Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122243970
label
Teaching Event [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122243970
contentType
document
title
Teaching Event [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
William "Bill" Kincaid's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122243970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367457-20170692S-023-015-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7b6b2726b16e0657
ocrText
SENT BY:6
: 4-15-97 :
12:09 :
6278732-
4567028:#27/27
National Board Certification
incentives
and rewards
APRIL 1997
Vancouver, WA
Bloomington, MN
New Hope. MN
St. Paul, MN
Minneapolis, MN
Banger, ME
Rochester. NY
Dexter, MI
Farmington, MI
Boston, MA
Ahode Island
Coventry. RI
Glicrest, CO
Waterford. CT
Douglas County, CO
Jericha, NY
Venture. CA
Delaware
Senta Fe Trall. KS
washington, DC
Walnut, CA
Knoxville, TN
Fairfax County, VA
Moore County, NC
Spartanburg. SC
Kings Mtn. NC
Charleston, SC
Hampton, SC
Corpus Christi, TX
Anchorage, AK
Gallup. NM
New Orleans. LA
Broward County, FL
SALARY SUPPLEMENTS
LICENSURE RENEWAL AND
CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS
Broward Co., Fla.
Kentucky
Corpus Christi, Texas
Kings Mountain, N.C.
Browand Co., Fla.
Michigan
Delaware
Minneapolis, Minn.
Colorado
North Carolina
Douglas Co., Colo.
Mississippi
Pairfax County, Va.
Ohio
Farmington, Mich.
Moore County, N.C.
Georgia
Virginia
Gallup, N.M.
New Orleans, La.
Maryland
Washington, D.C.
Georgia
North:Carolina
Massachusets
Gilcrest. Colo.
Ohio>
Hampton, S.C.
Spartanburg, S.C.
Jericho, N.Y.
Ventura, Calif.
LICENSE PORTABILITY
FEE SUPPORTS
Alabama
Montana
Arizona
New Mexico
Alabama'
Dexter, Mich.
New Поре, Minn.
Arkansas
North Carolina
Anchorage, Alaska
Douglas Co., Colo.
North Carolina
Georgia
Oklahoma
Bangor, Maine
Farmington, Mich,
Ohio
lowa
Rhode Island
Bloomington, Minn.
Gallup, N.M.
Rochester, N.Y.
Kentucky
Boston. Mass.
Georgia
Santa Fe Trail. Kan.
Maryland
Carbondale, Kan.
Hampton, S.C.
St. Paul, Minn.
Michigan
Charleston, S.C.
Illinois
Vancouver, Wash.
Diocese
Jericho, N.Y.
Ventura, Calif.
Corpus Christi, Texas
Knoxville, Tenn.
Virginia>
Coventry, R.I.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Walnut, Calif.
Incentives vary by state and locality. Please
Delaware
Mississippi
Waterford, Conn.
refer 10 the latest State & tocal Action Report.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
OS/ES/CC
SUBJECT:
Promoting Excellence and Accountability
Teaching
Every child needs -- and deserves -- dedicated, outstanding
teachers, who know their subject matter, are effectively
trained, and know how to teach to high standards and to make
learning come alive for students.
In order to make sure every child has the teachers he or she
deserves, as a Nation we must:
Recruit and retain the most talented people into
teaching;
Require tougher licensing and certification standards
for teachers, invest in high-quality preparation
and ongoing training to help teachers meet these
standards, and increase dramatically the number of
teachers who meet the demanding standards set by the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards;
Remove incompetent teachers quickly, fairly, and at
less cost than at present and for those teachers who
need such assistance, try to restore their enthusiasm
or counsel them out of the profession; and
Create systems for identifying and rewarding good
teachers for achieving outstanding levels of knowledge
and skills, especially as reflected in National Board
Standards or other standards of quality adopted by
States or local school districts.
2
I hereby direct you to assist States and local communities in
meeting these challenges by:
(1) Notifying State and local education officials within
90 days of the date of this memorandum of the Federal
resources available to address these challenges; and
(2) Identifying and disseminating within 6 months
promising State and local practices responding to each
of these challenges.
Please report annually to me on how States and local communities
are responding to these challenges.
William G. crinton
APEC Education Forum
3
@
C
a
Ism
8
5
FROM STUDENTS OF TEACHING
TO TEACHERS OF STUDENTS:
TEACHER INDUCTION AROUND THE PACIFIC RIM
APEC
chapter are based on responses to an exploratory survey. The following three
chapters analyze, in detail, the teacher induction programs in each of three case
study sites. The final chapter brings together the lessons learned and remaining
challenges from both the brief preliminary look and the in-depth analysis of the
case studies-the Northern Territory of Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.
Methodology
A planning group comprising Federal government staff and other experts from the
lead member (United States) met in November 1994 to formulate a research design
for the APEC Teacher Induction Study. The group decided that the project should
focus both on aspects of the structure of the educational system and historical-
cultural factors that affect teacher induction, and prominent features of successful
practices or models of induction. The study was designed with two major
components: Part I, the exploratory survey, and Part II, the case studies. The
exploratory survey would compile a broad base of information about "typical" and
"successful" models as well as background information relevant to understanding
teacher induction. The case studies (with sites selected based on the information
gathered in Part I) would collect and analyze more detailed information about
teacher induction models that are viewed as successful.
Part I: The Exploratory Survey
The purpose of Part I of the APEC Teacher Induction Study was to identify and
describe the different models of induction or induction practices currently in use in
each participating APEC member, thus providing an overview of practice in 11
members and the necessary background with which to refine the research protocols
and select sites for further exploration. Preliminary work consisted of a literature
review and interviews with expert consultants in the area of teacher preparation and
development. From the knowledge gained during the preliminary stage and
following, where possible, the research questions proposed at the Washington,
D.C., meeting (see Appendix A), research staff for the lead member designed a
brief exploratory survey (see Appendix B).
The survey, Exploratory Survey of APEC Members on Teacher Induction, had 31
open-ended questions in eight issue areas: general strategies, programs and
practices, participation, mentors or guidance teachers, government policies,
financing, outcomes, and future plans. The respondents for the survey were either
Education Forum representatives or issue-area experts for each APEC member.
2 APEC teacher induction study: introduction and methodology
The survey was administered in the summer of 1995. By the end of data collection
(August 1995), 11 responses had been received.
Research staff summarized the responses and cataloged them by issue areas. This
allowed greater ease in comparison of features across APEC member teacher
induction programs-as the survey responses later identified potential sites for the
case studies. Finally, staff briefly summarized all the information into one table
(see Appendix C), highlighting a particularly promising or identifiable aspect of
teacher induction in each member, and sent it to all members for their verification
and approval. Further, responses to the exploratory survey were synthesized into
the brief descriptions of practice in each member that appear in Chapter 2.
Part II: The Case Studies
The second part of the APEC Teacher Induction Study, the case studies, was to
take a more in-depth look at several teacher induction models that appeared to offer
the potential of providing APEC members with descriptions of particularly
interesting and diverse approaches to teacher induction. The case studies involved
several steps: selection of sites, development of protocols, site visits and data
collection, and analysis and reporting of data.
Selection of Sites. Federal officials and other research staff from the lead member
initiated the selection of up to four members to be recommended to the Education
Forum as sites for the case studies. The original criterion for selection, established
by the planning group, was that the program studied should be well-implemented
for several years. The exploratory survey informed other criteria, such as
perceived success (increased teacher retention or improved professional skills) and
diversity (originality of approach or service to diverse populations). Originally six
sites were under consideration as case study sites. Upon discussion and advice
from the expert consultants, it was decided that the six would be narrowed to three
case studies. Brief descriptions and potential merits for a study of the teacher
induction programs in the proposed sites were mailed to members, and members
were asked to approve selection.
The three sites finally selected were Australia's Northern Territory, Japan, and
New Zealand. These sites were chosen because each has a well-implemented
program of some duration that can inform other members on successful models of
teacher induction. Also, the teacher induction programs in each of these sites differ
on such key variables as level of governance from which they operate (the
provincial level in Australia, and the member level in Japan and the school level in
APEC teacher induction study: introduction and methodology 3
New Zealand), and the culture-both among the three sites chosen (with Eastern
and Western examples) and within them (with the Aboriginal and Maori
populations of Australia's Northern Territory and New Zealand, respectively).
There were features of specific interest in each of the sites, as well. The Northern
Territory of Australia's system of teacher induction focuses on improving support
and teacher retention, especially in the more isolated areas and in those areas with
predominantly Aboriginal schools. Features of the program include a series of in-
services and orientations at the regional and school level, an extensive peer
probation system that both evaluates new teacher progress and provides emotional
and professional support, and extensive central office support. "Strangers in their
Own Country," Chapter 3 of this report, explores the practice and features of
teachers induction in the Northern Territory.
Japan demonstrates a strong commitment to the professional development of
teachers. Its induction program is marked by close contact with new teachers, a
strong mentoring system, and support time for planning, collaboration, and the
general sharing of ideas. Japan was chosen for its strong national ethic regarding
professional development and induction. See Chapter 4, "The Training Year," for
an elaboration on the components and practice of Japan's teacher induction
program.
New Zealand provides an interesting case study, for its teacher induction program
is ongoing and part of a two-year period of provisional teaching. New Zealand
uses an advice and guidance program, which relies heavily on release-time for the
support and development of beginning teachers. There is a national framework for
teacher induction, with programs implemented and tailored at the individual school
level. "Teacher Induction in an Era of Education Reform," Chapter 5 of this
report, examines the teacher induction program of New Zealand as it functions at
the individual and school level.
Development of Protocols. The second step in Part II was to develop the
protocols to be used during the case studies. During October and November 1995
staff designed six sets of questions to be used as guidelines during the site visit
interviews. Each set was for a different audience within the teacher induction
system. The interviewer could tailor the interview questions to the site, upon
review of background materials, to cover all relevant information sought in the
general set of questions.
4 APEC teacher induction study: introduction and methodology
United States
There are no member-level standards for teacher induction in the United States.
Teacher induction-and all aspects of education-are the constitutional
responsibility of the individual states. This responsibility is often is even further
devolved to the school district (or local) level. With approximately 15,000 districts
in 50 states and the District of Columbia, U.S. teacher induction programs vary
widely in both intensity and content.
Systematic teacher induction programs began in the United States in 1980, when
Florida mandated induction programs for all its beginner teachers. Throughout that
decade and into the 1990s, the number of states implementing teacher induction
policies and practices has increased rapidly. Currently, 21 states have teacher
induction programs, with an additional 5 states piloting or planning programs.
Individual districts in the remaining states may implement their own teacher
induction programs, as well.
The rise of teacher induction programs in the United States may be attributed to
several factors. First, many teachers experience "reality shock" or "burn-out"
during their first years of teaching. Some of the reasons that it is especially
difficult for beginning teachers to transition successfully into their new careers are:
the lack of interaction among practitioners during the actual workday (i.e., teachers
are isolated in their classrooms), the competing professional demands placed upon
practitioners from the outset, and the dearth of practical training during preservice
education. Second, the first few years of teaching are seen as a time critical for
developing one's teaching style and one in which, if left to "sink or swim,"
teachers are especially likely to leave their new profession. Attrition rates among
new teachers are often five times higher than those of more experienced teachers.
This, coupled with fear of teacher shortages, makes attracting and retaining new
teachers especially important. Teacher induction programs are increasingly seen as
a way to provide new teachers with support necessary to ease their transition, help
them develop professionally, and retain them in the profession.
The main purpose of teacher induction in the United States is to help ease the
transition from "student of teaching" to teacher. Other objectives include:
Improving teacher performance;
Increasing the retention of teachers;
40 Teacher induction policy and practice among APEC members
Promoting the personal and professional well-being of beginning teachers
and reinforcing positive attitudes toward themselves and their new
profession;
Satisfying mandated requirements related to teacher induction and
certification; and
Transmitting the culture of the educational system to beginning teachers.
Basic Features
The practice of teacher induction varies widely in the United States. Generally,
states that require teacher induction programs issue a provisional license valid from
one to three years, under the condition that the individual will go through a
beginner teacher program before qualifying for full certification or continued
employment.
Teacher induction programs in the United States are undergirded by one or both of
the following principles: assist and assess. Assistance describes guidance,
feedback, and emotional or professional support provided to new teachers.
Assessment is the monitoring and evaluation of beginning teachers against certain
criteria, the achievement of which are necessary for licensure.
Teacher induction in the United States traditionally has focused most heavily on
assessment; and assistance where it exists is strongly linked to aiding new teachers
to achieve the assessment criteria. For instance, both Florida and Connecticut have
teacher induction programs that require new teachers to meet with mentor teachers
who help them prepare for observations by administrators and achieve the state
criteria for certification. Experts criticize these models-assessment and assistance
for assessment-because they discourage "reflective, context-specific" teaching and
seldom address teacher-initiated professional development issues.
In more recent years, however, several states have developed induction programs
with an assistance component only. Michigan, Maine, and New York have
implemented programs that require a personally developed professional growth
plan, attendance in 15 days of in-service training, and participation in a mentor
relationship, respectively. A few other states have implemented programs that
have both the assist and assess components, with the assistance provided for its own
sake and the assessment conducted for the teachers' own information rather than
for licensure.
Teacher induction policy and practice among APEC members 41
States employ varied strategies to accomplish their goals. Some of the most
common strategies include: observing exemplary teaching practices; participating
in in-service training; attending summer training; and attending certification
programs conducted through collaboration of school districts and universities. The
most commonly used strategy, which is in place in nearly all existing teacher
induction programs, is mentoring.
In most states with induction programs, new teachers are matched with a more
experienced teacher whose role it may be to: discuss school policy, curriculum,
and discipline; evaluate and monitor the new teacher's progress; or allow the new
teacher to observe his or her classroom. The dominant characteristic of all
mentoring is assisting new teachers to understand the culture of their school, in
addition to preparing new teachers for the assessment process.
Some states require that mentors have a minimum level of experience; other states
reward mentors with a small stipend. Generally, however, the teachers who serve
as mentors volunteer and receive no extra rewards. Several states (California,
Connecticut, and Florida, for example) require that mentors be provided training
for their roles as support providers or assessors.
Participation
It is difficult to gauge the overall participation in teacher induction. Roughly half
the states have no direct involvement in teacher induction programs, and for those
states that do have direct involvement, five are in the pilot or planning phase and at
least two have not yet implemented their programs for all teachers. Thus, it is
likely that less than 50 percent of all new teachers in the United States participate in
teacher induction programs that are more than a brief school orientation.
Financing
Data are similarly sparse on the financing of teacher induction programs. A key
variable in the method of funding is whether or not the program is mandated.
Several states with mandated programs provide state money to the districts for
program implementation, with districts supplying the rest. For instance, Indiana
provides $600 of state money for each new teacher-mentor team, and the school
districts supply up to $400 more for other induction activities. Voluntary teacher
induction programs are often funded by state grants or by individual school
districts. In Minnesota, districts currently apply to the state for a funding
42 Teacher induction policy and practice among APEC members
grant-which they must match-to implement a state-recommended induction
program. In general, statewide teacher induction programs do not exceed the cost
of $1,000 per inductee. Programs that are implemented on a smaller scale may
cost $4,000 to $6,000 per inductee.
The costs of teacher induction are mainly the compensation provided to mentors or
administrators participating in the program. Another main cost is relief-time for
new teachers and mentor teachers to participate in in-service and other professional
development activities.
Future Directions in Teacher Induction
There have been few evaluations of teacher induction programs in the United
States. The evaluations that have been conducted generally are confined to
privately conducted studies of individual programs. For instance, one of the few
studies that has been conducted concluded that a successful teacher induction
program emphasized structure, careful selection of mentor teachers, and assistance,
rather than the assessment of new teachers. This conclusion has important
implications for U.S. programs that currently are assessment-focused
It is difficult to discuss future plans as the system is decentralized and state
programs vary widely. However, in general, in education, there is growing
attention to the issue of the "professionalization of teaching" and to the idea of the
school-university partnership, which aims at improving pre-service teacher
training, new teacher induction, and in-service teacher education. One type of
partnership receiving attention is Professional Development Schools,
"
analogous to teaching hospitals, in which expert teachers join with university
faculty to provide a structured internship for new teachers
"
This idea was
originally proposed in the mid-1980s by the Carnegie Task Force and the Holmes
Group. Although there is wide support for such schools, progress in this arena is
slow.
Teacher induction policy and practice among APEC members 43
An 'A' for creativity
Variety is on Teacher of the Year's lesson plan
By Tamara Henry
Chief State School Officers and
love of learning."
USA TODAY
Scholastic Inc.
Draper has a bachelor's
A teacher for 25 years, Drap-
from Pepperdine University,
Cincinnati teacher Sharon
er says, "I keep it interesting
Malibu, Calif., and a masters
Draper teaches poetry out-
for them so that it stays inter-
from Miami University in Ox-
doors, joins students in acting
esting for me. Nobody likes to
ford, Ohio. Writing is her pas-
out Shakespeare plays and
do the same thing every single
sion, and she started "writing
shakes up her class by assign-
day. We manage to cover the
with my students and for my
ing a major paper right before
required curriculum, but
students." The result has been
the senior prom.
there's nothing that says you
five published books for young
Draper, who teaches English
can't do that in an interesting
people, as well as many poems
and Language Arts at Walnut
way."
and stories.
