns as they walk through the school doors each day, just requiring more days may not be the best strategy. Providing learning experiences that are relevant, challenging, and connected to the real world beyond the classroom should be high priority for school reformers. Particular attention must be paid to designing authentic learning experiences for all students of color and for black males, to make schools an engaging place where students choose to stay. These improvements will require changes to the curriculum and intensive professional growth for teachers and school leaders to learn new practices. Additionally, working conditions in schools will need to be established to provide teachers with the time to plan and collaborate with each other as they develop dynamic and more personalized learning opportunities for students.

The Obama Administration provided this graphic on the costs of dropping out as part of the State of the Union presentation.[5] Considering the statistics on dropouts, along with the costs of dropping out, creates a sense of urgency to do something. Taking action to transform instructional practices and the learning students engage will accomplish far more than just extending the mandatory age of attendance. Improved teaching and learning will not just keep students in school; it will also prepare them for the world they will face when their K-12 years are over. Funding the more comprehensive reforms will be expensive, but the considering the cost of dropping out, the investment should be indisputable.

[1] Education Commission of States. (2010). Compulsory school age requirements. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/86/62/8662.pdf

[2] National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-08). Public school graduates and dropouts from the common core of data: School year 2007-2008. IES Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/graduates/findings.asp

[3] The Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2010). Yes we can: The Schott 50 state report on public education and black males 2010. Retrieved from http://blackboysreport.org/?page_id=14

[4] Yazzie-Mintz. E. (2009) Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 high school survey of student engagement. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/images/HSSSE_2010_Report.pdf

[5] The White House. (2012). State of the union enhanced graphics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/25/state-union-deep-dive

Access to Learning

Posted on January 6, 2012January 6, 2012 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 3 minutes

This fall I had the opportunity to attend the annual Des Moines Branch of the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet in Des Moines, Iowa. The featured dinner speaker was Dr. Linda Lane, Superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public School District. Prior to becoming Superintendent in December of 2010, Dr. Lane was the deputy superintendent of the Des Moines Independent Community School District and she was the first female and person of color to hold the position of chief operating officer. From 2006 to 2010 Linda served as the deputy superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public School District. During her time as Deputy Superintendent, Pittsburgh achieved adequate early progress (AYP) for the first time in the district’s history. The district was able to achieve AYP again for the second time in three years with Dr. Lane in the superintendency.

Dr. Lane’s keynote began with her reflections about the impact of the economic crisis on students and families in her district, as well as how funding cuts have had some devastating effects on the Pittsburgh school system. She stressed that educators and community members must be clear about the purposes of education and that it is paramount that students have access to a high quality education to prepare them to pursue college or work force certification – not just vocational opportunities.

Dr. Lane recommended the book, Pinched: How the Great Recession Has Narrowed Our Futures and What We Can Do About It by Don Peck (2011) to the audience. Peck’s book asserts that the current recession is creating a white male underclass and that unskilled workers are being pushed out of low paying jobs. Unfortunate economic conditions caused by this recession will make it even harder for students of color to find opportunities in the work place. According to Lane, these patterns create an even greater urgency for communities to push for better schooling and clearer paths into careers for students who don’t immediately go to colleges or universities. Lack of education fuels what has been described as the 1% and the 99% wealth-gap. Dr. Lane went on to make the argument that education is power and that history reveals how racial inequities are created and maintained by limiting access to education. For example, laws were established to make teaching slaves to read and write illegal for the purpose of diminishing their power. Sadly, the current laws to prevent Latino/a students from qualifying for in-state tuition because they are undocumented, suggests that denying educational equity continues to this day.

Dr. Lane admonished the audience, “For our kids to do better, we have to do better.” She described efforts to increase student access to education such as the Pittsburgh Promise program that offers scholarships to students who meet grade point and attendance requirements, as well as Promise Net, a network of communities investing in education and economic development by establishing place-based scholarship programs. Dr. Lane wrapped up her remarks by challenging the audience with some difficult questions. What is Des Moines doing to establish scholarship programs? What else can be done to help students to grab opportunities? What more can your community do to increase students’ access to quality education?

