Why I support AB212 And Say No To Using Student Standardized Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers

What if we were to evaluate the performance of police officers based upon the crime rates of the neighborhoods they patrol? Or if we rated firemen on the number of fires in their station’s jurisdiction? How about if we calculated the effectiveness of doctors and nurses based on the health of their patients? Sound crazy? But that is exactly what we are doing when we tie a student’s test score to a teacher’s evaluation. In all of these examples, there are variables of which the practitioner has very little if no control over.

Recently the Nevada Education Association hosted a Teacher Assessment and Evaluation Town Hall meeting, in which teachers had the opportunity to weigh in on the controversial topic of using student test scores to evaluate teachers. In attendance was Assemblyman Ozzy Fumo who is sponsoring a bill this legislative session to prohibit the use of pupil achievement data in teacher evaluations and removes the requirement that pupil achievement data must account for at least 40% of a teacher’s evaluation. In this post I will outline why I agree with Assemblyman Fumo’s AB212, and believe that student test data should never be used in evaluating teachers.

In an attempt to improve American education, reformers have targeted teaching quality as the single most impactful variable affecting student learning. That by holding teachers accountable, and weeding out the weak and ineffectual teachers, American education will improve. Stanford University economist, Eric A. Hanushek estimated that top performing teachers helped students gain more than a year’s worth of learning, and those students taught by an underperforming teacher only grew by half a year. We obviously want the best performing teachers teaching our students, but the question becomes, how do we empirically know who the best teachers are? In an influential 2009 report, the TNTP found that 99% of teachers in 12 districts were ranked satisfactory on evaluations and that tenured teachers were almost never fired. The report called into question the validity of traditional administrator observations of teacher performance and raised the valid question, how can 99% of teachers be ranked satisfactorily when student’s achievement data suggests that students were not making significant educational progress? As a result, policymakers sought a more objective way to evaluate teachers, one that would be free from the personal bias that may taint traditional approaches. Using student achievement data to evaluate teachers seems like a reasonable approach, good teachers teach well, their students learn the material, and then take a test to measure mastery of a subject. Good teachers can be separated from bad teachers based on their student’s scores. Except as all classroom teachers know, there are a number of variables that may influence how a student performs on a standardized test. Some examples of variables outside the teacher’s control include students with special needs, students whose native language is not English, students from economically disadvantaged households and neighborhoods, parental abuse, gangs, drug and alcohol use, food and shelter insecurity, student lethargy and many others. In 1966 James Samuel Coleman, a sociologist, theorist, and empirical researcher published the Equality of Educational Opportunity Report, or Coleman report. This report concluded that “socioeconomic status, home life, and peer culture had a greater impact on student learning than did curriculum and instruction.” According to Stanford University Education Professor, Edward Haertel, “out-of-school elements account for 60 percent of the variance in student scores while the influence of teachers was responsible for around 9%.” Yet, the Nevada legislature wants to use these test scores to account for 40% of teacher evaluations. Based on the research, this is fundamentally unfair to our teachers.    

     

The National Education Association contends that teacher evaluations today operate on a rewards-and-punishment system that aims to measure the effectiveness of teachers, categorize and rank them, then reward those at the top and fire those at the bottom. As a current classroom teacher, I see other problems with using student test data to assess teacher performance. The most egregious use of test data to evaluate teachers is when the test data comes from a student you never taught. In the upper grades, only about 15-30 % of teachers instruct in subjects that are directly evaluated by standardized tests. For the rest of the teachers, they receive a rating based on how well students did across the campus regardless of whether that student was a pupil or not. In other words, 40% of a teacher’s evaluation could be based on students they don’t even know. In addition, the data produced by the test is not usually available to the teacher until the next year, by that time the students have all moved on. Teachers would much rather use a standardized test as a formative assessment, or assessment for learning rather than an assessment of learning. Furthermore, assessments of teachers using standardized tests will restrict the curriculum to only those topics that are “tested” significantly narrowing what teachers teach and children learn. Standardized tests are inherently limited, and cannot measure everything that makes education meaningful. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard teachers lament that they would love to do a hands-on project with their students, but they don’t have the time, they have to get through all of the testable material first. This should be of great concern as we try to transform the old Nevada economy based on service to the new Nevada economy. Students need to master the skills and dispositions that will make Nevada a technological and innovative leader, skills such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity, these “soft” skills are more important than ever but are being pushed out of the curriculum due to the emphasis on testable knowledge.      