Hills High School, says she con-
For Draper, being a good
She also is known for requir-
stantly seeks "variety, sponta-
teacher means getting her stu-
ing a research paper during
neity and creativity" to keep
dents "to understand that a
the final months of senior year.
students enthusiastic about
powerful connection exists be-
As students turn in the opus the
learning Her search has made
tween historical and cultural
day before the prom, Draper
her one of the most popular
events and the literary cre-
hands them an "I survived the
teachers at the 100-year-old
ations of the time."
Draper Paper" T-shirt.
college preparatory high
Draper says teachers also
In 1995, Draper was among
school and helped earned her
must get to know their students
the first group of teachers to be
the National Teacher of the
individually. Instead of just
certified by the National Board
Year title.
talking or lecturing, she says,
for Professional Teaching
Draper will be honored by
teachers must interact with stu-
Standards. In that same year,
President Clinton Friday at
dents and care about what hap-
she was elected to its board of
the White House. A committee
pens to them.
directors. She now helps other
of 14 education organizations
One student, Leila Sinclaire,
teachers in Ohio working to-
selected Draper from top
agrees: "I am treated not as a
ward board certification.
teachers around the country
void to fill with useless trivia,
"I really, really believe pas-
and American schools abroad.
but as a living, breathing being
sionately in teachers and the
By Robert T. Ohr
The 46-year-old award is
possessing the will to learn, the
importance of teachers in our
A lifelong desire: 'I was probably born to be a teacher,' says
sponsored by the Council of
need to learn, and the sincere
society," she says.
Sharon Draper of Cincinnati, the National Teacher of the Year.
USA Today
4/17/97, P- 4D
Questions and Answers on APEC Study on Supporting New Teachers
Q:
How were the countries selected for the APEC study?
A:
The study was conducted in two parts. First, in 1995, a study was conducted to identify
and describe the differnt models and practices of teacher induction used in each APEC
Education Forum member. After a preliminary literature review, a survey of members on
teacher induction was conducted, with respondents from the member governments or
issue-area experts. APEC Research staff compiled an overview of the results and
descriptions of each member's practices.
In the second part of the study, case studies were undertaken to provide a more in-depth
look at some promising and diverse models of teacher induction. Sites were selected
based on criteria that included: being well-implemented for several years, perceived
success (increased teacher retention or professional skills), and originality of approach or
service to diverse populations.
Q:
What are the distinctive features of the APEC members selected for the study?
A:
The Northern Territory of Australia's system of teacher induction focuses on improving
support and teacher retention, especially in more isolated areas. Japan's program features
close contact with new teachers, a strong mentoring system, and support time for
planning, collaboration, and sharing of ideas. New Zealand's program stretches over the
first two years of a teacher's career, and relies heavily on release time for support and
development of beginning teachers.
Q:
How many U.S. states currently have teacher induction programs? What are they like?
What do they cost?
A:
The study found that 21 states currently have programs, with an additional five states
piloting or planning programs. The first state to establish a program on a statewide basis
was Florida, in 1980. Individual districts operate teacher induction programs as well. The
study further estimates that less than half of all new teachers in the U.S. participate in a
teacher induction program that involves more than a brief school orientation. Programs in
the U.S. tend to focus on assisting teachers to aid new teachers to meet the assessment
criteria that states have for provisional teachers. The most common US strategy is
mentoring, although new teachers also observe exemplary practices, participate in in-
service and summer training, and attend certification programs conducted through
colloaboration of school districts and universities.
The study found that statewide programs cost approximately $1000 per new teacher, with
smaller-scale programs more expensive than that.
04/17/97
09:20
0S-EXECUTIVE OFFICE 94567028
NO. 801
002
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
NEWS
states of THE
FOR EMBARGOED RELEASE: 4 p.m. EDT
Contact: Jane Glickman (202) 401-1307
April 17, 1997
Stephanie Babyak (202) 401-2311
TEACHERS OF THE YEAR JOIN COLLEGE LEADERS IN NATIONAL FORUM:
ATTRACTING AND PREPARING TEACHERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
For the first time ever, fifty of the nation's best teachers are joining U.S. Secretary of
Education Richard W. Riley and education leaders from colleges that prepare many of the
nation's teachers for a candid conversation on how this nation can do a better job in preparing the
next generation of teachers.
"America needs to hire 2 million teachers in the coming decade," Riley said. "In the past,
when our nation has needed large numbers of teachers, we have sometimes traded quality for
quantity and paid the price by accepting mediocrity in our schools. We cannot allow this to
happen this time around. Our colleges and universities simply have to do a better job of
preparing new teachers. We are losing 30% of our new teachers in the first few years after they
enter the profession and we can't afford this attrition rate."
Meeting Thursday and Friday at the Washington Hilton, the National Forum on
Attracting and Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century brought together state teachers of the
year, college and university leaders, and policymakers to participate in discussion groups and
panel discussions around the issues of:
how teacher preparation programs must change for the 21st century;
how to break the barriers that inhibit change in teacher preparation programs; and
how teaching the instruction of reading, science and math, and technology may be
improved.
-MORE-
0S-EXECUTIVE OFFICE 94567028
04/17/97
09:21
-2-
Thursday evening [8 to 9 p.m., EDT], a live, national satellite broadcast of a panel
discussion with Riley and forum participants originating at the Washington Hilton will be
downlinked to more than 120 sites across the country. Local participants and interested members of
the public are invited to join this national discussion on the internet at:
www.ed.gov/comments/nationalforum
With the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Riley said this dialogue
will be especially useful for Education Department policy makers as they consider Title V, the
section of the law that specifically addresses teacher recruitment, preparation and ongoing support.
In announcing plans for the forum on teacher preparation, Riley said in his 4th annual State
of American Address, Feb. 18, 1997, "we are not as prepared as we should be for this enormous
undertaking and there are several reasons why:"
"We do not, for example, do a very good job of recruiting people to this demanding
profession, and we have really failed to do justice to the task of recruiting talented minority
candidates and males.
Another reason: our colleges of education and departments of education are too often treated
like forgotten stepchildren in our system of higher education. And when eager new teachers
enter the classroom for the first time, we give them little, if any, help. As a result of this
longstanding 'sink or swim' approach, we are losing 30 percent of our new teachers in the
first three years. In addition, 25 percent of our nation's current teachers are now teaching
out of their field.
These are astonishing figures that will only grow as schools rely on hard-working substitute
teachers to stem the tide of crowded classrooms. We will never have 'A' students if we can
only give ourselves a 'C' as a nation when it comes to preparing tomorrow's teachers. We
cannot lower our standards -- as we have in the past -- to meet the growing demand for new
teachers.
Now is the time to get it right -- to step back and rethink how we recruit, prepare and support
America's teachers."
-MORE-
04/17/97
09:21
0S-EXECUTIVE OFFICE -> 94567028
NO. 801
904
-3-
Friday afternoon, President Clinton will address the forum participants in the White House
Rose Garden and honor the 1997 National Teacher of the Year, Sharon Draper of Cincinnati, Ohio.
She was among the first group of teachers to be certified by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards and was also elected to its board of directors. Riley said all new teachers
"should have to prove that they are qualified to meet high standards before getting a license. This
would mean that prospective teachers are able to pass a rigorous, performance-based assessment of
what they know and what they are able to do."
The National Teacher of the Year program, in its 46th year, is sponsored by the Council of
Chief State School Officers and Scholastic Inc. The state teachers of the year were selected on the
basis of nominations by students, teachers, principals, and school administrators throughout their
respective states.
###
NOTE TO EDITORS: Background materials are available from the Office of Public Affairs, 600
Independence Ave., SW. Please call ahead if you are sending a courier to pick up or would like
faxed summaries of: Initial Ideas for Teacher Development and Reauthorization of Title V of the
Higher Education Act, a discussion paper; Attracting, Preparing, and Supporting Teaching's Next
Generation, a discussion paper by David Haselkorn; and a new report, From Students of Teaching
to Teachers of Students: Teacher Induction Around the Pacific Rim, which surveyed 11
participating APEC members and conducted case studies on Australia's Northern Territories, Japan,
and New Zealand to examine promising teacher induction practices.
Also available by fax are a schedule of events, a list of participants, and satellite coordinates for the
Thursday evening telecast.
To schedule interviews, please call Jane Glickman at (202) 401-1307 or Stephanie Babyak at (202)
401-2311.
To:11:11 Kincaid
From: SUE MERRITT
4-14-97 3:36pm p. 1 of 3
CC: Bruce Reed
Elera Kagon
Wite Cohen
Christa Robinson
NATIONAL
TEACHER OF THE YEAR
PROGRAM
Contact: Jon Quam, Director
202-336-7047; 202-789-1792 fax
[email protected]
EMBARGOED - FOR RELEASE ON 4-17-97
CAREER OHIO EDUCATOR NAMED
1997 NATIONAL TEACHER OF THE YEAR
Cincinnati, Ohio High School English/Language Arts Teacher to be
Honored at the White House
Washington, DC Thursday, April 17, 1997. For more than twenty-five years Sharon Draper
has shown her students in the Cincinnati public schools the beauty and power of language and
learning. Today she is named 1997 National Teacher of the Year and will be honored by
President Clinton in a ceremony at the White House Friday, April 19, which will also recognize
all the 1997 State Teachers of the Year. At the conclusion of her current school term Ms.
Draper will begin a year as spokesperson for education to the nation and the world.
The National Teacher of the Year Program is the oldest and most prestigious awards program
to focus public attention on excellence in teaching. Now in its 46th year, the program is
sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers and Scholastic Inc. The National
Teacher of the Year is chosen from among the Teachers of the Year from the 50 states, five
extra-state jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Education
Activities by a committee of the 14 leading education organizations in the nation.
"Sharon Draper exemplifies the professional qualities all our teachers must have if our nation
is to build education second to none," said Gordon Ambach, Executive Director of the Council
of Chief State School Officers. "She shows us how a great teacher, together with her students,
continues to learn and create," said Ambach.
Inspired by the examples of excellent teachers in her school years, Draper entered the profession
in 1970. Since 1978 she has taught literature and composition at Walnut Hills High School,
--mOre--
To: WII Kincaid
From: SUE MERRITT
4-14-97 3:36pm p. 2 of 3
Page 2
1997 National Teacher of the Year
Cincinnati Public School's 100-year-old college preparatory High School. "I have learned as I
taught, for I feel that an active learner is the best teacher," says Draper. "I want my students to
understand that a powerful connection exists between historical and cultural events and the
literary creations of the time," says Draper.
"In Sharon's classroom learning is real," said Dr. Ernest Fleishman, Senior Vice President of
Education at Scholastic Inc. "Her ability to help students comprehend the complex relationships
that exist in the world merits her selection as National Teacher of the Year." "Scholastic is
proud to sponsor the National Teacher of the Year Program because we recognize how vital the
role of teaching is to our nation's future," said Fleishman.
In Draper's classroom students read literature, discuss ideas from books and from world events
and they write. "Getting cultural perspective is hard for students unless someone takes the time
to show them the links," says Draper. "I tell parents that although I cannot guarantee some
Rhodes scholar by the-end of the school year, I can guarantee that their child will have improved
in their writing skills," says Draper.
Writing is a passion for Draper and she has, to this point, published five books for young people
along with many poems and stories. "I started writing with my students and for my students,"
says Draper. "Everything I become involved with seems to revolve around education and
children." She has been honored by the American Library Association with its "Coretta Scott
King Genesis Award" and the ALA award for "Best Book for Young Adults." Each year her
students receive their own rewards in donning the class-designed "I Survived the Draper Paper"
T-shirt commemorating the legendary research project that all her seniors must complete to
graduate.
In 1995 Draper was among the first group of teachers to be certified by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards. In that same year she was elected to the Board of Directors
of that organization. "Although the National Board cannot singlehandedly transform schools,
it can be a significant catalyst for change, says Draper. "Board-certified teachers are given both
the responsibility and the opportunity to strengthen and improve the teaching profession."
Draper now helps other teachers in Ohio working toward Board Certification in her role as an
Associate at the Mayerson Academy for Human Resource Development, Cincinnati's nationally
know professional development conter.
To Draper teaching is essential and eternal. "Just as Plato instructed Aristotle, who taught
countless others, as educators, the cycle of repeated learning and imparted wisdom is our burden
--mOre--
To:- RA11 Kincaid
From: SUE MERRITT
4-14-97
3:36pm
n.
3
of
3
Page 3
1997National Teacher of the Year
and our joy to continue," says Draper. "A child, unlike any other, yet identical to all those who
have preceded and all who will follow, sits in a classroom today--hopeful, enthusiastic, curious,"
says Draper. "The touch of a teacher will make the difference!"
Draper is a graduate of Pepperdine University and has her Master of Arts from Miami
University. She is the recipient of the National Council of Negro Women Excellence in Teaching
Award and the Ohio Governor's Educational Leadership Award. Her essay, "The Touch of a
Teacher," was published by the Center for Policy Rescarch/National Governors Association in
What Governor's Need to Know About Education. Draper and her husband, a high school
science teacher, have four children.
Other finalists in the National Teacher of the Year program are Ian Mitchell, 1997 Iowa State
Teacher of the Year and a teacher of the Language Arts at Marshalltown High School,
Marshalltown, IA; Rosalind Hurley Richards, 1997 Kentucky State Teacher of the Year, a fifth
grade teacher at Squires Elementary School in Lexington, KY; and George Abshire, 1997
Oklahoma State Teacher of the Year, a grade seven teacher of Mathematics at Jenks East
Middle School in Jenks, OK.
The State Teachers of the Year have been selected on the basis of nominations by students,
teachers, principals and school administrators throughout their states. The Teachers' applications
are submitted to the Council of Chief State School Officers in Washington, D.C., where the
national selection committee reviews the data on each candidate and selects four finalists. The
selection committee then personally interviews each finalist before naming the National Teacher
of the Year.
***
Contacts for additional information:
Jon Quam, Director
Lynn Gardner
National Teacher of the Year Program
Vice President - Communications
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Scholastic Inc.
Washington, DC 20001-1431
555 Broadway
202-336-7047 -- 202-789-1792 FAX
New York, NY 10012-3999
[email protected]
212-343-6833 -- 212-343-6930 FAX
APR. 16. 1997 6:41PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 1
OF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
STATES of
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Billkincard
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
456-7028
FROM:
Jon Schne, Kevin Selliven
PHONE NUMBER: 401-3598
MESSAGE:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR AND RESTRICTED TO THE
NAMED ADDRESSEE ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR
PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS TRANSMISSION IN
ERROR. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM
READING, COPYING, OR DISSEMINATING THE TRANSMISSION.
PLEASE CALL 202-401-3000 TO ARRANGE FOR RETURN OF ANY
TRANSMISSION SET IN ERROR. THANK YOU.
PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW
400 MARYLAND AVE., 6.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
Our mission is to ensure equal access to
BAPR. 16. 1997E 6:41PMPM DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
FAX NO. 7172451110
NO. 0553
P.
2
002
P. 2
Thissands
COPY
DICKINSON
COLLEGE
CARLISLE. PENNEVLVANIA 17012.2008
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
March 5. 1997
The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Secretary of Education
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue. SW
Washington. DC 20202
Dear Secretary Riley:
A few weeks ago, our Professor of French, Michael Kline, read a news article in the
Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, What Matters Most:
Teaching for America's Future, which articulated the extraordinary demand for elementary and
secondary teachers during the next dccade. This led him to propose a new program at Dickinson
College designed to make a small contribution coward meeting the challenge.
The Dean of the College, Lisa A, Rossbacher, and I were so impressed with the power of
Professor Kline's proposal that we established a small task group to work out the details and start
implementing the program.
Given the thoughtful and creative initiatives that President Bill Clinton and you have
announced. perhaps there will be some utility in the concept for auracting other colleges and
universities to do something similar. We believe that proper incentives will auract some of
America's best high school graduates into elementary and secondary teaching. Our program is
called Teachers for Tomorrow and will provide the following:
1) A $20.000 cash award from Dickinson to each student who graduates from the
program and teaches four complete academic years within a six-year period from the date
of their graduation.
2) Each teacher who fulfills chis commiument will receive $10,000 for their personal use
and $10.000 10 use for their classroom.
We have begun to solicit nominations from high school counselors and other officials and
plan LO make a formal announcement in April. We will begin with up to 10 candidates this
coming Fall and will build the program carefully to 20 entering freshmen each year.
NAICU
NO. 0553 P. 3
a
003
APR. 16. 19971 6:41PM2 PM DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
FAX NO. 7172451110
P. 3
Page 2
We are in the process of forming a national council to encourage other colleges and
universities 10 consider similar incentives. wich the goal of providing several thousand especially
gifted teachers each year for the next decade.
Should this fit within the context of your Initiatives, we would be pleased to work with
you and your staff.
Sincerely yours,
A. ice Fritschler
President
APR. 16. 1997 6:41PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 4
ATTRACTING. PREPARING AND SUPPORTING
TEACHING'S NEXT GENERATION
Discussion Paper
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education
By
David Haselkorn
April 8, 1997
APR, 16. 1997 6:41PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 5
APR. 16. 1997 6:41PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P. 6
Attracting, Preparing, and Supporting Teaching's Next Generation
How can we attract the most able candidates into teaching, prepare them
well, and support them through the earliest stages of their careers? What
might this do to raise teacher quality and staunch the 30-50% attrition
rates that are typical for teachers in their first five years on the job? How
are these challenges connected to the quest to raise standards for
students and their teachers?
The best prescription for attracting, preparing, and retaining good teachers starts with a
strengthened profession overall. The good news is that we have more powerful tools for fostering
excellence in the profession than ever before. The National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards' (NBPTS), five core propositions articulate a succinct definition of quality teaching:
Teachers are committed to students and their learning. This includes the belief that
all students can learn at high levels.
Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to all
students. A rich understanding of the subject being taught and a wide repertoire of
teaching strategies are essential to accomplished practice.
Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. Board
certified teachers must know how to create, enrich, maintain and alter instructional
settings to capture and sustain student interest. They will use many methods to
measure student growth and understanding.
Teachers think systemically about their practice and learn from experience.
NBPTS believes the best teachers are models of educated people, exemplifying the
same virtues they seek to inspire in students curiosity, tolerance, honesty,
fairness, respect for diversity, and appreciation for cultural differences. Every day
all teachers must make hundreds of principled judgments about sound practice,
based on both theory and experience. They must constantly seek to improve their
practice.
To do that teachers must be members of learning communities. The teachers who
will earn National Board certification contribute to the effectiveness of their
schools by working collaboratively with other professionals on instructional policy,
curriculum improvement and staff development. They are partners with parents in
educating their students.
I
APR. 16. 1997 6:42PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 7
The profession is developing new mechanisms for quality assurance in teaching by aligning
appropriate developmental standards at key gateways across the career continuum:
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) has
developed model standards for initial teacher licensure that are developmentally
linked to NBPTS' vision of truly accomplished teaching.
The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has
aligned its program approval standards for teacher education with NBPTS' vision,
as well.
Moreover, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future provided the
nation a practicable road map for recruiting, preparing, and supporting teaching's next generation:
1)
Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers.
2)
Re-invent teacher preparation and professional development.
3)
Fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom.
4)
Encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skills.
5)
Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.
Taken together, these developments represent a quantum leap for strengthening teaching,
based upon the incorporation of standards, accountability and support across the career
continuum. What might a public school look like if the nation acted on their vision for a
strengthened teaching profession? Lynn Stuart, Principal of the Cambridgeport Elementary
School in Cambridge, Massachusetts (and a member of the Commission) provides one
description:
2
APR. 16. 1997 6:42PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P.
8
First of all, the school of the future needs a vision of what it will become. I start
with vision because we often fail to name our purposes, our commitments, and our
hopes in school reform as we move too quickly to the structures of school life and
content of the curriculum. So my vision starts with learning.
In our school learning is about curiosity, it is about knowing deeply, across
discipline boundaries. It is about understanding. It is about doing. And it is about
sharing with others what one knows and is able to do. It is about the skill to
communicate ably. It is about joy and hard work. It is also about seeing in new
ways, discovering beauty in the natural world, man-made objects and in
relationships. And it is about developing social responsibility and a sense of
belonging in a diverse multi-cultural community and world. Learning, in a nutshell,
is complex and multi-dimensional.
From this definition of learning grows a definition of teaching. It, too, must
emanate from making meaning and from a teacher's own demonstrations of what it
means to be a learner. Being a learner, being a teacher are at once innate and
developed. Innate because we're born with a curiosity to learn, but developed
because one's potential is derived more from experience, opportunity and effort
than birthright. As the Commission report notes, among the fatal distractions in
our profession is the myth that "anyone can teach." A competent teacher develops
over time
In our school, now and in the future, development is the springboard for both
student and teacher learning. However, standards provide the direction and
coherence for each of them. Standards for student learning are visible and known
by students, families, and teachers alike. Standards are drawn from national
organizations such as the NCTM and NCTE as well as state and locally defined
standards. Benchmark skills are at once broad and multi-dimensional as well as
specific. Standards are also derived from what we know about child
development. And just as learning is meant to probe for deep understanding and
skill, assessment of learning must do the same. Multiple sources of student
accomplishment are measured through varied performances and evaluated by the
student, teacher, parent, and wider community. No one task measures the worth of
learning.
The school of the future is small and personalized for each student, family, and staff
member. It is structured to provide ongoing professional development, to provide
a strong teaching team at each multi-grade level and to provide flexibility in what
might be called hyphenated roles for teachers. Teaching is the hardest work one
could ever do. We can not bury a teacher in this work alone, without help, without
providing multiple avenues for work which include teaching and also such
important roles as curriculum developer, mentor, researcher, college teacher,
3
APR. 16. 1997 6:42PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 9
practicum supervisor, teacher-leader. Hyphenated roles give outlets for teacher
expertise, refresh the teaching soul, and provide genuine co-leadership for schools
and colleges of education.
The principal will be an instructional leader. However, traditional hierarchies will
be replaced by a more complex web of new relationships in which teachers and
principals can weave in and out, up and down, building upon prior experience in
developing skills, encouraged to take new risks and experiment, but scaffolded by
and connected to the strong web-like structure which undergirds all our efforts.
There are different kinds and levels of accomplishment in our schools, but there is
always this strong web of interdependence. There is no longer the sink or swim,
stand alone mentality; instead there is a new network of professionals linked in the
school, to other schools and electronically to the profession around the world [as
well as to parents in the community]
Schools like Lynn's exist today, but they are the exception not the rule. At the
same time, we know more than ever before about the essential conditions for ensuring
quality teaching and creating schools like hers. It's time to act on this knowledge on
behalf of a strengthened profession overall.
4
APR. 16. 1997 6:42PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P. 10
Attracting the Most Able
2,000,000 teachers will be need to be hired over the next decade due to rising
enrollments and a maturing teaching force;
-A hiring challenge equivalent to replacing every doctor in this country more than
two and a half times over.
More than 50,000 people who lack training enter teaching annually on emergency
or substandard licenses.
The average annual earnings of physicians are generally six times that of a
classroom teacher;
- Yet, teaching tops the list of professions deemed of "most benefit to society"
by the American public, beating out doctors by over two-to-one.
The gap between the demographic composition of the nation's classrooms and its
teachers is acute and growing.
As educators, school decision makers, and policy leaders are recognizing the
urgency (and complexity) of the nation's teacher recruitment and development challenges,
they are responding with a range of innovative programs to expand the pool and improve
the preparation of prospective teachers, including:
Efforts to introduce teaching as a potential career to school-age children in
their middle and high school years;
Initiatives to tap the substantial pool of school paraprofessionals and
teacher aides;
Enhanced efforts at traditional recruitment via teacher education institutions
including: direct mail, teacher fairs, improved financial aid packaging, and
strengthened selection procedures at the university level;
S
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P.
11
APR. 16. 1997 6:43PM
Innovative outreach to prospective teachers of traditional and
non-traditional age, including: public service announcements, teacher
service corps, and loan forgiveness programs;
Efforts to improve articulation among two-and four-year colleges, teacher
education institutions, and the school districts they serve; and
Efforts to attract potential mid-career students into teaching via post-
baccalaureate pathways to licensure, including Peace Corps Fellows and
Troops to Teachers programs; along with other rigorous alternative routes
that collaboratively redefine the roles of school districts and colleges in
teacher education.
These and other innovative "pathways to teaching" offer exciting possibilities for
the future, not the least of which is their clear success in attracting a more demographically
diverse pool of outstanding teachers, while preparing them to meet rigorous 21 st century
standards for the profession. Despite their promise, however, few initiatives can depend on
reliable revenue streams and most are chronically underfunded. More detailed and
comprehensive evaluations of such relatively new teacher recruitment efforts are needed, in
part because they would provide policy makers a stronger evidentiary base for future
funding decisions. it is also important to identify factors that influence teacher supply and
demand; and disseminate information on high-demand fields and geographic areas more
effectively to prospective teachers, school districts, states, and schools of education.
In addition, a substantially greater effort must be made to link the recruitment of
new teachers with their preparation, selection/hiring, and induction, to ensure more
effective career corridors into teaching. Networks that link these programs to each other
would help disseminate both research and best practices in teacher recruitment. They
would also develop a stronger set of stakeholders for teacher quality at the earliest stages
of the professional continuum. Finally, greater effort needs to be made at all levels to
broaden the demographic make-up of the profession (including teachers of color and
males).
6
APR. 16. 1997 6:43PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P. 12
In sum, we know a lot about how to attract the most able candidates into
teaching--and the profession's call to service is resonating with prospective new recruits of
all ages more strongly now than at almost any other time in the past 20 years.
Nonetheless, a number of important questions need to be considered in shaping future
policy, including:
How can we best use higher teaching standards to improve the prestige,
image, working conditions, compensation and overall attractiveness of the
profession?
How can we find ways to lower unnecessary barriers and/or opportunity
costs for entering teaching via loan forgiveness, work/study in the schools,
national community service, and the like?
How can we develop model career corridors that link school-age
exploration of teaching careers via future teacher clubs, teacher cadet
programs, teaching magnets and academies to high quality collegiate and
post-graduate preparation programs (and, eventually, employment)? Might
such corridors be set up in Professional Development Schools creating an
inter-generational community of inquiry around teaching and learning?
How can we reach out to potential career "influencers" such as teachers
themselves, former teachers, guidance counselors, parents, clergy, and civic
and community leaders to help cultivate teaching's next generation? How
can teacher unions play a more prominent supportive role in and/or
attracting teaching's next generation?
How can we tap nontraditional pools for teaching (such as paraeducators,
other school employees, youth workers, mid-career professionals, parent
volunteers, males, etc.) and prepare them most effectively.
And most important, what sorts of policy tools do states and districts need
in order to ensure that their approaches to teacher recruitment and
development are more coordinated, coherent, and effective?
Answering these questions will start America down the road toward meeting its
teacher recruitment and development challenges.
7
APR. 16. 1997 6:43PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 13
Preparing Them Well
"The recent report on the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, What
Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future cited several areas of research that point to
teacher expertise and preparation as powerful influences on student achievement:
"In one of the largest-scale studies of the past decade, Ronald Ferguson found that the
single most important factor influencing student learning was teacher expertise, measured
by teacher experience and master's degrees as well as teacher performance on a
statewide teacher examination. This study of more than 2,000 school districts concludes
that every additional dollar spend on more highly qualified teachers netted greater
improvements in student achievement than did any other use of school resources.
"In a study that compared a group of exceptionally effective elementary schools to a
group of low-achieving schools with similar student population, the differences in teacher
qualifications and experience accounted for 90% of the variances in student reading and
mathematics scores at grades three, six, and eight.
"Another large group of studies has found that teacher preparation in both subject
matter and teaching methods has a significant effect on student achievement. Teachers
who are fully prepared and certified in both their discipline and in education are more
highly rated and successful with a wide range of students than are teachers without
preparation."
Despite such evidence, criticisms of teacher education are legion. The litany is
familiar: watered down methods courses; entrenched faculties; insufficient preparation for
the practical realities of the classroom; educational faddism; lack of commitment to
diversity; and more. Such indictments often contain more than a grain of truth. However,
they can just as often come as cheap shots that simply blame the victim and fall wide of
their mark.
Linda Darling-Hammond's Press Conference Speech, National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future (September 12, 1996)
8
APR. 16. 1997 6:43PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P. 14
Historically, schools of education have suffered from the same low societal status
that the profession of teaching has had to endure. Their low societal standing is mirrored
in the second-class status that schools of education are often accorded in the university --
looked down upon by colleagues in the arts and sciences; short-changed in university
resource allocation decisions; or worse -- treated as cash cows to support other schools
and departments that are deemed more prestigious by university officials and boards of
trustees. Their status-poor and resource-strapped condition can also stand in the public's
way of recognizing the important and innovative contributions that many teacher education
programs make to school improvement.
Education schools are frequently first to be blamed for the disciplinary deficits of
their graduates, even though many may actually have received their liberal arts preparation
from arts and sciences faculties who disdained teacher preparation. Schools of education
are faulted, as well, for their weak commitment to clinical supervision of student teachers
and thin participation in the schools, when university-wide policies on tenure, promotion,
and credit generation many times are the real culprits that militate against more extensive
involvement in K-12 classrooms by education school faculty. But even the most ardent
supporters of teacher education will also admit that when the conventional criticisms ring
true the entire profession is weakened and that much must be done to put teacher
education's collective house in order.
Either way, merited or not, the drumbeat of constant criticism has taken its toll: a
growing number of states and districts have established alternative certification programs
that bypass teacher education almost entirely. And yet we know that the job of teaching is
more intellectually complex and demanding than at anytime in the history of the profession.
9
APR. 16. 1997 6:44PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553
P. 15
Our knowledge of the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children
has expanded dramatically as has our understanding of how to monitor their development
through multiple assessment measures. We have the knowledge basis to intervene more
effectively to promote student achievement from their acquisition of basic skills and
competencies to their attainment of the highest levels of academic proficiency. We must
connect this evolving knowledge base to the preparation of new teachers and the
continuous professional development of veteran teachers as well. Schools of education are
an important bridge for making this connection across the career continuum.
Simply put, if we are to meet the goal of a caring, competent, and fully qualified
teacher in every American classroom by the year 2006, teacher education can't be ignored.
The nation will not meet this goal unless these "chronically status deprived" higher learning
institutions are provided the resources and support they need to reinvent themselves, and
wider recognition from the press and the public when they do.
Many already have begun the process: establishing more collaborative linkages
with local school districts (and their colleagues in arts and sciences), five and six-year
preparation programs, innovative post-baccalaureate teacher preparation models, programs
for nontraditional and adult learners, and more. Professional development schools (PDSs)
are also emerging as a new model for teacher preparation that blurs the line between
pre-service teacher training and ongoing support, development, and assessment of both
novice and veteran teachers (see below).
PDSs are usually partnerships between schools and universities designed to focus
on: 1) professional preparation for novice teachers; 2) professional development for
veteran teachers; and 3) practice-based research on school and instructional improvement.
They seek to create learning communities for students as well as for their teachers,
administrators, teacher educators, and parents; ensuring that all students are taught in a
way that leads to deep understanding (The Holmes Group, 1990).
10
APR. 16. 1997 6:44PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 16
The importance of the PDS concept is that it institutionalizes the process of
professional improvement across the career continuum, in line with a key recommendation
of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future to develop new models of
teacher preparation that provide a more graduated assumption of teaching roles and
responsibilities.
Finally, the National Commission has also called for all schools of education in
America to meet rigorous accreditation standards by the year 2006 or be closed. The
recommendation is controversial, but its intent is clear: to make slipshod teacher
preparation a thing of the past and ensure that schools of education are provided the
resources they need to do the job the nation demands of them. Some of the policy issues
that might be considered further include:
How can we develop a performance-based quality assurance system for
teaching?
How can we link teacher preparation with school improvement most
effectively? How can we prepare new teachers to meet the needs of all
learners, in demographically diverse classrooms and schools?
How can we prepare teachers better in critical fields such as science and
math, reading, teaching children with disabilities, and learning style
differences, as well as in the use of the emerging technologies that are
transforming both learning environments and society at large?
What new models, resources, and incentives might foster stronger
school/university/and community collaborations?
How can we establish regular communication with parents? How do we
build partnerships with other community institutions including -- museums,
the arts, and scientific organizations -- to help children learn more.
How can University-wide policies better support reinvented teacher
education programs?
How can teacher education fit more seamlessly into a strengthened career
continuum for the profession?
11
APR. 16. 1997 6:44PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 18
At the same time a number of states that have beginning teacher support programs
are revising their standards for new teachers, often in collaboration with INTASC. Most
recently, INTASC has been codifying the expectations for beginning teachers -- based
upon the framework for highly accomplished teaching established by the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).
The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has
already incorporated INTASC standards within its unit review standards and is exploring
the creation of accreditation standards for PDSs. Both efforts create considerable impetus
for the development of more coherent new teacher support programs for our public
schools. But while these developments hold considerable promise, a number of key
questions remain:
What roles should schools of education play as individuals make the
transition from being students of teaching to teachers of students? What
roles should schools and school districts play? What roles should teacher
unions play?
What should new teacher orientation include and when should it occur?
What should the first year or two look like for beginning teachers?
What kinds of support should be provided? How much release time do
novices and their mentors need and what should be expected in each role?
Can the same mentor be expected to both support and assess a novice
teacher simultaneously?
How should mentors be selected, trained, and compensated? From where
should the funding come?
13
NO. 0553 P. 19
APR. 16. 1997 6:44PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
Conclusion
Clearly, America's teacher recruitment, development and diversity challenges are
daunting. At the same time, if you look around the country today, you can find effective
programs for attracting teachers and improved programs for preparing them. There are a
variety of effective and innovative ways to meet the challenges that the changing
demographics of America's classrooms pose, hundreds of professional development
schools which offer markedly improved preservice and induction experiences for new
teachers; model peer assistance and evaluation programs for novice teachers; and more.
As a nation we excel at initiating such innovation, which all too frequently founders
when the time comes to ramp it up to scale. What's been lacking in most districts, states,
and at the national level are frameworks for policy and practice that comprehensively link
all aspects of the teacher's career continuum into teacher development systems that are
coherently linked to our education goals.
Only by viewing teacher development as a system, will we be able to invest
adequately in teacher capacity, recapturing relatively less productive investments in teacher
knowledge and skills (e.g., one-shot professional development workshops; salary
increments staked to seat time in academe rather than teacher learning linked to student
achievement goals; etc.) and redirecting them towards more effective ones.
Only by viewing teacher development as a system can we overcome the all too
often splendid isolation of teacher education institutions from school districts; teacher
education faculties from their colleagues in the arts and sciences; or get beyond the false
dichotomies that fissure liberal and professional studies, theory and practice in the
preparation of new teachers.
14
APR. 16. 1997 6:45PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 0553 P. 20
It's time to reassess the antiquated notion that teachers are "produced" by one set
of institutions -- teacher colleges -- to be "consumed" by another set of institutions -
school districts. Only by viewing teacher development as a system will we be able to
develop a new paradigm of shared vision and mutual responsibility for the continuous
career-long development of teachers that can staunch attrition and strengthen the
profession simultaneously.