To suit the occasion of a banquet, Dr. Lane’s remarks had to be compelling and motivational, but brief. I found them to be thought-provoking, but I left feeling more worried than motivated. The two themes, that access to education is power and that the negative effects of the current recession will make it harder for students to succeed, caused me to wonder about the ongoing struggle to pass federal education policies to improve student learning. Will the policymakers support and fund actions that increase student access to the robust and meaningful education needed to move large numbers of struggling students to levels of success needed to be successful in college and the workplace? Will the policy platforms being crafted now result in better outcomes for students of color or will they exacerbate the economic and social pressures that are contributing to the current gaps in student performance and graduation rates? Dr. Lane’s reforms are getting traction in Pittsburgh. Work underway there is closing the gap. In another venue, with more time, I am sure that she could elaborate on policies and strategies that work. Perhaps, legislators should be taking a look at her ideas for increasing access to quality education.

“We tried that, but…”

Posted on November 7, 2011November 7, 2011 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 3 minutes

I recently served as a process observer during a discussion about how to best support the central office leadership of a local school district as they planned school improvement efforts. The individuals who offered support to the district leaders commented on how frequently they heard these school leaders say, “We tried that, but…” followed by the discouraged refrain, “we didn’t get results.”

As an observer of those coaching the district, I wondered why they didn’t probe further. Whenever I hear “we-tried-that-but,” a series of questions comes to mind: What did you try to implement? How do you know teachers used the strategies? Did they use the strategy often enough for students to get the anticipated benefit? Did the teacher use the strategy long enough to change student learning? Did the teachers use the strategy or method the way it was intended or did they change it? What were the students’ responses to the changes in instruction? Were enough students engaged to make a difference in the results? If teachers struggled to use the strategy, why did they have difficulty? Did they need more professional development to fully understand the new practice? Did they have time to practice using the new approach and work with their colleagues to plan new lessons and discuss how to best use the practice in the classroom? Were the working conditions and culture safe for teachers to try newly learned skills? How were teachers involved in planning the roll-out of the effort? What role did principals and other school leaders play in supporting teachers’ application of new practices and removing barriers that teachers experience when trying something new?…among others.

I wonder how often school administrators and teachers have voiced disappointment about not getting the intended outcomes from various initiatives without looking further into the implementation of the effort. Without answering these and other questions about the implementation of a reform effort, it is not possible to make good decisions about what works or doesn’t work.

At another level, how often have state and national leaders said, “We tried that, but….”? Looking at implementation from a macro-level — reformers have advanced legislation, funded expensive reform agendas, pushed various curriculum and assessment models with the goal of improving student learning, established task forces, organized new departments, created new positions, and a myriad of other strategic actions. I suspect many were tried and abandoned, because the data indicated that student outcomes didn’t improve. It is impossible to tell if the innovation had the capacity to fulfill the promises intended by the policy makers without studying implementation. What was actually known about how widely the reforms being advanced through policy were implemented?

Implementation Science provides the understanding of systemic implementation practices needed to help local district leaders, as well as state and federal policy makers, to design and support reforms in ways that intentionally attend to the factors necessary to achieve full implementation. The National Implementation Research Network(NIRN) offers research and frameworks for understanding effective implementation processes. Educational reformers should study NIRN’s core implementation components and their conceptual model for designing and creating the conditions needed to operationalize and advance full implementation. Dean Fixsen and the other authors of the monograph Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (2005) state, “There is broad agreement that implementation is a decidedly complex endeavor, more complex than the policies, programs, procedures, techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the implementation efforts. Every aspect of implementation is fraught with difficulty, from system transformation to changing service provider behavior and restructuring organizational contexts.”[1]

The lessons learned from implementation science should provide hope for reformers at all levels of the educational system who are struggling mightily with these challenges. Anyone listening to the often-cited mantra “We tried that, but…” should suggest they carefully study implementation and seek out these resources.

[1] Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.

Instructional Rounds: A Powerful Reform Strategy

Posted on September 29, 2011September 30, 2011 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Collaboration, networking, school improvement, instructional support, a collaborative learning culture, knowledge building, and rigorous and relevant teaching—these are all attributes and practices school reformers strive for by awarding funds, promulgating rules, instituting strategic plans, launching training initiatives, and extending promises to stakeholders. One approach that truly advances all of these attributes and practices is the instructional rounds process – “an explicit practice that is designed to bring the discussion of instruction directly into the process of school improvement.”[1] Instructional rounds are adapted from a routine used in medical education in which interns, residents, and supervising physicians visit patients, observe, discuss evidence for diagnoses, engage in dialogue to analyze the evidence, and share ideas for possible treatments. Educational rounds brings networks of educators together using protocols and routines to articulate a theory of action, identify a problem of practice, observe classroom instruction, debrief with colleagues to analyze any patterns that emerge, and recommend the next level of work to help the school achieve their desired goals.[2]