It's also time to get beyond the myth that good teachers are born not made. Just as
there is more to the practice of medicine than simply having a good bedside manner,
quality teaching requires more than simply the desire to teach. The knowledge, skills, and
dispositions reflected in NBPTS' five core propositions balance personal characteristics
with the professional competencies and commitments that teacher quality demands,
including in-depth knowledge of a discipline, a clear understanding of how children learn,
and how to teach subjects to children so they can learn.
In sum, a systemic and career-long approach to teacher development not only
makes substantive sense, given the developmental view of teacher performance from
novice to expert; it is the only way that we are likely to find the resources necessary to
develop teacher capacity in an era of rising costs and budgetary constraints, or overcome
the chronic isolation, lack of coordination and coherence that characterizes far too many
programs of teacher recruitment, preparation, and the initial years of teaching today.
Standards for student learning; standards for teaching excellence; better
recruitment; improved teacher education, induction, and development; new incentives for
continuous development of teacher knowledge and skills; schools organized for
learning--these are the core building blocks for strengthening the profession that shapes
America's future -- and the key elements for systemic reform in education. The federal
government could play a catalytic role in helping states and districts put in place these
building blocks themselves, provided we possess the national will and resolve to choose the
future America's children deserve.
15
NO. 0553 P. 21
APR. 16. 1997 6:45PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Haselkorn is President of Recruiting New Teachers Inc., a national public service
campaign on behalf of teaching. He also serves as a Senior Policy Advisor to the National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Mr. Haselkorn is the author of
Attracting, Preparing and Supporting Teaching's Next Generation.
He is also a major contributor along with Linda Quinn, the Principal in Residence at the
U.S. Department of Education, of Shaping the Profession that Shapes America's Future:
Initial Ideas for Teacher Development Across America and the Reauthorization of Title V
of the Higher Education Act.
16
MAR 25 '97 09:26PM USDE-OFFICE OF SECRETARY
P.1/6
DEPARTMENT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
D STATES
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO: Bill temcard
ORGANIZATION:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
456-2857
FROM:
Jon School
PHONE NUMBER:
MESSAGE: Ittacked info ON NTASC
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR AND RESTRICTED TO THE
NAMED ADDRESSEE, ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR
PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS TRANSMISSION IN
ERROR. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM
READING, COPYING, OR DISSEMINATING THE TRANSMISSION.
PLEASE CALL 202-401-3000 TO ARRANGE FOR RETURN OF ANY
TRANSMISSION SET IN ERROR. THANK YOU.
PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW
400 MARYLAND AVE.. 3.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20203
Ow mission up to moure equal access to education are 6 promote educational excellence (Proughout the Nation.
MAR 25 '97 09:26PM USDE-OFFICE OF SECRETARY
P.2/6
Interstate New Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium
INTASC Fact Sheet
What is INTASC?
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), a program of the
Council of Chief State School Officers, is a consortium of state education agencies, higher
education institutions, and national educational organizations dedicated to reform in the
education, licensing and on-going professional development of teachers. Created in 1987,
INTASC's primary constituency is state education agencies responsible for teacher licensing and
professional development. At the present time, thirty-eight states and territories, thirty-one of
which are full paying members, are actively involved in INTASC projects.
What is INTASC's mission?
The mission of INTASC is to promote standards-based reform of teacher preparation, licensing,
and professional development. To carry out this mission, INTASC provides a vehicle for states
to work jointly on formulating model policy to reform teacher preparation and licensing and
provides a mechanism for states to collaborate on developmental projects such as crafting new
instruments to assess the classroom performance of a teacher. INTASC also sponsors a series of
seminars annually, bringing together state education agencies, institutions of higher education,
researchers, and professional associations committed to the principles of teaching and assessment
endorsed by the Consortium. These seminars present the cutting edge work being carried out on
these issues, and provide an opportunity for formal and informal networking among the
participants.
What does membership in INTASC provide?
Three trips per year in Washington D.C., travel and expenses covered by INTASC
Professional development for state education agency personnel
Opportunities to collaborate with other states to develop policy, programs, and tools such
as assessment instruments to improve the professional development of teachers
Access to national information and renowned speakers
Access to assessment instruments, standards documents, and issue papers commissioned
by INTASC
A clearinghouse of the latest research on performance assessment and professional
development for educators
What has INTASC accomplished so far?
INTASC has crafted model core standards for licensing beginning teachers and designed them to
be compatible with standards of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The
core standards represent those principles which should be present in all teaching regardless of the
subject matter being taught, and they serve as a framework for systemic reform of teacher
preparation and professional development.
INTASC has translated these core standards into model licensing standards for teaching
Mathematics, and will soon release a draft of standards in English language arts.
The Performance Assessment Development Project within INTASC represents a three-year
commitment on the part of eleven states to collaborate in the development of prototype portfolio
MAR 25 '97 09:27PM USDE-OFFICE OF SECRETARY
P.3/6
assessments linked to INTASC standards in the specific subject areas of teaching. The
participating states in this project are: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas.
Future directions
During the next three to five years, INTASC will continue crafting model standards in Science,
Elementary Education, History/Social Studies, Special Education, and the Arts.
The INTASC assessment project will concentrate on developing and field testing assessments in
Mathematics and English Language Arts, with the goal of producing the following:
performance-based assessment in Mathematics and English Language Arts;
materials and training designed to provide support to candidates who participate in the
assessments;
materials and training for scoring the assessments and providing feedback to candidates;
evidence of the validity of the assessments and preliminary evidence of reliability,
collected from all participating states.
INTASC will be developing a second instrument, the Test for Teaching Knowledge, to evaluate
a teacher candidate's readiness to practice in an internship. In addition, INTASC also will work
with local school districts and higher education to develop support systems for candidates
producing portfolios, and for the current teaching staff to enhance their skills in relation to the
INTASC core and content model standards.
NALASKA
INTASO Membership as of July 1996
States: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.
Professional Organizations: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(Represented by Alverno College and Michigan State University), American Federation of
Teachers, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Association of State
Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, National Board of Professional Teaching
Standards, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, National Education
Association
Current Publications
Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for
State Dialogue
Model Standards in Mathematics for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A
Resource for State Dialogue
Next Steps: Moving Toward Performance-Based Licensing in Teaching
Jean Miller, Director of INTASC
Council of Chief State School Officers, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001-1431
202/336-7048 phone 202/789-1792 fax internet:[email protected]
as
MAR 25 '97 09:27PM USDE-OFFICE OF SECRETARY
P.4/6
FACT SHEET
INTASC TEST FOR TEACHING KNOWLEDGE
What will the test do? It will assess a beginning teacher's professional knowledge and skills in areas such as child
development, theories of teaching and learning, the role of student background in the learning process, etc.
Why another test? The performance based licensing system envisioned by the INTASC standards suggests three
kinds of assessments to make state licensure decisions:
(a)
test of the mastery of subject area content;
(b)
a test of teachers' classroom performance;
(c)
a test of teachers' foundational knowledge and skills essential to the profession of teaching.
INTASC is currently developing assessments for evaluating a candidate's classroom performance in its portfolio
project (b). This new project will address (c) above. It will provide the states an opportunity to ensure that a teacher
candidate adequately understands and can apply the vision of teaching describe in the INTASC core standards.
How can the test be used? It will be an appropriate test for issuing a beginning (initial) license for the first or
second year of teaching. It can serve as a screen to select candidates for an internship.
How long will it take to develop the test? Approximately three years.
How much will it cost? The estimated total cost is $1,500,000. We currently have $400,000 in a three year grant
from the MacArthur Foundation to start development work. The cost per state could be $15,000 per year for three
years if 20 states invest in the project.
Who will do the test development work? The initial work to create test specifications will be done by a committee
of state representatives from the participating states and a panel of national experts in the teaching field. The
committee's assignment will be to reach consensus on the education foundation areas to be tested and to recommend
the format that would be most useful for testing in that area, e.g. constructed response, essay, etc. The actual
development of test items will be contracted out through an RFP process and closely monitored by the committee.
What does state participation in this project require? A state representative who will attend approximately 3
policy meetings per year for three years to oversee the work of the contractor. These meetings will dovetail with
regular INTASC meetings when possible. State personnel will also be asked to review materials developed for the
project and advise the contractor in the recruitment of candidates for pilot and field tests.
Who will own the test? The states who have invested in its development
What will the test look like? This will depend on the recommendations of the committee, but the best thinking now
is it will include pencil and paper and oral or demonstration activities that reflect a balance of theoretical and practical
considerations.
When did the work start? In the fall of 1995.
When will state funds be needed? By September of 1996.
Jean Miller, Director of INTASC
(202) 336-7048 phone (202) 789-1792 fax intermet:[email protected]
Massachusetts Avenue. NW. #700. Washington, DC 20001-1431
P.5/6
MAR 25 '97 09:28PM USDE-OFFICE OF SECRETARY
FACT SHEET
THE INTASC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY RESEARCH AGENDA
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), a program of the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), was established in 1987. It includes
representatives of state boards of education and professional standards boards, with significant
participation by institutions of higher education, researchers, and professional associations.
Presently 36 states are actively involved in INTASC's work.
Ten of these states are partners in the Performance Assessment Development Project, a three
year research and development effort with the goal of developing and field testing portfolio
assessments in mathematics and English language arts. By the end of the third year the project
will produce:
performance-based assessments in mathematics and English language arts,
materials and training designed to provide support to candidates who participate in the
assessments,
materials and training for evaluators who will review and evaluate the assessments and
provide feedback to candidates, and
preliminary evidence of the validity and reliability of the assessments for use with
beginning teachers.
The validity and reliability research is an integral part of the development of the assessments;
evidence of the authenticity of the assessments in their ability to recognize good teaching is
necessary before states can implement the assessments. The project rests on its ability to ensure
that the assessments are valid and reliable for all teacher populations. Proposed studies cover
several broad categories:
Content Relevance and Representativeness
Candidates' Processes in Completing Portfolios
Readers' Reliability and Processes
Portfolio Generalizability
Comparison of Evaluation Models
Relationships to Other Variables/Triangulation Studies
The project plans to undertake the first three categories in 1996, the second year of the project.
As the mathematics assessment is ahead of the English language arts assessment in development,
the mathematics research will begin in 1996, whereas the ELA research will not begin until
1997.
MAR 25 '97 09:28PM USDE-OFFICE OF SECRETARY
P.6/6
Content Relevance and Representativeness
This research encompasses three separate studies, two of which will be conducted in 1996. The
first is an equity review of the portfolio tasks and guidelines, evaluation criteria, content-specific
standards, and benchmark performances. Its intent is to ensure that the portfolio is a fair
assessment for all teachers with regards to candidates' opportunity to display their expertise
despite differing backgrounds, environments, and resource levels. After an in-depth review of
the summer sessions, based on the reviewed portfolios and readers' dialogue, this panel of 6 to
10 members will discuss the equity issues which arise from the portfolio materials and make any
recommendations they deem necessary to make the assessment more equitable.
The second content relevance study is a commissioned literature review on the capabilities of
beginning teachers. The project will commission three papers, one on the core standards and
one on each of the content standards, to link the INTASC principles with empirical evidence and
relevant theory on the preparation, experience, and development of beginning teachers.
The third component is a professional content review to demonstrate that the INTASC vision fits
with good practice and will take place in 1997. A panel of experts in language, cognition, and
pedagogy will review the assessments and relevant materials for their representativeness,
relevance, criticality, and necessity to the competent performance of beginning teachers.
Reader Reliability and Processes
The second set of research studies will assess portfolio reader and reader pair reliability based on
observation and case studies of readers. The case studies will have three components: telephone
interviews before reviewer training, observation/documentation of the evaluation sessions, and
on-site debriefing interviews. An ethnographer will first interview readers to understand their
tacit beliefs about teaching and learning. During the evaluation sessions, she will observe the
dialogue exchange, and afterwards will ascertain the changes in readers' views, as well as how
the evaluation of the portfolios contribute to the validity of the interpretations of the teaching
portrayed. To accomplish this study, portfolios will be double-scored in order to compare the
evidence, interpretations, and justifications by different readers.
Candidates' Processes
The final study to be conducted in 1996 is a study of candidates' and their mentors' experiences
in portfolio development The first component is a survey distributed to all candidates and
mentors prior to the completion of the portfolio. The survey will generate feedback on the
portfolio process, as well as information about the candidate's teacher preparation program and
support received during the portfolio process. The second component will be a telephone
interview to gain more in-depth information about candidates' preparation and support and to get
a sense of whether candidates felt they were adequately prepared to complete the portfolio, in
terms of content, pedagogy, and support. This study will be conducted for both mathematics and
English language arts.
For further information about the project or the research agenda contact INTASC:
Linda Wurzbach at (202) 336-7075 or niernet:[email protected]
Laurie Somers at (202) 336-7056 or internet:[email protected]
Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington,
DC
20001-1431
What Matters Most:
Teaching for
America's Future
Report of the National Commission on
Teaching & America's Future
Summary Report
September 1996
Dedication
This report is dedicated to America's teachers:
past, present, and future.
The National Commission on
Teaching & America's Future
The work of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, formed in 1994, has been
funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York. The mission of the
Commission is to provide an action agenda for meeting America's educational challenges. con-
necting the quest for higher student achievement with the need for teachers who are knowledge-
able. skillful, and committed to meeting the needs of all students. The Commission is dedicated to
helping develop policies and practices aimed at ensuring powerful teaching and learning in all com-
munities as America's schools and children enter the 21st century.
© 1996 National Commission on Teaching & America's Future
New York, New York.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
First Edition.
ISBN 0-9654535-1-0
The National Commission on
Teaching & America's Future
James B. Hunt Jr. (Chair)
Norman C. Francis
J. Richard Munro
Governor, State of North
President, Xavier University of
Chairman, Executive Committee
Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
Louisiana, New Orleans,
of the Board of Directors. Time
Louisiana
Warner Inc., New York, New York
Anthony J. Alvarado
Superintendent, Community
Keith Gelger
Hugh B. Price
School District 2. New York.
Former President. National
President & Chief Executive
New York
Education Association,
Officer. National Urban League,
Washington, D.C.
Inc., New York, New York
David L. Boren
President, University of
Christine Gutierrez
David Rockefeller Jr.
Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Teacher & Assistant Coordinator,
Chairman, Rockefeller Financial
Humanitas Program.
Services, Inc., New York, New York
Ivy H. Chan
Thomas Jefferson High School,
Special Education Teacher,
Los Angeles, California
Ted Sanders
Garfield Elementary School,
President, Southern Illinois
Olympia, Washington
James Kelly
University, Carbondale. Illinois
President & Chief Executive
James P. Comer
Officer, National Board for
Albert Shanker
Director, The School
Professional Teaching Standards,
President, American Federation
Development Program. Professor
Southfield, Michigan
of Teachers. Washington, D.C.
of Child Psychiatry. Yale
University, New Haven.
Juanita Millender-McDonald
Lynn F. Stuart
Connecticut
Congresswoman, State of
Principal, Cambridgeport School,
California, Washington, D.C.
Cambridge. Massachusetts
Emesto Cortes Jr.
Southwest Regional Director
Lynne Miller
Robert L. Wehling
Industrial Areas Foundation,
Professor of Education
Senior Vice President,
Austin, Texas
Administration and Leadership,
The Procter & Gamble Company,
University of Southern Maine,
Cincinnati, Ohio
William G. Demmert Jr.
Gorham, Maine
Visiting Professor. Woodring
Arthur E. Wise
College of Education. Western
Damon P. Moore
President, National Council for
Washington University,
Teacher, Dennis Middle School.
Accreditation of Teacher
Bellingham, Washington
Richmond. Indiana
Education, Washington. D.C.
Jim Edgar
Annette N. Morgan
Richard Wisniewski
Governor, State of Illinois,
Representative, District 39,
Director. Institute for Educational
Springfield. Illinois
Missouri House of
Innovation. University of
Representatives, Jefferson City,
Tennessee, Knoxville. Tennessee
Dolores A. Escobar
Missouri
Dean, College of Education,
Linda Darling-Hammond
San Jose State University,
(Executive Director), Teachers
San Jose, California
College. Columbia University,
New York, New York
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
3
The Summary Report
Foreword
When I was asked in 1994 to chair a new National Commission on Teaching &
America's Future, I was delighted to accept. I am convinced that what matters most
as Americans prepare for a new century is the quality of teaching in American
schools. As the automobile executive Lee lacocca once put it: "In a truly rational soci-
ety, the best of us would be teachers, and the rest would have to settle for something
less." This report explains how we can put teachers and teaching at the heart of school
reform, where they belong.
This summary report is one of four produced by our Commission. The main
report, What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future, was developed for an audi-
ence of policymakers, educators, and analysts. Please refer to the main report for
more detail on the Commission's findings, as well as citations that support its
research. This summary report condenses the main report for easy access. A third
document, aimed at educators and researchers interested in understanding and
implementing reforms, provides a rich mine of information on model programs that
exemplify our recommendations. A fourth volume includes the research papers com-
missioned for our work.
It has been my great privilege to work with an able and talented group of
Commissioners. In combination, they brought many decades of wisdom and experi-
ence to our challenging task. I also want to acknowledge the work of our staff under
the leadership of Executive Director Linda Darling-Hammond. The staff, like my
colleagues on the Commission, never lost sight of the fact that what matters most to
America's future is finding the best teachers, helping them develop their skills to the
greatest extent, and rewarding them for their work on behalf of children and youth.
James B. Hunt Jr. (Chair)
Governor, State of North Carolina
4
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
We propose an audacious goal
by the year 2006, America will provide all
students in the country with what should be their educational birthright: access to
competent, caring, and qualified teachers.
With these words, the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future sum-
marized its challenge to the American public. Following two years of intense study
and discussion, the Commission concluded that the reform of elementary and sec-
ondary education depends first and foremost on restructuring its foundation-the
teaching profession. The restructuring, we make clear, must go in two directions:
toward increasing teachers' knowledge to meet the demands they face; and toward
recognizing and using teachers' expertise in schools that are redesigned to support
high-quality teaching and learning.
The Commission found a profession that has suffered from decades of neglect. By
the standards of other professions and other countries, U.S. teacher education has
historically been thin, uneven, and poorly financed. Teacher recruitment and hiring
are distressingly ad hoc, and salaries lag significantly behind those of all other profes-
sions. This produces chronic shortages of qualified teachers in fields like mathemat-
ics and science, and the continual hiring of large numbers of people as "teachers" who
are unprepared for their jobs.
Furthermore, in contrast with other countries that invest most of their education
dollars in well-prepared and well-supported teachers, half of the educational dollars
in the United States are spent on staff and activities outside the classroom. Lack of
standards for students and teachers, coupled with schools organized for 19th-centu-
ry learning, leave educators without an adequate foundation for constructing good
teaching. Under these conditions, excellence is hard to achieve.
In more than a decade of school reform, America is still a very long way from
achieving its educational goals. Instead of all children coming to school ready to
learn, more are living in poverty and without health care than a decade ago.
Graduation rates and student achievement in most subjects have remained flat or
have increased only slightly. Fewer than 10% of high school students can read, write,
compute, and manage scientific material at the high levels required for today's
"knowledge work" jobs. Meanwhile, international tests continue to show U.S. high
school students ranking near the bottom in mathematics and science.
This distance between our stated goals and current realities is not due to lack of
effort. Many initiatives have been launched with positive effects in local communi-
ties. Nonetheless, we have reached an impasse in spreading these promising efforts to
the system as a whole. It is now clear that most schools and teachers cannot produce
the kind of learning the new reforms demand-not because they do not want to, but
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
5
The Summary Report
because they do not know how, and the systems they work in do not support them in
doing so.
When it comes to widespread change, we have behaved as though mandates
could, like magic wands, transform schools. But successful programs cannot be repli-
cated in schools where staff lack the know-how and resources to bring them to life.
Wonderful curriculum ideas fall flat in classrooms where they are not understood or
supported by the rest of the school. And increased graduation and testing require-
ments create only greater failure if teachers do not know how to reach students.
On the whole, the school reform movement has ignored the obvious: What
teachers know and can do makes the crucial difference in what children learn. And
the ways school systems organize their work makes a big difference in what teachers
can accomplish. New courses, tests, and curriculum reforms can be important start-
ing points, but they are meaningless if teachers cannot use them well. Policies can
only improve schools if the people in them are armed with the knowledge, skills, and
supports they need. Student learning in this country will improve only when we
focus our efforts on improving teaching.
The Commission is clear about what needs to change. No more hiring unquali-
fied teachers on the sly. No more nods and winks at teacher education programs that
fail to prepare teachers properly. No more tolerance for incompetence in the class-
room. No more wasting resources on approaches that cannot improve teaching and
learning. Children are compelled to attend school. Every state guarantees them equal
protection under the law and promises them a sound education. In the face of these
state mandates and the obligations accompanying them, students have a right to
competent, caring teachers who work in schools organized for success.
We are also clear about what needs to be done. Like the Flexner report that led to
the transformation of the medical profession in 1910, the Commission examined
successful practices within and outside the United States to describe what works. We
concluded that children can reap the benefits of current knowledge about teaching
and learning only if schools and schools of education are redesigned. Our recom-
mendations describe how this can be achieved.
Recommendations in Brief
The Commission has put forth a challenging goal to the nation and its education
leaders. But if the goal is challenging and requires unprecedented effort, it does not
require new theory. Common sense suffices: American students are entitled to teach-
ers who know their subjects, understand their students and what they need, and have
mastered the professional skills required to make learning come alive.
6
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
This report offers what we believe is the single most important strategy for achiev-
ing America's education goals: a blueprint for recruiting, preparing, supporting, and
rewarding excellent educators in all of America's schools. The plan is aimed at ensur-
ing that all schools have teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to teach so
that all children can learn, and all school systems are organized to support teachers in
this work. If a caring, competent, and qualified teacher for every child is the most
important ingredient in education reform, it should no longer be the one most fre-
quently overlooked.
We recognize as well that such teachers must work in schools and school systems
that are well designed to achieve their key academic mission: They must be focused
on clear, high standards for students; organized to provide a coherent. high-quality
curriculum across the grades; designed to support teachers' collective work and
learning on behalf of their students; and structured to allow for ongoing parent
engagement.
We note that this challenge is accompanied by an equally great opportunity: Over
the next decade we will recruit and hire more than 2 million teachers for America's
schools. More than half the teachers who will be teaching ten years from now will be
hired during the next decade. If we can focus our energies on preparing this genera-
tion of teachers with the kinds of knowledge and skills they need to help students
reach these goals, and on creating schools that use their talents well, we will have
made an enormous contribution to America's future.
The Commission recommends five major interlocking changes:
Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers.
Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development.
Overhaul teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom.
Encourage and reward teaching knowledge and skill.
Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success.
Taken together. these steps can make the crucial difference in improving learning
in our schools.
The Nature of the Problem
Good teaching is more important than ever before in our nation's history. Due to
sweeping economic changes, today's world has little room for workers who cannot
read, write, and compute proficiently; find and use resources; frame and solve prob-
lems with other people; and continually learn new technologies and occupations.
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
7
The Summary Report
Blue-collar jobs that most people once held will comprise only 10% of total employ-
ment by the year 2000, and the "knowledge work" jobs that are replacing them
require levels of knowledge and skill previously taught to only a very few students.
The education challenge facing the United States is not that its schools are not as
good as they once were. It is that schools must help the vast majority of young peo-
ple reach levels of skill and competence once thought within the reach of only a few,
while also supporting a just and civil society that helps maintain our democratic life.
At a time when all students must meet higher standards for learning, access to
good teaching is a necessity, not a privilege to be left to chance. All Americans have a
critical interest in building an education system that helps people learn and work at
high levels of competence, understand and respect other perspectives, take risks and
persevere against the odds, and continue to learn throughout life. Lack of adequate
education ultimately affects everyone. For example:
Low levels of literacy are powerful predictors of welfare dependency and
incarceration-and their high costs.
More than half the adult prison population has literacy levels below those
required by the labor market.
Nearly 40% of adjudicated juvenile delinquents have treatable learning dis-
abilities that were overlooked and went untreated in school.
By the year 2010 there will be only three workers for every retiree on Social
Security, as compared with 16 in 1950. If all these future workers are not
capable and productive, our social compact will be in grave danger.
Growing prison populations, public assistance programs, and unemployment
mean that a shrinking portion of American citizens must generate the economic base
that supports the rest of the nation-the young, the old, the ill, and those who are
not now productive. It is clear that if we do not invest in schools that can create ade-
quate life chances for all our young people, the results will be disastrous for both indi-
viduals and the nation.
The Challenge for Teaching
A more complex, knowledge-based, and multicultural society creates new expecta-
tions for teaching. To help diverse learners master much more challenging content,
teachers must go far beyond dispensing information, giving a test, and giving a
grade. They must know their subject areas deeply, and they must understand how
students think as well as what they know in order to create experiences that produce
8
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
learning. Moreover, as students with a wider range of learning needs enter and stay
in school-a growing number whose first language is not English, many others with
learning differences, and still others with learning disabilities-teachers need access
to the growing knowledge that exists about how to teach different kinds of learners
effectively.
Developing the kind of teaching needed will require much greater clarity about
what students must learn to succeed in the world that awaits them, and what teach-
ers must know and do to help them achieve it. Standards that reflect these imperatives
for student learning and for teaching are largely absent in our nation today. Although
states are just now beginning to establish standards for student learning, most schools
do not yet have the kind of high-quality, professionally informed curriculum guid-
ance that will help them organize their work so that it adds up in a powerful way
across the grades and within and across subjects.
Standards for teaching are equally haphazard. Although parents might assume that
teachers, like other professionals, are educated in similar ways so that they meet the
same standards before they are admitted to practice, this is not the case. Unlike doc-
tors, lawyers, accountants, or architects, teachers do not have the same training. Some
teachers have very high levels of skills-particularly in states that require a bachelor's
degree in the discipline to be taught; coursework in teaching, learning, curriculum,
and child development; extensive practice teaching, and a master's degree in educa-
tion. Others learn little about their subject matter or about teaching, particularly in
states that have low requirements.
And while states have recently begun to require some form of testing for a teach-
ing license, most are little more than multiple-choice tests of basic skills and general
knowledge, widely criticized by educators and experts as woefully inadequate to mea-
sure teaching skill. Furthermore, in many states the cutoff scores are so low, there is
no effective standard for entry.
These difficulties are barely known to the public. But the schools' most closely
held secret amounts to a national shame: Roughly ¼ of newly hired American teach-
ers lack the qualifications for their jobs. More than 12% of new hires enter the
classroom without any formal training at all, and another 14% arrive without fully
meeting state standards.
Although no state will permit a person to write wills, practice medicine, fix
plumbing, or style hair without completing training and passing an examination,
more than 40 states allow districts to hire teachers who have not met these basic
requirements. Most states pay more attention to the qualifications of veterinarians
treating America's cats and dogs than to those of the people educating the nation's
children and youth.
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
9
The Summary Report
Qualifications of Newly
Hired Teachers, 1990-91
Temporary,
No License
Provisional, or
Fully
12.5%
Emergency
Licensed
License
72.6%
14.9%
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Schools and Staffing Survey.
1990-91. Unpublished tabulations. National Data Resource Center. 1993
Will Rogers, the 1920's "cowboy philosopher," once remarked, "You can't teach
what you don't know any more than you can come back from where you ain't
been." This common-sense advice has been lost on many school districts. Consider
the following:
In recent years, more than 50,000 people who lack the training required for
their jobs have entered teaching annually on emergency or substandard
licenses.
Nearly one-fourth (23%) of all secondary teachers do not have even a minor
in their main teaching field. This is true for more than 30% of mathematics
teachers.
Among teachers who teach a second subject, 36% are unlicensed in the field
and 50% lack a minor.
Fifty-six percent of high school students taking physical science are taught by
out-of-field teachers, as are 27% of those taking mathematics and 21% of those
taking English. The proportions are much higher in high-poverty schools and in
lower track classes.
In schools with the highess minority enrollments, students have less than a
50% chance of getting a science os mathematics teacher who holds a license
and a degree in the field he or she teaches.
10
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
Percentage of Public School
Teachers with a State License and
Qualifications of Secondary School
a Major in Their Main Teaching
Mathematics and Science Teachers
Assignment Field: 1990-91
By school racial composition
Percent
100%
90
90%-100% Non-white
83
90
86
80
77.9
90%-100% White
74.4
70.9
80
59
70
62.5
70
69
59.3
60
52.6
60
50
54
50
40
42
30
40
20
30
10
20
0
10
Pie-k Elemen.
FOIEIRI 1
Social Studies
Special Education
SCIENCE English $75 /
0
% of teachers
% of teachers with B.A.
certified in their field
or B.S. in field taught
Source: Jeannie Oakes. Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race.
Social Class and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and
Science (Santa Monica, Cauf.: RAND Corporation 1990). p. 61
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Schools and Starting Survey
199091. Published in Mariyn M. VicMillen. Snaron A and Hilds F.
Lynch. Teacher fraining Certification and Assignment in Public Schools
:990-91. paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. New Orleans. LA. Agril 1994)
In the nation's poorest schools where hiring is most lax and teacher turnover is
constant, the results can be disastrous. Thousands of children are taught throughout
their school careers by a parade of teachers without preparation in the fields they
teach, inexperienced beginners with little training and no mentoring, and short-term
substitutes trying to cope with constant staff disruptions. It is more surprising that
some of these children manage to learn than that so many fail to do so.
Current Barriers
It is quite clear that the challenges of improving teaching are long-standing and com-
plex. There are no "silver bullet" solutions. Efforts to deal wich these problems have
often been stymied by a persistent set of myths that deflect attention from the hard
work that is needed. Among the most destructive of these are: "Anyone can teach."
"Teacher education makes no difference." "Teachers don't work very hard." "Tenure
is the problem." And "teacher unions prevent change."
Like every myth, there is some truch to each of these statements, but a great deal
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
11
The Summary Report
of error as well. They do a lot of damage by shortcircuiting needed change. First, the
idea that anyone can teach is nonsense, as any parent who has tried to manage even
a half-dozen children can attest. Research confirms what parents know: the best
teachers understand their subjects, know how young people learn, and have mas-
tered a range of teaching methods. Studies have found that teacher expertise is the
single most important factor in determining student achievement and that fully
trained teachers are far more effective with students than those who are not pre-
pared. Second, contrary to many presumptions, American teachers work very
hard. Not only do U.S. teachers teach more hours each day and year than those in
other countries, but they also take more work home to complete at night, on the
weekends, and on holidays. Finally, tenure is intended to protect teachers from arbi-
trary dismissal for reasons of politics or patronage, but it should not support incom-
petence. Teacher unions in many cities have worked with school boards to evaluate,
assist, and dismiss teachers who are not successful, just as they have begun working
nationally to upgrade the standards of the profession. Although more work needs to
be done, these initiatives have shown that change is possible.
Aside from these distractions, there are real barriers to be addressed. Unequal
resources and inadequate investments in teacher recruitment are major problems.
Other industrialized countries fund their schools equally and make sure there are
qualified teachers for all of them by underwriting teacher preparation and salaries.
However, teachers in the United States must go into substantial debt to become pre-
pared for a field that in most states pays less than any other occupation requiring a
college degree.
This situation is not necessary or inevitable. The hiring of unprepared teachers
was almost eliminated during the 1970s with scholarships and loans for college stu-
dents preparing to reach, Urban Teacher Corps initiatives, and Master of Arts in
Teaching (MAT) programs, coupled with wage increases. However, the cancellation
of most of these recruitment incentives in the 1980s led to renewed shortages when
student enrollments started to climb once again, especially in cities. Between 1987
and 1991, the proportion of well-qualified new teachers-those entering teaching
with a college major or minor and a license in their fields-actually declined from
about 74% to 67%.
Despite major advances in what is known about effective teaching, relatively few
American teachers have access to the knowledge they need to teach. The problems
stem from a view held over from the turn of the last century that schools could be run
like factories and managed by top-down controls rather than by investing in teachers
capacities to make good decisions. Teachers, it was thought, needed to know little
more than how to follow the book. They could be minimally prepared, given simple
12
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
Comparisons of Earnings by Occupation
Average annual earnings in the previous year, 1991
Occupation
Physicians
Lawyers and judges
Private-sector executives/managers
Engineers
Education administrators
Sales representatives
Scientists
Accountants and auditors
Registered nurses
Sales supervisors and proprietors
Writers and artists
Social workers
Teachers
$0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Thousands of dollars
Source: U.S. Department of Education National Adult Literacy Survey. 1992. Published in the Condition of Education
1995 Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. 1995). D. 161
tasks, and treated as semiskilled workers. Others would be hired to design teaching
work and tell teachers what to do. Many states and districts spend more time and
energy developing teacher-proof regulations than preparing teachers who can deliver
top-flight instruction.
The result of this long-standing view is that there is no real system for recruiting,
preparing, and developing America's teachers. Major problems include the following:
Inadequate teacher education. Because accreditation is not required of
teacher education programs, the quality of programs varies widely, with excel-
lent programs operating alongside those that are out of touch with current
knowledge and inadequately funded to do the job. Too many American uni-
versities still treat their schools of education as "cash cows" whose excess rev-
enues are spent on the training of doctors, lawyers, accountants, and almost
any other students than prospective teachers themselves. Many still do not
offer the kinds of training needed to prepare teachers for today's new stan-
dards and changing student populations.
Slipshod recruitment and hiring. Although the share of academically able
young people entering teaching has been increasing, there are still too few in
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
13
The Summary Report
some parts of the country and in critical subjects like mathematics and sci-
ence. Federal incentives that once existed to induce talented people into
high-need fields and locations have been largely eliminated. At a time of fast-
growing demand-the nation will need to hire more than two million teach-
ers over the next decade-there is no coordinated means for ensuring that
qualified people will be available in all communities. In addition, school dis-
tricts often lose the best candidates because of inefficient and cumbersome
hiring practices, barriers to teachers' mobility, and inattention to teacher
qualifications.
Sink-or-swim induction. Beginning teachers who do get hired are typical-
ly given the most difficult assignments and left to flounder on their own,
without the kind of help provided by internships in other professions.
Isolated behind classroom doors with little feedback or help, as many as
30% leave in the first few years, while others learn merely to cope rather
than to teach well.
Lack of professional development and rewards for knowledge and skill.
In addition to the lack of support for beginning teachers, most school dis-
tricts invest little in ongoing professional development for experienced
teachers and spend much of these limited resources on unproductive "hit-
and-run" workshops. Furthermore, most U.S. teachers have only three to
five hours each week for planning. This leaves them with almost no regular
time to consult together or learn about new teaching strategies, unlike their
peers in many European and Asian countries where teachers spend between
15 and 20 hours per week working jointly on refining lessons, coaching one
another, and learning about new methods.