Richard Elmore, Lee Teitel, Liz City, and their colleagues from Harvard have developed processes, protocols, and technical assistance resources for establishing networks to implement instructional rounds. They have worked closely with networks and district leaders to apply the practice of rounds, refine the model based on lessons learned, and to expand the community of learners who are able to facilitate the rounds process. Examples of these networks include the Cambridge Leadership Network, the Connecticut Superintendents’ Network, the Ohio Leadership Collaborative, and the Iowa Leadership Academy Superintendents’ Network. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Iowa Leadership Academy Superintendents’ Network – an experience that has allowed me to participate in intensive training provided by Dr. Elmore and the Harvard team, engage as both a member on various rounds teams and as a facilitator of the rounds process in several Iowa school districts, and to continuously learn from my fellow rounds facilitators through our Network meetings.

The instructional rounds model seems to be gaining more traction and is recently being advanced as a model for school leaders and teachers as a means to transform educator practice. What I have noticed in my work with the rounds model in Iowa is that it offers tremendous benefit to the Network members and to the participating schools. The process focuses the district’s efforts on, what Elmore calls, the instructional core. Engaging in rounds builds the capacity of superintendents to recognize quality instruction, enhances trust among Network members, increases their willingness to take on the challenges of influencing change, and leads to a culture of inquiry that enhances professional learning.

On a cautionary note, I have also noticed some aspects of the model that anyone aspiring to adopt this approach should consider. Some of the lessons learned from my own work with rounds and from sharing experiences with other facilitators in Iowa are listed below.

Though the steps for conducting rounds may seem straightforward, in practice, it is a very difficult program for participants to implement.
Establishing a network takes an extraordinary amount of work and leadership. In Iowa, Bonnie Boothroy of School Administrators of Iowa and several of the Area Education Agency Chiefs have committed extensive amounts of time and effort to establish and sustain Iowa’s Network.
Being a member of a network takes a lot of time, commitment to learn, and perseverance to follow through and apply new learning. It is not a model for anyone who wants their professional growth to be quick and easy. Becoming a facilitator is an extremely valuable professional learning experience, but the work of developing the skills needed to support a network and run the rounds process can’t be shortchanged. The “faint of heart” should not apply.
New capacity building is needed to do this work. School leaders shouldn’t consider running rounds without background knowledge. Instructional Rounds in Education: A Network Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning a well written book by City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009) is a great resource, but just reading the book is not a substitute for learning how to conduct rounds from those who have had extensive direct experience.
Going to scale across multiple districts and running rounds with fidelity is a constant effort and requires ongoing vigilance. Our network meets several times a year to address how best to support the rounds process and we continuously confront issues that have the potential to seriously domesticate the delivery of the model.

It takes a community of committed practitioners for the networks and rounds process to work well. Isolated implementers who just pick up the book are likely to implement the model partially or incorrectly. Plus, the experience of engaging in collective learning in an organized way will serve school leaders well as they work to establish learning communities in their schools.

School reformers might want to take a look at this promising and exciting approach to school reform. While they should be excited about the potential, reformers also need to be cautious about selecting a model that is demanding to implement. To fulfill the promise of this approach, school leaders will need to make a serious commitment to engage deeply in the work and be intentional about fully learning the model from experts. The policy makers and administrators who are responsible for designing the roll-out of the rounds networks must attend to the all the factors that are necessary to advance a model to scale and be vigilant about expecting careful replication of the model.

[1] City, E., Elmore, R. , Fiarman, S. and Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

[2] Ibid.

How Adults Learn: What Do Reformers Need to Know?

Posted on August 4, 2011August 4, 2011 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The West Wind Education Policy web site describes our work in the area of knowledge building and professional development as being based on theories of andragogy–or adult learning. The study of adult learning theory and experience in designing and supporting professional development for educators has taught us a lot about the way teachers and school leaders learn when engaging in professional growth experiences. Andragogy theories suggest that adults need to learn experientially and to be actively involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction. We know that adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value. We know that experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for effective learning activities and that problem-centered learning rather than content-oriented learning is more meaningful to the adult. Educators, like all other adult learners bring with them a reservoir of experiences, but they also bring extensive doubts and fears to the educational process. Well-designed learning establishes an environment where each learner feels safe and supported, where the individual’s needs and uniqueness are honored, and where the participant’s abilities and life achievements are acknowledged and respected. A productive learning environment encourages experimentation and creativity, while fostering intellectual freedom.