The teaching career does not encourage teachers to develop or use grow-
ing expertise. Evaluation and tenure decisions often. lack a tangible connec-
tion with a clear vision of high-quality teaching; important skills are rarely
rewarded; and when budgets must be cut, professional development is often
the first item to go. Historically, the only route to advancement in teaching
has been to leave the classroom for administration.
In contrast, many European and Asian countries hire a greater number
of better-paid teachers, provide them with more extensive preparation. give
them time to work together, and structure schools so that they can focus on
teaching and come to know their students well. Teachers share decision
making and take on a range of professional responsibilities without leaving
14
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
Comparisons of Educational Staff By
Function
100%
Teachers
90
Instructional staff including principals and supervisors
Other administrative and support staff
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Belgium
Japan
Italy
Australia
Finality
France
United States Denmark
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Education at a Glance:
DECD Indicators (Paris: DECD. 1995). table p31. DO. 176-177
teaching. This is made possible because these other countries invest their
resources in many more teachers-typically 60% to 80% of staff as com-
pared with only 43% in the United States-and they hire many fewer non-
teaching staff.
Schools structured for failure. Today's schools are organized in ways that
support neither student nor teacher learning well. Curriculum goals are not
well defined. Students are passed off from teacher to teacher for short periods
of time, which makes it hard for them to learn challenging material or to be
well known by school staff. Teachers are isolated from one another so they
cannot share knowledge or be responsible for overall student learning.
Technologies that could enhance learning are not yet widely available. and
few staff are prepared to use them. And too many people and resources are
allocated to activities outside of classrooms, sitting on the sidelines rather
than the front lines of teaching and learning.
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
15
The Summary Report
The Commission's Recommendations
To address these problems, we challenge the nation to embrace a set of goals that will
put the nation on a path to serious, long-term improvements in teaching and learn-
ing. By the year 2006,
All children will be taught by teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and
commitments to teach children well.
All teacher education programs will meet professional standards, or they will
be closed.
All teachers will have access to high-quality professional development and
regular time for collegial work and planning.
Both teachers and principals will be hired and retained based on their ability
to meet professional standards of practice.
Teachers' salaries will be based on their knowledge and skills.
Quality teaching will be the central investment of schools. Most education
dollars will be spent on classroom teaching.
The history of American education overflows with suggested and attempted
reforms. From the teachers' standpoint, many if not most of them are doomed to fail-
ure because they do not emphasize-or in some cases even consider-teaching.
Indeed, the "reform du jour" mentality often forces teachers to ride out the latest fad
on the well-founded assumption that it, too, will pass.
Education reform can succeed only if it is broad and comprehensive, attacking
many problems simultaneously. But it cannot succeed at all unless the conditions of
teaching and teacher development change. And the Commission confidently believes
that when its recommendations are put in place, they will stanch the endless waves of
fruitless reform because our schools will have developed the capacity to continually
renew and improve themselves.
Our proposals provide a vision and a blueprint for the development of a 21st-
century teaching profession that can make good on the nation's educational goals
The recommendations are systemic in scope-not a recipe for more short-lived
pilot and demonstration projects. They describe a new infrastructure for profes
sional learning and an accountability system that ensures attention to standards to
educators as well as students at every level: national, state, local school district
school, and classroom.
We urge a complete overhaul in the systems of teacher preparation and protes
sional development in this country to ensure that they reflect and act upon the mo:
16
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
current available knowledge and practice. This redesign should create a continuum
of teacher learning based on compatible standards that operate from recruitment
and preservice education through licensing, hiring, and induction into the profes-
sion, to advanced certification and ongoing professional development.
We also propose a comprehensive set of changes in school organization and
management that will provide the conditions in which teachers can use their knowl-
edge much more productively to support student learning. And finally, we recom-
mend a set of measures for ensuring that only those who are competent to teach or
to lead schools are allowed to enter or to continue in the profession-a starting
point for creating professional accountability.
For the first time in the history of education reform, a broad-based group of pol-
icymakers and educators-including those who will have to take courageous steps to
put these recommendations in place-have issued a comprehensive agenda for
change and have pledged to take the steps necessary to implement it. We understand
that these recommendations are not easy to undertake and that the self-interest of
various constituencies will be challenged in the process of bringing them to life.
However, we are persuaded that these reforms are absolutely essential to guarantee
every child a caring, competent, and qualified teacher and to guarantee America
a just and prosperous future.
To put teaching and teachers at the heart of school improvement, we offer these
recommendations:
1. Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers.
The Commission recommends that we renew the national promise to bring every
American child up to world-class standards in core academic areas and to develop
and enforce rigorous standards for teacher preparation, initial licensing, and con-
tinuing development.
Standards for both students and teachers form the linchpin for transforming the
way teachers work and schools operate. The goal of standards is to support student
learning. Therefore, student standards need to be reinforced by incentives that
encourage students to work hard, schools to support their efforts, and teachers to
acquire greater knowledge and skill.
With respect to student standards, the Commission believes every state should
work on incorporating demanding standards for learning-such as those developed
by professional bodies like the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics-into
curriculum frameworks and new assessments of student performance.
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
17
The Summary Report
Implementation must go beyond the tautology that "all children can learn" to exam-
ine what they should learn and how much they need to know.
Standards should be accompanied by benchmarks of performance and clear
examples of the kind and quality of work expected. With high-quality assessments
that measure important abilities, teachers can teach more purposefully and make
greater demands that students and parents can better understand and respond to. In
addition, schools can better organize specific academic supports for students who
need additional help.
Clearly, if students are to achieve high standards, we can expect no less from
their teachers and other educators. The first priority is reaching agreement on what
teachers should know and be able to do in order to help students succeed.
Unaddressed for decades, this task has recently been completed by three profession-
al bodies, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),
the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). and
the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (the National Board). Their combined
efforts to set standards for teacher education,
Teacher Quality
beginning teacher licensing, and advanced certifi-
cation outline a continuum of teacher develop-
ment throughout the career. These standards
Teacher
Education
Advanced
offer the most powerful tools we have for reach-
Accreditation
Certification
(NCATE)
(NBPTS)
ing and rejuvenating the soul of the profession.
Initial
Licensing
The assessments accompanying these stan-
(INTASC)
dards examine the attributes of effective teachers:
subject matter expertise coupled with an under-
standing of how children learn and develop; skill
in using a range of teaching strategies and technologies: sensitivity and effectiveness
in working with students from diverse backgrounds; the ability to work well with
parents and other teachers; and expertise in assessing how well children are doing,
what they are learning, and what needs to be done next to move them along. They
reflect a teaching role in which the teacher is an instructional leader who orches-
trates learning experiences in response to curriculum goals and student needs and
who coaches students to high levels of independent performance.
To advance standards, the Commission recommends that states:
Establish professional standards boards in every state.
Insist on professional accreditation for all schools of education.
Close inadequate schools of education.
18
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Three-Legged Stool of Teacher Quality
The three-legged stool of quality assur-
and evaluate teaching in terms of how well
ance-teacher education program accredita-
teachers can plan and teach for under-
tion, initial teacher licensing, and advanced
standing, connect their lessons to stu-
professional certification-is becoming
dents' prior knowledge and experiences,
more sturdy as a continuum of standards
help students who are not initially success-
has been developed to guide teacher learn-
ful, analyze the results of their practice on
ing across the career. When these stan-
student learning, and adjust it accordingly.
dards have been enacted in policy, teacher
If new teachers can do these things, they
preparation and professional development
will be prepared to teach for the new stu-
should be focused on a set of shared
dent standards that are emerging and to
knowledge, skills, and commitments.
develop the more advanced skills of a
Accreditation: A rigorous new set of
Board-Certified teacher.
standards for teacher preparation pro-
Certification: The National Board for
grams has been developed by the National
Professional Teaching Standards was insti-
Council for Accreditation of Teacher
tuted in 1987 to establish rigorous stan-
Education (NCATE). NCATE-accredited insti-
dards and assessments for certifying
tutions must show how they prepare teach-
accomplished teaching. A majority of the
ers to teach to the student standards
Board's 63 members are outstanding
developed by professional associations
classroom teachers; the remaining mem-
such as the National Council of Teachers
bers include school board members, gover-
of Mathematics, one of NCATE's 30 pro-
nors, legislators, administrators, and
fessional organization members. They also
teacher educators. Veteran teachers who
must show how they prepare teachers to
participate in the Board's assessments
meet new licensing standards (see below)
complete a yearlong portfolio that illus-
regarding content knowledge and skill in
trates their teaching through lesson plans,
curriculum planning, assessment. class-
samples of student work over time, video-
room management, teaching strategies for
tapes, and analyses of their teaching. They
diverse learners, and collaboration with
also take tests of content and pedagogical
parents and colleagues. To date, about
knowledge that tap their ability to create
500 of 1,200 teacher education programs
and evaluate curriculum materials and
have received professional accreditation
teaching situations. The Board's standards
through NCATE.
are being used by some school districts to
Licensing: Under the auspices of the
guide ongoing professional development
Council of Chief State School Officers, a
and evaluation as well as certification of
consortium of more than 30 states and
accomplished practice.
professional organizations has formed the
The Commission recommends that this
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and
framework be used to guide education poli-
Support Consortium (INTASC). This consor-
cy across the states so that every teacher
tium has created a set of performance
prepares at an NCATE-accredited institu-
standards for beginning teacher licensing
tion, demonstrates teaching competence
and is developing new examinations that
as defined by INTASC licensing standards,
measure these standards. The new exami-
and develops accomplished practice as
nations draw upon the pace-setting work of
defined by the National Board for
the National Board for Professional Teaching
Professional Teaching Standards.
Standards (see illustration, opposite page)
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
19
The Summary Report
License teachers based on demonstrated performance, including tests of
subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skill.
Use National Board standards as the benchmark for accomplished teaching.
II. Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development.
The Commission recommends that colleges and schools work with states to redesign
teacher education so that the two million teachers to be hired in the next decade
are adequately prepared and all teachers have access to high-quality learning
opportunities.
More new teachers will be hired in the next decade than in any previous decade
in our history. If they are adequately prepared at the beginning of their careers, most
of the band-aids and stopgap efforts now required should prove irrelevant in the
future. In addition, if teachers have continuous access to the latest knowledge about
teaching and learning, they will be better able to respond to the toughest learning
problems and the challenge of meeting ever higher standards. For this to occur, sev-
eral changes are essential.
Organize teacher education and professional development around stan-
dards for students and teachers.
Institute extended, graduate-level teacher-preparation programs that pro-
vide yearlong internships in a professional development school.
Create and fund mentoring programs for beginning teachers that provide
support and evaluate teaching skills.
Create stable, high-quality sources of professional development-then
allocate 1% of state and local spending to support them, along with addi-
tional matching funds to school districts.
Organize new sources of professional development such as teacher acade-
mies, school-university partnerships, and learning networks that transcend
school boundaries.
Make professional development an ongoing part of teachers' daily work
through joint planning, study groups, peer coaching, and research.
If teachers are to be prepared to help their students meet the new standards being
set for them, teacher preparation and professional development programs must con-
sciously examine the expectations embodied in new curriculum frameworks and
assessments and understand what they imply for teaching and for learning to teach.
20
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
Then they must develop strategies that effectively help teachers learn to teach in these
much more demanding ways.
Over the past decade, many schools of education have changed their programs to
incorporate new knowledge. Like those in other countries, more than 300 have devel-
oped extended programs that add a fifth (and sometimes a sixth) year of training to
undergraduate preparation. These programs allow beginning teachers to complete a
disciplinary degree in their subject and acquire a firmer grounding in teaching skills.
They allow coursework to be connected to extended practice teaching in schools;
often these are professional development schools that, like teaching hospitals in med-
icine, have a special mission to support research and training. Recent studies show
that graduates of extended programs are rated as better prepared and more effective
teachers-and far more likely to enter and remain in teaching than their peers from
traditional four-year programs.
As teachers move into the profession, they should have support from an expert
mentor during the first year of teaching. Research shows that such support improves
both teacher effectiveness and retention. In the system we propose, teachers will have
completed initial tests of subject matter and basic teaching knowledge before entry
and will be ready to undertake the second stage-a performance assessment of teach-
ing skills-during this first year.
Throughout their careers, teachers should have ongoing opportunities to update
their skills. In addition to time for joint planning and problem solving with in-school
colleagues, teachers should have access to networks, school-university partnerships,
and academies where they can connect with colleagues to study subject matter teach-
ing, new pedagogies, and school change. These opportunities should offer sustained
work on problems of practice that are directly connected to teachers' work and stu-
dent learning. They should allow for in-depth inquiry, peer coaching, and sharing of
knowledge so that real transformations of practice are possible.
III. Overhaul teacher recruitment, and put qualified teachers in
every classroom.
The Commission recommends that states and school districts pursue aggressive
policies to put qualified teachers in every classroom by providing financial incen-
tives to correct shortages, streamlining hiring procedures, and reducing barriers to
teacher mobility.
Although the nation each year produces more new teachers than it needs, short-
ages of qualified candidates in particular fields (e.g., mathematics and science) and
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
21
A Continuum of Learning
"The old paradigm of teaching was that
teacher, selected through a rigorous evalu-
you prepared a lesson, you taught it the
ation process, who has released time to
best way you could, and you covered the
work with beginners on developing their
curriculum." notes Pat Rice, principal of
practice. At the end of the year, the con-
Withrow High School in Cincinnati, Ohio.
sulting teacher assesses their performace
A teacher who did those things, Rice
and recommends continuation or dismissal
explains, was a good teacher, no matter
to a governing board of teachers and
what students did. Now, good teaching is
administrators. The program has resulted
judged by how much learning occurs, and
in lower attrition of beginning teachers,
teachers' knowledge is ever more impor-
higher levels of competence, and greater
tant. "Look at medicine," Rice suggests.
selectivity in decisions about who remains
"Doctors are learning more new surgical
in the profession.
techniques all the time. If you're going to
As interns continue through a career
have a gallstone removed. wouldn't you
continuum as residents, professional
rather they zap it with a laser than cut you
teachers, and-eventually-lead teachers,
open with a knife?"
they have continuous opportunities to
In Cincinnati, Ohio, the collective efforts
grow in their expertise and responsibili-
of the school district, teachers' union,
ties. These are supported by the efforts of
university, and business have created a new
the Mayerson Academy, a professional
continuum for teacher preparation,
development collaborative endowed by the
induction, and ongoing learning that gives
business community, which offers courses,
teachers the tools to be more effective.
action labs, study groups, and seminars
The University of Cincinnati has totally
with and for educators. Notes executive
redesigned teacher education in collabora-
director Michael Rutherford, "One thing we
tion with the schools. Candidates complete
know about professional development is
a five-year program that includes a bache-
that it's not worth anything if there isn't
lor's degree in their subject area as well as
ongoing follow-up and support. It can't be
a master's degree in teaching. They
inconsistent and it can't be one-shot pro-
engage in ongoing clinical experiences in
grams." Having taken this lesson to heart,
professional practice schools, which involve
Cincinnati has created a continuum of
selected local faculties as partners in the
coherent, sustained learning for teachers
preparation of teachers and the redesign of
that is focused on student success.
schooling. Starting in their second year,
candidates conduct classroom observa-
tions, research studies, and tutoring in
these sites. By the fifth year, they complete
a full-year internship that combines half-
time teaching responsibility with coordinat-
ed seminars under the joint supervision of
campus-based and school-based faculty.
Following this in-depth preparation, new
teachers are assigned a mentor in
Cincinnati's Career-in-Teaching program.
They receive intensive help throughout
their first year from an expert consulting
22
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
particular locations (primarily inner city and rural) are chronic. While some districts
have long waiting lists of qualified teachers eager for work. others cannot find the
applicants they need.
In large districts. logistics can overwhelm everything else. It is sometimes the case
that central offices cannot find out about classroom vacancies, principals are left in
the dark about applicants, and candidates cannot get any information at all. And
large pools of potential midcareer teacher entrants-from "downsized" corporation
employees, military and government retirees, and teacher aides already in the
schools-lie for the most part untapped.
States and districts should aggressively overhaul teacher recruitment by providing
financial incentives to correct shortages; streamlining hiring procedures; and reduc-
ing barriers to teacher mobility. Five principles are involved here:
Increase the ability of financially disadvantaged districts to pay for qualified
teachers and insist that school districts hire only qualified teachers.
Redesign and streamline hiring at the district level, principally by creating a cen-
tral "electronic hiring hall" for all qualified candidates and establishing cooper-
ative relationships with universities to encourage early hiring of teachers.
Eliminate barriers to teacher mobility by promoting reciprocal interstate
licensing and by working with states to develop portable pensions.
Provide incentives (including scholarships and premium pay) to recruit teach-
ers for high-need subjects and locations.
Develop high-quality pathways to teaching for recent graduates, midcareer
changers, paraprofessionals already in the classroom, and military and
government retirees.
IV. Encourage and reward knowledge and skill.
The Commission recommends that school districts. states, unions, and professional
associations cooperate to make teaching a true profession, with a career continuum
that places teaching at the top and rewards teachers for their knowledge and skills.
Schools have few ways of encouraging outstanding teaching, supporting teachers
who take on the most challenging work, or rewarding increases in knowledge and
skill. Newcomers who enter teaching without preparation are paid at the same levels
as those who enter with highly developed skills. Entering novices take on exactly the
same kind of work as 30-year veterans. Mediocre teachers receive the same rewards as
outstanding ones. And unlicensed "teachers" are placed on the same salary schedule
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
23
The Summary Report
as teachers licensed in two or more subjects. All of these incentives maintain a status
quo in which knowledge and expertise have little currency.