Carrie Leana, a researcher from the University of Pittsburgh studied the influence of human and social capital in school settings. Her research suggests that social capital thrives in an atmosphere of mutual trust and collective practice. According to Leana, a school climate that is characterized by trust provides an environment where teachers routinely talk to each other, share the same norms, and hold strong agreement in their descriptions of their school’s culture. Her findings suggest that a trusting climate is more important than the teacher education level, teacher certification, or other human capital measures in predicting student achievement scores.

As federal, state, and local district leaders establish policies that seek to improve educator effectiveness, they are advancing requirements that are intended to change practices in human capital management. Reforms being considered aim at raising standards, ensuring that mentoring and induction supports are in place, offering quality professional development, and improving teacher preparation and performance evaluation systems. If these reforms are going to make a difference, the designers and implementers should consider how the intended and unintended consequences will impact the learning environment for educators. Those responsible for leading reforms should ask questions such as:

• Will reforms provide the infrastructure and the necessary funding to provide intensive professional development?
• Are there policies in place that allocate adequate time for professional growth and collaboration?
• Will performance review processes offer meaningful, accurate, and timely feedback in a way that enhances reflection and supports continuous growth in a safe culture?
• Are educator effectiveness systems designed to contribute to a culture of inquiry, trust, and professional collaboration or is there a risk they will contribute to learning environments that are characterized by competition and norms that create distrust?
• Are teachers full partners in discussions and decision making about changes to the educator effectiveness systems?
• Once changes are implemented, are they evaluated to determine whether the intended outcomes are accomplished? Have any unintended consequences occurred?

For those of us involved in the work of knowledge building and supporting policy developers it is key that we keep asking ourselves this question: What can we do to help policy leaders learn about andragogy, as well as human and social capital so they can make thoughtful decisions about how to build the capacity of educators?

Knowles, M. S. et al (1984) Andragogy in Action. Applying modern principles of adult education, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Web reference site of Nan B. Adams, PhD . Southeastern Louisiana University.

Retrieved from:
www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/nadams/etec630&665/Knowles.html

Smith, M. K. (2002) ‘Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy’, the encyclopedia of informal education, Retrieved from www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.

Leana.C. (2010) Social Capital: The Collective Component of Teaching Quality Annenberg Institute for School Reform | Voices in Urban Education p 16-23. Retrieved from www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE/wp-content/pdf/VUE27_Leana.pdf

Fullan Challenges Reformers to Think About Whole System Reform

Posted on May 16, 2011June 8, 2011 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The aspiration to “close the gap” in test scores between students of color and whites has been the focus of public policy makers for some time. Policy makers have established the expectation that schools must do more to ensure that all students of every income, race/ethnicity, language background, and disability status graduate from high school ready for college and a career. Schools and the institutions that support schools are under pressure to improve the achievement of all students by improving teacher quality, providing information and supports to parents, establishing standards and assessments, providing intensive supports and interventions to low performing schools, and other reform strategies. There has been an increasing emphasis on closing the gap by improving the quality of teachers and leaders through reforms to educator effectiveness systems including preservice preparation, teacher and leader evaluation, and professional growth systems. In a recent publication, Michael Fullan challenges reformers to think carefully about the way to set the course for these reforms. Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform describes how school leaders and policy makers are selecting the wrong drivers to accomplish the changes needed to increase achievement and close the achievement gap. The article prescribes an alternative set of drivers that have been found to be more effective in accomplishing, what Fullan calls, the moral imperative of raising the bar for all students and closing the gap for lower performing groups. For all students to attain the higher order skills and competencies required to be successful world citizens, drivers need to be pursued as part of a coherent whole and be implemented in a highly interactive way.

As part of the recent National Summit on Educator Effectiveness hosted by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness, Fullan discussed the concept of effective drivers and the need for whole system reform in a webinar and a keynote address. He challenged the reformers in audience to think about whether the priorities they have set will:

1. foster intrinsic motivation of teachers and students;

2. engage educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning;

3. inspire collective or team work; and

4. affect all teachers and students – 100 per cent?[1]

I believe that the initial response to Fullan’s presentation has been striking. Individuals who were part of the Summit and read his article are now asking questions such as, “Are we aiming at the whole system or tinkering with selected elements?” “What are the drivers we are investing our time and money in, and should these be replaced with more powerful drivers?” “How can we be more collaborative in our work?” Who are the right stakeholders?”