One indication that the existing system does not understand what it is doing is
that it rewards experience with easier work instead of encouraging senior teachers to
deal with difficult learning problems. As teachers gain experience, they can look for-
ward to teaching in more affluent schools, working with easier schedules, dealing
with "better" classes, or moving out of the classroom into administration. Teachers
are rarely rewarded for applying their expertise to the most challenging learning prob-
lems or major system needs.
To address these issues, the Commission recommends that states and local edu-
cation agencies:
Develop a career continuum linked to assessments and compensation sys-
tems that reward knowledge and skill. These include the ability to teach
expertly in two or more subjects, as demonstrated by performance-based
licensing, as well as the ability to pass examinations of teaching skill, such as
those offered by INTASC and the National Board.
Remove incompetent teachers through peer assistance and review programs
that provide necessary supports and due process.
Set goals and enact incentives for National Board Certification in every
district, with the aim of certifying 105,000 teachers-one for every school in
the nation-during the next ten years.
If teaching is organized like other professions that have set consistent licensing
requirements, standards of practice, and methods for assessments of expertise, the
reward system can be tied to professional growth and development. A career contin-
uum that places teaching at the top and supports growing expertise should (1) recog-
nize accomplishment, (2) anticipate that teachers will continue to teach while taking
on other roles that allow them to share their knowledge, and (3) promote continued
skill development related to clear standards.
Some districts, like Cincinnati, Ohio, and Rochester, New York, have already
begun to develop career pathways that tie evaluations to pay increments at key stages
as teachers move from their initial license, through a period as a resident teacher
under the supervision of a mentor, to designation as professional teacher. Tenure is
a major step tied to a serious decision made after rigorous evaluation of performance
in the first several years of teaching, incorporating administrator and peer review by
expert colleagues. Advanced certification from the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards may qualify teachers for another salary step and/or for qualifi-
24
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
cation to serve as a lead teacher-a role that is awarded to teachers who have demon-
strated high levels of competence and who want to serve as mentors, consulting
teachers, and program developers.
One other feature of a new compensation system is key. The central importance
of teaching to the mission of schools should be acknowledged by Psystemain which
the highest paid professional in a school system is an experienced National Board
Certified teacher, who should be able to earn as much by teaching as by becoming an
administrator As in other professions, teaching and administrative roles. should
become less distinct. The jobs of teacher, consultant, supervisor, principal, currieu
lum developer, researcher, mentor, and professor should be hyphenated roles, allow-
ing many ways for individuals to use their talents and expertise without abandoning
the core work of the profession.
V. Create schools that are organized for student and teacher
success.
The Commission recommends that schools be restructured to become genuine
learning organizations for both students and teachers: organizations that respect
learning, honor teaching, and teach for understanding.
Many experts have observed that the demands of serious teaching and learning
bear little relationship to the organization of the typical American school. Nothing
more clearly reveals this problem than how we allocate the principal resources of
school time, money, and people. Far too many people sit in offices on the sidelines of
the school's core work, managing routines rather than improving learning. Our
schools are bureaucratic inheritances from the 19th century, not the kinds of learning
organizations required for the 21st.
Across the United States, the ratio of school staff to students is 1:9. However,
actual class sizes average about 24, reaching 30 or more in many cities. High school
teachers generally see more than 100 students per day. This is because most staff are
not classroom teachers, and teachers' work is organized like piecework on an assem-
bly line. The organizational assumptions that led to this way of managing work are
being abandoned in high-performance businesses that are flattening hierarchies, cre-
ating teams, and training employees so they can rake on wider responsibilities. Many
schools have proved that is is possibles -restructure adult use of time SO chare more
teachers and administrators actually work with students on a daily basis in the class-
room, thus reducing class sizes while creating more time for teacher collaboration.
They do this by creating teams of teachers who share students; engaging almost all
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
25
The Summary Report
Restructuring Schools to Support Student
and Teacher Learning
Across the country, schools are reorga-
in Cincinnati, Ohio, teachers have found
nizing their work to provide more time
5.5 hours a week to plan together and
for student learning, more personalized
have lowered pupil-teacher ratios to 15:1
relationships between teachers and stu-
by creating multi-age clusters of students
dents, and greater opportunity for teachers
and teachers, integrating special education
to work and plan together in teams.
teachers into cluster teams, and eliminat-
Providing teachers with the time they need
ing separate Title 1 classes. in all of these
to work with colleagues and keep up with
cases, evidence shows that students are
advances in their profession depends
learning more as teachers develop their
largely on schools' willingness to rethink
expertise.
staffing patterns. A study of the allocation
In high schools, combining subject
of teachers in the Boston public schools
areas such as English, history, and writing
found that even with a pupil-teacher ratio
can substantially reduce teaching loads
of only 13:1, regular class sizes averaged
and create time for teachers. This strategy
23 and went as high as 33. because of
has been used in many of the more than
the assignment of many staff to pullout
100 new, small restructured high schools
and specialist positions.
in New York City recently created to
By combining all of the students into
replace failing comprehensive high
regular classroom groupings rather than
schools. The new schools often create
using pullouts for Title I and special educa-
interdisciplinary teams of teachers who
tion, class sizes could drop to about 14 in
share students, and they establish block
elementary schools. By rethinking sched-
schedules that reduce teachers' pupil
ules, teachers also can have more time for
loads while creating more shared planning
joint planning. Boston schools like Lyons
time. In one model, each teacher teaches
and O'Hearn elementary schools have
two classes (either humanities or
recently done just that, sometimes team-
math/science) that meet for nearly two
ing regular and special-education teachers
hours daily, four times per week. With
to work together. At Ashley River
class sizes of around 20, this results in a
Elementary in South Carolina, teachers
total pupil load of 40. Virtually everyone in
have 80 minutes a day for planning with
the school teaches: about 70% to 75% of
their grade-level teams, and class sizes
all staff as compared with the usual 50%
were lowered by reducing the number of
to 55%. Teachers have about seven hours
specialists and counselors; now 75% of
a week to plan together in addition to five
staff are classroom teachers. At Hefferan
hours of individual "prep" time. The co-
Elementary School in Chicago, teachers
directors teach some classes and counsel
teach four full days of academic classes
students in advisories-small groups of
each week and spend the fifth full day
students who meet weekly with-teacher
planning together with their multigrade
advisers. There are no guidance coun-
teams while students rotate to "resource"
selors, attendance officers, assistant prin-
classes in music, fine arts, computer lab,
cipals. supervisors, or department
physical education, library science, and
heads. and few security guards are needed
science lab. At Quebec Heights Elementary
because students are so well known.
26
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
Traditional High School
Restructured High School
Total students
3,380
450
Ratio of student to staff
13:1
10:1
% of Staff who are
58%
73%
full-time teachers
Average class size
33
18
Average pupil load
167
36
Joint work time for teachers
45 minutes/week
7.5 hours/week
Studies have found that attendance,
security guards. 22 nonteaching school
grades, graduation rates, and college-going
aides, 14 paraprofessionals, and 3 librari-
rates are all higher in these restructured
ans. Students and teachers experience the
schools than in the traditional schools they
anonymity of the factory model school,
are replacing.
which produces far less learning for them
By contrast, teachers in a traditional
both.
New York high school of 3,300 have class
Teams that include many kinds of
sizes of 33 and see 167 students per day,
expertise and share groups of students
although student-adult ratios are only
can plan more effectively for students and
13:1. Teachers have no joint planning time
use time more productively. Resources are
because the school's person-hours are
better used when they go directly to the
consumed by the large number of non-
classrooms, rather than sitting around the
teaching staff: 9 assistant principals, 11
periphery of the school to be applied in
guidance counselors, 13 secretaries, 10
brief encounters with students or in coordi-
school-based services specialists, 17
native rather than teaching roles.
Sources: Linda Darting-Hammond, "Restructuring Schools for High Performance," in Rewards and Reform:
Creating Educational Incentives that Work, edited by Susan Fuhrman and Jennifer O'Day (San Francisco,
Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1996); and Karen Hawley Miles. "Freeing Up Resources for Improving Schools: A Case
Study of Teacher Allocation in Boston Public Schools," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (Winter
1995): 476-493.
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
27
The Summary Report
adults in these teaching teams where they can share expertise directly with one anoth-
er, and reducing pull-outs and nonteaching jobs.
To direct their energies around a common purpose, schools need to adopt shared
standards for student learning that become the basis for common efforts of teachers,
parents, and the community. Then schools must be freed of the tyrannies of time and
tradition to permit more powerful student and teacher learning. This includes restruc-
turing time and staffing so that teachers have regular time to work with one another
and with groups of students; rethinking schedules so that students and teachers have
more extended time together over the course of the day, week, and years; and reducing
barriers to the involvement of parents so that families and schools can work together.
To accomplish this, the Commission recommends that state and local boards
work to
Flatten hierarchies and reallocate resources to invest more in teachers and
technology and less in nonteaching personnel.
Provide venture capital in the form of challenge grants that will promote
learning linked to school improvement and will reward effective team efforts.
Select, prepare, and retain principals who understand teaching and learning
and who can lead high-performing schools.
If students deserve a qualified teacher as an inalienable right, teachers deserve a
highly qualified principal as a right as well. If schools are to become genuine learning
organizations, school leaders must have a deep understanding of teaching and learn-
ing for adults as well as children. The job began as that of a "principal teacher," and
this conception is ever more relevant as schools refocus on academic achievement for
students. Principals should teach at least part of the time (as do most European,
Asian, and private school directors), and they should be well prepared as instruction-
al leaders, understanding teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment. as well
as how to lead organizations in which leadership and decision making are shared and
where continual learning is fostered for staff and parents as well as students.
Next Steps
Developing recommendations is easy. Implementing them is hard work. The first
step is to recognize that these ideas must be pursued together-as an entire tapestry
that is tightly interwoven. Pulling on a single thread will create a tangle rather than
tangible progress.
The second step is to build on the substantial work of educational reform under-
28
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
taken in the last decade. All across the country, successful programs for recruiting,
educating, and mentoring new teachers have sprung up. Professional networks and
teacher academies have been launched; many education school programs have been
redesigned; higher standards for licensing teachers and accrediting education schools
have been developed; and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has
begun to define and reward accomplished teaching.
Finally, we must understand that everyone must shoulder his or her share of the
burden of transforming American schools.
While much of what we propose can and should be accomplished by reallocating
resources from uses that are currently unproductive, there are new costs. As the table
below indicates, the estimated additional costs of our key recommendations total just
under $5 billion annually-less than 1% of the amount spent on the federal savings
and loan bailout several years ago. This is not too much, we believe, to bail out our
schools and to secure America's future.
Type of Investment
Cost per Year
Scholarships for able teaching recruits in high-need areas
$ 500 million
Teacher education reforms
$ 875 million
Mentoring supports and new licensing assessments
$ 750 million
Professional development funding
$ 2.750 billion
TOTAL $ 4.875 billion
A Call to Action
Defining the agenda outlined above is the easiest task. Setting it in motion and car-
rying it to completion will demand much of us all. The Commission calls on gover-
nors to create state professional boards to govern teacher licensing standards and to
issue annual report cards on the status of teaching. We ask state legislators to set
aside at least 1% of funds for standards-based teacher training. We urge Congress to
put money behind the teacher recruitment programs it has already approved but
never funded.
Moreover, we ask the profession to take seriously its responsibilities to children and
America's future. Among other measures, we insist that state officials close the loop-
holes that permit unqualified people to be placed as teachers in the classroom. We call
on university officials to take up the hard work of improving the preparation of new
and practicing teachers. We ask administrators and teachers to take on the difficult
work of developing teaching of ever higher quality. And we ask local school boards and
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
29
The Summary Report
superintendents to play their vital role by streamlining hiring procedures, upgrading
quality, and putting more staff and resources into the front lines of teaching.
There can be no doubt that the American people will support all these actions-
and many more. The public has its educational priorities perfectly straight. A recent
Public Agenda poll asked, "What is the most important thing public schools need in
order to help students learn?" The top vote-getter by a large margin was "good teach-
ers." And when the question was, "Whom do you trust to make decisions about
schools?" teachers were only slightly behind parents as the runaway favorites-far
outdistancing education experts, Washington bureaucrats, state officials, and every
other category.
Those respondents from Main Street echo the words of ordinary and extraordi-
nary people everywhere. World-famous violinist Jascha Heiferz put it best. "I remem-
ber my old violin professor in Russia," he once recalled. "He said that someday I.
would be good enough to teach." These insights underscore the Commission's cru-
sade to make caring and competent teaching a fundamental student right.
30
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
The Summary Report
Good teachers are those who can transmit a passion
for learning. They believe all children can learn, some may take
a little longer, but will not stop until they have tried everything
they can and then some. They understand that learning
is a lifelong experience and let their children see they are
still learning.
Good teachers care about their students
as people, not just grades in a book.
- JOANNE LEAVITT,
PARENT, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
The most important contribution we as educators can make
to the well-being of children is to enable them to deal effectively
with their universe.
This is not, of course, a trivial task.
It combines a number of concerns, ranging from teaching
basic skills to readying students for the marketplace. In essence,
it combines giving them the tools to analyze a situation to make
an appropriate response, the self-confidence to
use those tools, and the pride and motivation to use them
with excellence.
- JOHN SNYDER, COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHER.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES ACADEMY,
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future
31
Portions of this work may be reproduced without permission, provided that acknowl-
edgment is given to the "National Commission on Teaching & America's Future."
Limited permission is also granted for larger portions to be reproduced by nonprofit and
public agencies and institutions only, solely for noncommercial purposes and provided
that acknowledgment as expressed above is prominently given. Reproduction or storage
in any form of electronic retrieval system for any commerical purpose is prohibited with-
out the express written permission of the authors.
Copies of this Summary and the Full report, What Matters Most. Teaching for America's Future
are available from:
The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future
P.O. Box 5239
Woodbridge, Virginia 22194-5239
Prices (shipping and handling included):
Full report
$18.00
Complete package:
Summary report
$5.00
Full report, Summary report,
Discounted price for both reports
$20.00
video and discussion guide
$30.00
Video and discussion guide
$15.00
Orders must be prepaid by check or money order. For information on bulk rates,
please call: (212) 678-3015.
For further information about the National Commission on Teaching & America's
Future, see its World Wide Web site at: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/-teachcomm or
contact:
The National Commission on Teaching & America's Future
Teachers College, Columbia University, Box 117
525 West 120th Street
New York, New York 10027
(212) 678-3204
Production Credits
Edwin Kuo
Matthew Forrester
para
graphics
Inkspot Design
Production
Information Graphics
Art Director
Education Week, March 19, 1997
26
Professional-Development Schools Stir Debate
By Jeanne Ponessa
Touted as a significant system for
partnerships has grown dramatically
brought into teacher education.
grooming
teachers.
since then. Ms. Abdal-Haqq estimates
Such schools allow the K-12 voice
professional-development schools are
that there are now more than 600 K-12
to be heard on the university campus
receiving a critical look from
schools around the country that are
and enable university representatives to
teacher-educators now that they're not
organized on that model.
be considered the colleagues of K-12
SO new anymore.
Ohio State University in Columbus
educators, said Mr. Murray, who also
In recent years. a growing number
is among those that operate
serves as the executive director of the
of universities and schools have set up
professional-development schools. And
Holmes Partnership.
these clinical schools. which link a
its dean of education. Nancy Zimpher.
But the approach does not satisfy
college of education and an elementary
spoke in support of the schools at the
educators in some arenas. For example.
or secondary school to create a
AACTE conference.
Peter Murreil Jr. the director of the
learning and research environment for
Learning to teach is a
master's-in-teaching program at the
teachers-in-training and current
multidimensional process that should
Center for Innovation in Urban
teachers.
not be limited to a college campus, she
Education at Northeastern University
Several leading teacher education
argued. Professional-development
in Boston, maintains that the PDS
groups have hailed the approach as a
schools, therefore, help enhance
model does not give educators enough
route to improving teacher quality.
teacher education by showing
flexibility to deal with the problems
And the National Council for the
teacher-educators real problems from
that urban and minority students face.
Accreditation of Teacher Education is
the classroom. she said.
Instead, he advocates an
in the midst of a two-year project to
And the mutual benefits to the
"anti-bureaucratic" collaboration that
devise
standards
for
teacher and the classroom create a
also gives parents and community
professional-development schools.
setting of "reciprocal renewal," added
members a voice. Such an effort can
But. as highlighted in a debate at
Ms. Zimpher, who is also the president
better pinpoint and address the
the recent American Association for
and chairwoman of the Holmes
particular problems of students. he
Colleges of Teacher Education
Partnership. the new name for the
said. With a collaborative model. Mr.
conference in Phoenix. some educators
Holmes Group.