Some questions I thought of include: If ensuring that all students are able to compete in a global economy is really our goal, what can we learn from Fullan about designing reforms that take on issues of inequity? What would it take to launch a whole-system reform that pushes the deeper changes needed to make a difference for those students who are currently not learning at the level needed to be successful in a changing world? What might happen if we involved more teachers of color in leadership roles for designing reforms? How can we capture the voices of students of color to help design learning experiences that are more motivating and have more real world applications? What factors contribute to collective team work in a diverse workforce? How might implementing the drivers Fullan talks about make a difference in the graduation rates, particularly among Black African American males?

I am looking forward to ongoing discussion about this publication. I am hopeful that it will be the catalyst for important changes in the way we go about influencing the work of policy change in the future.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010).Blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

[1] Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform.

Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper, 204. East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Recruiting and Retaining Teachers of Color: A Demographic Imperative

Posted on January 10, 2011March 1, 2011 by Deb Hansen

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Policy makers and educational leaders recognize the need to increase the racial and cultural diversity of the teacher work force in the United States. Recruiting and retaining teachers of color is considered a “demographic imperative” to address concerns about a predominantly white teacher workforce and to counter the mismatch between the racial and cultural backgrounds of students and teachers.[1]

Over 54 four percent of the public school student population in the United States is made up of students of color, yet only 18 percent of the teachers in the nation’s work force are teachers of color.[2]

Percentage Distribution of Full-Time Teachers and Student By Race

National Center for Education Statistics 2007-2008[3]

	White	Black	Hispanic	Asian	Two or More Races	American Indian or Alaska Native	Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders	Other
Teachers	82.9%	6.9%	7.2%	1.3%	0.9%	0.5%	0.2%	0.7%
Students	55.5%	15.5%	21.7%	3.7%	21.6%	0.9%	0.2%

A literature review by Villegas and Irvine (2010) suggests that teachers of color have been found to produce more favorable academic learning results for students of color than their white colleagues. Benefits to students of color when taught by a same-race teacher or when exposed to a teaching force that is racially/ethnically representative of the student population were found to be the result of practices such as: maintaining high academic expectations, engaging in culturally relevant pedagogy, developing caring and trusting relationships, serving as advocates, mentors, and cultural brokers, as well as confronting issues of racism through teaching.[4]

As a strategy for narrowing the achievement gaps among students, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is advocating for the recruitment of more African-American and Latino teachers. Duncan stated, “If we want to close achievement gaps, if we want to make sure that many more African-American and Latino male students are graduating rather than dropping out … having those teachers, having those role models, having those coaches is going to make a huge difference in their lives.[5]

While it is critical to aggressively recruit teachers of color to provide a diverse workforce, it is also essential that districts attend to issues of retention. A 2010 review of the literature regarding retention and turnover of teachers of color examined important factors that affect the retention of teachers of color. Betty Achinstein a researcher from the University of California, Santa Cruz spoke about problems in retaining teachers of color, “They’re leaving, and they’re leaving in droves. It’s a deep concern, if we care at all about the imperative to diversify the teacher workforce.”[6]

According to a new study from the University of Pennsylvania,[7] minority teachers, mainly blacks and Latinos, have been changing schools and leaving the profession at higher rates than whites. The turnover gap is widening. Richard Ingersoll, a national expert on teacher workforce issues, stated, “There’s been a victory for recruitment but not a victory for retention. If we want to solve this minority teaching shortage that’s been long discussed, then there’s going to have to be more focus on retention. We’re hiring more minority teachers but also losing more of them. It’s like a leaky bucket.” During the 2008-09 school year, over 19 percent of teachers of color changed schools or left the profession, compared to 15.6 percent of white teachers – a turnover rate for minority teachers 24 percent higher than for white teachers .[8]

The study from the University of Pennsylvania and the literature review from UC Santa Cruz suggest that teachers of color are leaving because of poor working conditions in the high-poverty, high-minority urban schools where they are concentrated. Teachers say they want more influence over school direction and more autonomy in the classroom to teach what works with their students.[9]

As part of their analysis of working conditions experienced by teachers of color, Achinstein and Ogawa (year) interviewed and observed 18 teachers of color over a five year period. They found that these highly committed, well trained, and credentialed teachers of color were frustrated by standardized tests and scripted lessons. Some teachers reported that their supervisors objected when they tried to teach things that were “not in the manual.” Achinstein said, “I was really struck by the teachers of color who wanted to use texts that related to the lives of their kids and build on their linguistic assets, and found they couldn’t because of school policies and structural barriers.” She added, “They’re taking on school roles against their will in ways that perpetuate inequality.” In interviews, the teachers shared that they were required to focus on students who could improve their test scores, and leave the rest behind. It appeared to them that they were being closely watched by administrators to make sure they were following “district mandates.” Of the 18, three left teaching and five others changed schools within five years. The teachers stated that part of the reason for leaving was the negative attitudes of school administrators toward students of color.[10]

Policy factors can contribute to cultural issues that have implications for the workplace and conditions that contribute to teachers leaving their schools and the profession. Policy makers should create opportunities to seek out the opinions of teachers of color about policies and reform practices. At the 2010 annual conference of the National Alliance of Black School Educators, the US Department of Education hosted a teacher roundtable to gather input from educators regarding their views about the nation’s education system and policy issues. Participants in the roundtable included teachers of color representing a diversity of experiences and content areas. Themes emerged from the roundtable dialogue that addressed policies that shape working conditions in the schools that seem similar to those identified by Achinstein, et al. (2010).[11] Several veteran educators pointed out that that the overwhelming emphasis on test scores has eroded the tendency for many teachers to share best practices and serve as the informal mentors to new teachers. According to round table participants, teachers find themselves in competition with each other over whose test scores will be better. They hope that Obama’s reform plans will “rekindle the spirit of cooperation that has been lost over the last decade” and allow teachers to focus less on worrying about how their students were performing compared to the students in other classrooms and more on positive learning outcomes for their students. A second theme at the round table was the need for effective and authentic systems of evaluation. Participating teachers expressed their desire for more methods of evaluation that contributed to improving their craft. Teachers at the round table advocated for evaluation systems that give teachers the feedback necessary to make teachers better, rather than a mere checklists.[12]

In the near future, decisions will be made that will shape federal and state-level legislation and policies relating to the educational workforce. As these policies are crafted, careful attention should be paid to potential implications for recruiting practices and teacher working conditions that affect retention. Calls to diversify the teaching workforce, reduce the achievement gap, and address inequities in school raises the importance of listening to teachers of color about their experiences in schools. When teachers of color say they are leaving the workplace because of low expectations and negative attitudes about students of color, lack of support for culturally relevant and socially just teaching, and limited dialogue about race and equity,[13] it is time for policy makers to listen to what teachers of color are saying and take action to make the necessary changes to keep teachers of color in schools.

[1] Achinstein, B., Freitas C., Ogawa, T., & Sexton, D. (2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80 (1), 71–107. Do1: 10.3102/0034654309355994

[2] National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008) Table A-27-1. Number and percentage distribution of full-time teachers, by level, sector, and selected teacher characteristics: School years 1999–2000 and 2007–08. Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section1/table-1er-1.asp and

Table A-4-1. Number and percentage distribution of the race/ethnicity of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade: October 1988–October 2008 Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section1/table-1er-1.asp

[3] Ibid

[4] Villegas, A., & Irvine, J. (2010) Diversifying the Teaching Force: An Examination of Major Arguments. Urban Review, 42, 175–192. doi 10.1007/s11256-010-0150-1

[5] CNN Wire Staff (August 28, 2010) Education secretary says U.S. needs more minority teachers. CNN Politics. Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/28/duncan.minority.teachers/

[6] Burns, M. (2010, December 28) Minority teachers: Hard to get and hard to keep. Miller-McCune.

Retrieved on December 28, 2010 from http://www.miller-mccune.com/education/minority-teachers-hard-to-get-and-hard-to-keep-25852/

[7] The Ingersoll and May study is still in draft form and has been presented for review to the Penn Consortium for Policy Research in Education and the Center for Research in the Interest of Underserved Students at UC Santa Cruz.

[8] Burns

[9]Burns

[10] Burns

[11] Achinstein, B., Freitas C., Ogawa, T., & Sexton, D. (2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80 (1), 71–107. Do1: 10.3102/0034654309355994

[12] Johnson, J. (2010, November 30).Black educators share teachers’ concerns and hopes. ED.gov. Blog. US Department of Education. Retrieved on December 28, 2010 from /blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/jemal.jpg/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/jemal.jpg

[13] Achinstein