Murrell argued, teacher-educators
are wondering how well the PDS
But her adversary on the issue. Ms.
could avoid "that old sequential model
concept works and whether it should
Diez, expressed concern that creating
of 'give them some tools. and hope that
be made universal.
such a model might lead universities to
the tools match up with the challenges
"There's a good bit of people who
form professional-development schools
that confront them."
are doing professional-development
with a structure in mind rather than a
In general. Mr. Murrell added, he
schools. whether they're doing them
purpose. "Structure is simply too
would advise teacher-educators "Don't
well or not. who are standing in
narrow a beginning focus and cuts off
impose the structure and then look for
judgment of people who are not doing
other possibilities," Ms. Diez said. "I
ways of solving problems. There may
them." said Mary E. Diez. the
think people have gotten stuck in what
be targets your artillery IS not able to
chairwoman of the education
they think is the recipe from on high."
hit."
department at Alverno College in
Moreover, Ms. Diez told the
Standards Pursued
Milwaukee. who raised concerns about
audience of teacher-educators. higher
Marsha Levine. the director of the
making
the
education also needs to shuck any
protessional-development-school
professional-development-school
"hubris" and make sure it undertakes
standards project for NCATE. said that
model universal during last month's
projects that are not simply for its own
the teacher-college accreditation group
AACTE debate.
benefit.
has arrived at a set of draft standards
The debate. said Ms. Diez. who
On some elements of the debate,
They include definitions of the
also headed the planning committee
the two educators were in concert. Ms.
relationships between higher education
for the conference, was staged as an
Zimpher. for instance. agreed that for
and K-12 and a set of key attributes.
attempt to "unpack" some of the issues
higher education to consider its own
such as collaboration and
about such schools.
interests alone does not meet the "full
accountability.
Beyond the Campus
letter and intent of
Her organization is now examining
The
idea
of
professional-development schools."
how the new PDS standards will mesh
professional-development schools
But she disagreed that the structure of
with current NCATE standards.
entered into the mainstream with the
the schools was highly defined. "It's a
Protessional-development schools are
1986 "Toinorrow's Teachers" report by
misinterpretation to think that the
one of several clinical models that
the Holmes Group. a network focused
model is so tight." she said.
could satisfy the accrediting group's
on revitalizing teacher education.
Flexibility Questioned
standards, Ms. Levine said.
according to Ismat Abdal-Haqq, the
Frank B. Murray, the dean of the
Ms. Levine also said that she
coordinator for AACTE's clinical
education college at the University of
believes NCATE's standards for
schools clearinghouse.
Delaware in Newark. said that the
professional-development schools will
Although some clinical schools
debate highlights the changes that
alleviate most of the concerns that Ms.
existed in various forms before the
professional-development schools have
Diez expressed in the debate."
mid-1980s. the number of such
FROM COLLEGE TO FIRST-YEAR TEACHING
How the United States Compares to Several Other Countries
Up to one-third of new U.S. teachers leave the profession within three years, according to the
recent report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. One reason for
this "wastage" of teaching resources, according to the Commission, is our typical "sink-or-swim"
attitude toward teacher induction.
In contrast, new teachers in some other countries are provided with resources and guidance that
help them to make a successful transition from being students themselves to becoming self-
confident, skilled professional teachers. The United States can learn from their experience. The
U.S. Department of Education recently worked with the Education Forum of APEC (Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation) and with Pelavin Research Institute to carry out a cross-national
study of teacher induction practices. The report from this study, From Students of Teaching to
Teachers of Students, includes case studies of teacher induction programs in Japan, New
Zealand, and the Northern Territory of Australia.
These case studies show us that teaching isn't any easier in other parts of the world. New
teachers everywhere feel overwhelmed by the challenge of their first year in charge of a class.
One teacher in Australia's Northern Territory said: "It was like jumping in at the deep end. It is
a very steep learning curve moving from the university to the real world." A teacher in Japan
agreed, saying "This first year has been very difficult. I am much busier than I had expected to
be. It is entirely different from my student teaching experience. Every day brings a new
surprise."
Recognizing the challenge, these education systems have thought about and put into practice
strategies that help teachers through that very tough first year. Some of the weakest aspects of
typical induction practice in the United States have been addressed relatively successfully
by these other systems. This report shows that "successful" teacher induction programs,
while rooted in the unique cultures of the country where they are found, have the following
characteristics in common:
1.
New teachers are viewed as professionals on a continuum of growth where
novice teachers are not expected to do the same job as experienced teachers
without significant support.
In Japan and New Zealand, new teachers are assigned to classes perceived as
less difficult or less critical to educational development, and they carry lighter
teaching loads in order to participate in induction activities.
In New Zealand, one principal stated "I assign new teachers to classes where I
expect fewer discipline problems and parents who are easier to deal with."
Assignment to more difficult classes is phased in over a three-year period.
Draft, U.S. Department of Education, April 9, 1997
--
In Japan, new teachers have reduced classroom hours and administrative duties.
--
In all three of the programs studied, the authors concluded that new teachers are
viewed as professionals -- albeit ones who are at a different point on a continuum
of development from experienced teachers -- whose contributions will grow over
time, given appropriate support. The difference in skill levels between new and
experienced teachers are acknowledged and built in to the school program.
How different from the typical situation in the United States, where new teachers all
too frequently get the most difficult class assignments, the most educationally needy
children, and extra duties.
2.
New teachers are nurtured and not left to "flounder on their own;" interaction
with other teachers is maximized.
In the three sites in the APEC study, schools and classrooms are set up to
maximize interaction among teachers--between new and experienced teachers,
and among new teachers. In New Zealand, for instance, the location of a new
teacher's class is viewed as important; when possible, it is next door to a "buddy
teacher" or among other teachers of the same grade-level.
--
New and experienced teachers move frequently between one another's
classrooms for visitations, observations, assessments, and advice. Both the
students and the teachers are accustomed to this interaction, so it is not disruptive
to the class nor confusing to the students. It's a natural part of the day The study
calls this "modeling good practice."
In addition to observing and being observed, in these school systems interaction is
facilitated by other structural components of induction programs. The school day
or week includes dedicated time for group planning, grade-level, and
curriculum-development meetings, and team teaching. These interactions help
new teachers in planning, learning about and gaining access to resources, and
building new relationships; they also let the beginner contribute to the group.
In Japan, new teachers are provided with at least two periods per week to be
observed or to observe other teachers' classes and at least three periods for
consultations with guidance teachers.
In the United States, by contrast, teachers are left to sink or swim. "Isolated behind
classroom doors with little feedback or help, as many as 30 percent leave in the first
few years, while others learn merely to cope rather than to teach well" (National
Commission Report).
Draft. U.S. Department of Education. April 9. 1997
2
3.
Teacher induction is a purposive and valued activity.
The induction programs provide "just in time" activities. New teachers receive
information and support when they need it, rather than in lengthy pre-term
orientations. For example, in Chiba City, Japan, time is set aside throughout the
year for first-year teachers to come together, learn, and reflect on topics that are
likely to become important to them at about that time in the academic cycle.
Teachers attend a workshop on preparing for teacher-parent consultations at a time
just before the first consultations occur.
--
In Japan, by law, new teachers must be provided with no less than 60 days per
year of in-school training (including observation and advice), under the leadership
of the guidance teacher, and at least 30 days of out-of school training per year.
In New Zealand, the Advice and Guidance program foresees release time equal to
one day per week to spend on induction activities. For this purpose, schools with
a new teacher are provided with 20 percent more than the cost of that teacher's
slot; most of that funding goes for release time so that the new teacher and/or
guidance teacher can participate in observation, consultation, and in-service
training; the new teacher has a strong say in how the time is used.
In Australia's Northern Territory, the induction program promotes teacher
retention in a difficult and remote environment. "Orientation" actually includes
three components: (1) four days of initial orientation before the term begins; (2)
"recall orientation," when new teachers come back together for three days about
four to six weeks into the term; and (3) on-going school-level support. So, again,
attention is given when and where it is really needed.
In much of the United States, on the other hand, to the extent that they get special
training, new teachers tend to get pre-term orientations or other induction activities
at moments chosen more for their convenience to organizers than to inductees'
needs.
4.
One finds a culture of shared responsibility and support, in which all or most of
the school's staff contributes to the development and nurturing of the new
teacher.
--
In Japan, for instance, one of the principal's duties is to ensure that all teachers in
the school cooperate with the guidance teacher to help the first-year teacher.
The frequent interaction between new and experienced teachers referred to earlier
builds what we might call "authentic" mentoring.
Draft, U.S. Department of Education, April 9, 1997
3
Most mentors in these three systems do not receive additional compensation, but
having served as a mentor may be a criterion used for promotion to senior teacher
or school-level administrator
Sharing with mentors and other experienced teachers helps new teachers in all
three countries cope with their initial, unrealistic expectations of themselves.
This support goes beyond the formal one-on-one mentoring relationship that is
designed into teacher induction programs in many U.S. school systems.
5.
Finally, the study found that in all three countries, assessment of new teachers is
down-played. This does not mean that there is no attempt to "weed out" incompetent
teachers. But the emphasis clearly is on helping new teachers to become better.
--
In Australia/Northern Territory, for example, the administration asks schools to
perform as few assessments as are really required; but instead to spend more
time helping teachers prepare for assessment. A teacher's failure is seen as a
failure on the part of the administration.
The study researchers noted that the absence of serious concern by all participants
in the induction program about meeting certification and registration requirements
enhances the provision of assistance and support. Teachers do not seem to feel
threatened or even uncomfortable about being observed, or about asking questions
they fear will reveal professional inadequacies. The frequent observation by
fellow teachers is non-threatening assessment that can help them improve.
This study found, however, that "teacher induction in the United States traditionally
has focused most heavily on assessment; and assistance where it exists is strongly
linked to aiding new teachers to achieve the assessment criteria."
6.
Policy makers almost everywhere want to improve their teacher induction.
Teacher induction is not perfect in any of these sites; in fact, all interviewed policy
makers thought it could be improved. In all three sites, administrators at both teacher-
training institutions and in the schools say they want closer links with each other.
Formative and summative program evaluation is virtually lacking, so there is little hard
evidence that the induction programs are working. And there is some concern about
equity: teacher induction is seen to be more universally provided and more strongly
supported in schools and communities with higher income levels. We also know there are
some districts in the United States that are doing good things with their new teachers.
Still, American schools could learn a lot about how they could better support their first-
year teachers by taking a good look at what teacher induction means in Australia's
Northern Territory, Japan, and New Zealand.
Draft, U.S. Department of Education, April 9, 1997
4
High Standards for Teachers
The President's speech to the North Carolina legislature provides an ideal opportunity to outline his
vision and plan for rewarding good teachers, getting incompetent or burnt-out teachers out of the
classroom, and for getting talented and dedicated teachers into every classroom in America. The major
announcement would be calling on state legislatures around the country to enact major pay incentives
for master teachers who become certified by the National Board (such as the 12% bonus Governor
Hunt has proposed to the North Carolina legislature), and explaining how the President's budget will
help set this new national standard of excellence in teaching -- a standard which has already gained
wide, bipartisan acceptance.
But the President can also use this announcement to stipulate that our students will not reach national
standards without outstanding teachers, and to lay out -- in greater depth than he has so far -- his
vision for raising teacher quality. The President can issue an appeal to honor and reward good
teachers while refusing to tolerate failing teachers, challenge talented young people and other mid-
career professionals to enter into teaching and give them the highest-quality preparation, and speak
directly to parents and grandparents, asking them not to discourage their young family members from
going into what will be the noblest and most important career of the information age. With 2 million
teachers to be hired in the next ten years, the President can challenge the nation to immediately
establish policies and an ethic for the teaching profession that will affect the quality of our children's
education for decades.
For three reasons, the address to the North Carolina legislature will be an ideal opportunity for
the President to focus on teacher quality. First, Governor Hunt has been spearheading a state and
national effort to focus on raising teacher quality, providing a sensible context for the President to
applaud Hunt's work in North Carolina, cite Hunt's proposal to provide a 12% bonus (serious $) to
national board-certified "master teachers" as the basis for a national challenge, and describe the
President's vision in context of a hard-hitting report on teaching released last fall by a bipartisan
commission co-chaired by Hunt. Last week's announcement that North Carolina had the nation's
largest increase in math scores can underscore the effectiveness of focusing on good teaching.
Second, a presidential focus on high standards for teaching is a natural immediate next step after
addresses on challenging standards and tests for students. The public intuitively understands that the
key to raising standards is good teachers, and the President can use this address to help show how to
address this challenge. Timing is also ideal, coming the day after a North Carolina meeting on teaching
that can foreshadow and generate interest in the President's speech. That meeting will be televised to
educators around the state, and will include Governor Hunt, teachers, university leaders, and -- by
satellite, at 4pm the day before the President's address -- Secretary Riley.
Third, the national board teaching standards -- championed by Hunt -- provide the best possible
concrete illustration of how the President and his budget will help make high standards for teachers
real. The President's budget contains $100 million over 5 years to help the national board complete its
assessments in all major academic areas, and to provide seed money to help teachers undergo the
board's intensive review. The board already has bipartisan endorsements from such leaders as Hunt
and Voinavich, and unusual support from education groups who have traditionally opposed efforts to
distinguish among teachers at different levels of quality.
Components of announcements/ major policy address on teaching standards:
Call on state legislatures around the country to enact major pay incentives for master teachers
who become certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (such as the
12% bonus Governor Hunt has proposed to the North Carolina legislature).
Explain how the President's $100 million budget will help set this new national standard of
excellence in teaching -- i.e., support for completion of teacher assessments in all academic
areas and seed capital for master teachers to undergo an intensive board review, leading to a
master teacher for every school in the nation within 10 years. Call on Congress to enact this
budget.
Invite "our nation's best teachers" the 50 state teachers-of-the-year and others -- to the White
House South Lawn for a celebration of good teaching and announcement of the new national
teacher-of-the-year during the week of April 15th (The scheduling office confirmed today that
this event will take place, but it has not yet been made public). Call for a national day of
recognition that day for America's best teachers.
Announce details of a national forum on recruiting and preparing teachers to take place the day
after the White House event. This forum will provide an opportunity for 50 teachers-of-the-
year to discuss with higher education leaders how to do a better job at recruiting and preparing
the highest quality teachers. Also announce opportunity for communities around the country to
participate in the event by satellite, and to organize local discussions with their best teachers
and university leaders about how to recruit and prepare outstanding teachers. (USA Today and
other papers gave considerable coverage to the Secretary's announcement of this forum last
month, but no details have yet been made public.)
Challenge talented young people and mid-career professionals to go into teaching. Speak
directly to parents and grandparents, asking them not to discourage young people from entering
teaching.
Announce national forum that would take place later in the year on rewarding good teachers
and weeding out those teachers who are incompetent or burnt-out.
Issue broad new challenge such as calling on states and communities to raise teacher salaries
generally, or to offer tax incentives for young people who teach in high-need areas.
Alternatively, challenge school districts and teacher unions to examine their contracts and find
new ways to reward good teachers and weed out incompetent or burnt-out teachers quickly,
fairly, and less expensively.
But practice
speed up
Below is the pasted-in copy:
Helping Ensure a Talented, Dedicated, and Well-prepared Teacher
in Every Classroom
The highest standards on the books, the best facilities, and the latest
technology will do little good if we do not ensure that every student has
caring, competent, and qualified teachers. This assurance starts with the
standards for quality the states sets for teaching candidates who wish to enter
the profession.
The Challenge:
A recent report by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
shows that we have a long way to go to ensure a talented, dedicated, and
well-prepared teacher in every classroom. American schools will need to hire
two million teachers in the next decade due to increased student enrollment and
the retirement of an aging teaching force. The states and the nation will need
to focus on improving the quality of entering teachers, as well as ensuring
adequate numbers.
For example:
Although no state will permit a person to write wills, practice medicine,
fix plumbing, or style hair without completing training and passing an
examination, more than 40 states allow districts to hire teachers who have not
met these basic requirements.
States vary on the cut-off scores they set for teaching candidates on
national teaching exams, with the lowest scores generally set by southern
Nilt
states. Only one state, Oregon, comes close to setting its cut-off score for
NTE
the core battery test of professional knowledge near the midpoint score for all
candidates. Most states set their thresholds well below the national average
range for performance.
Roughly one-fourth of newly hired teachers lack the qualifications for their
?
jobs.
75% of urban districts admit hiring teachers without proper qualifications.
Nearly one-fourth (23%) of all secondary teachers do not have even a minor
in their main teaching field. This is true for more than 30% of mathematics
teachers. In schools with the highest minority enrollments, students have less
than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds a
license and a degree in the field he or she teaches.
The magnitude of these problems, coupled with the unprecedented turnover in the
teaching force, provide an enormous opportunity to dramatically change the ways
in which we recruit, prepare, induct, and support the ongoing learning of
teachers and principals. We must insist on the highest standards for our
teachers and ensure that they get the best training and ongoing support to teach
to world-class standards.
Meeting the Challenge:
The Department has identified six critical areas on which it will focus to make
a difference in teacher quality across the nation. These are:
1. Teacher recruitment -- encouraging and supporting talented Americans of all
ages, particularly people of diverse backgrounds, to become teachers.
2. Preservice preparation of future teachers -- improving teacher education so
that future teachers can teach all students to high standards and meet high
certification and licensing standards.
3. Retention of new teachers -- encouraging and supporting special efforts to
retain new teachers in their initial years of teaching.
4. Inservice professional development -- strengthening ongoing training of
teachers and principals.
5. Licensing and certification requirements -- supporting more rigorous
standards for teacher licensing, including the efforts of states to align
licensing and certification requirements with challenging content standards and
performance-based assessments.
6. Teacher incentives and accountability -- recognizing and rewarding good
teachers and improving or removing incompetent ones.
Support for Raising Standards:
Public school teachers favor increasing the qualifications and preparation of
entering and current teachers, according to the Metropolitan Life Survey of
Public School Teachers (1995):
A significant percentage of teachers support requiring competency tests
before obtaining certification (86% in 1995, 82% in 1984).
A large majority (62%) of teachers surveyed support periodic retesting of
teachers in their subject matter (57% in 1984).
While 57% of teachers agreed that the training and preparation teachers
receive today equip them for the classroom, just 13% strongly agreed.
K:\PES\ESED\WHDIRECT.DIR\ENTQUAL.WPD