In addition, despite the fact that Standardized tests have been in use for quite some time, there has not been a significant increase in student achievement. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 the US slipped from 18^th in the world in math on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31^st place in 2009. Similarly, there was a drop in science scores while reading scores remained the same. In May of 2011 the National Research Council report found no evidence that test-based incentive programs are working: “despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education.” Furthermore, a 2001 study published by the Brooking Institute found that 50-80% of test scores improvements over several years were temporary and “caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning.” Never mind that the multi-billion dollar testing industry has made many costly scoring errors, unnecessarily resulting in increased stress for all stakeholders including students, teachers, and administrators.   

Teacher evaluations based on their student’s test score’s will result in the unintended consequence of teachers teaching to the test. Drill and kill test preparation will replace sound pedagogical approaches in this new high-stakes testing environment, especially if student performance on standardized tests is tied to compensation. Furthermore, teachers and administrators will be placed in an unenviable position where they may feel compelled to cheat to raise student test scores for fear of punitive actions taken against them. There have been numerous cheating scandals crossing six states and the District of Columbia as revealed by a 2011 USA Today investigation. In one of the most egregious examples of school cheating, 178 Atlanta public school teachers and administrators in 44 schools across the state were found to be involved in cheating on standardized tests, the stick and carrot approach is not appropriate for the education field and should not be tolerated.

These are but a few of the arguments why student test scores should not be used to evaluate teachers. I do believe that standardized tests should be used as formative assessments to guide practice and to help identify teachers who need assistance in the classroom. I do believe in teacher accountability, but we already have that with the Nevada Educators Performance Framework (NEPF) a fourteen-page rubric covering five standards of performance. The standards are as followed: new learning is connected to prior learning and experience, learning tasks have high cognitive demand for diverse learners, students engage in meaning-making through discourse and other strategies, students engage in metacognitive activity to increase understanding of and responsibility for their own learning, and assessment is integrated into instruction. Furthermore, teachers are evaluated based on their professional responsibilities. This is accomplished by an additional fourteen-page rubric (28 pages for anyone keeping track) looking at things like commitment to the school community, reflection on professional growth and practice, professional obligations, family engagement, and student perception. 

Clearly, the NEPF holds teachers to the highest levels of accountability and obviates the necessity of using questionable student achievement data as part of a carrot and stick approach to teacher evaluation. Oh and by the way, remember the police officers I mentioned at the beginning of this post, people who make life and death decisions on a daily basis, guess how long their performance review is… 1 page.            

   

      

Do student test scores provide solid basis to evaluate teachers? (n.d.). Retrieved February 27,

            2017, from https://ed.stanford.edu/news/do-student-test-scores-provide-solid-basis-

            evaluate-teachers

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2015, September 3). Issues A-Z: Teacher

            Evaluation: An Issue Overview. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from

            http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/teacher-performance-evaluation-issue-

overview.html/

Katz, D. d. (2016). Growth Models and Teacher Evaluation: What Teachers Need to Know and

            Do. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(1), 11-16. doi:10.1080/00228958.2016.1123039

NEPF Rubrics. (2012). Retrieved March 04, 2017, from

            http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_Support/NEPF/Rubri

            cs/

Standardized Tests - ProCon.org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2017, from

            http://standardizedtests.procon.org/

Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The NEA's Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26,

            2017, from http://www.nea.org/home/41858.htm

Teacher Evaluation Should Not Rest on Student Test Scores (Revised 2016). (n.d.). Retrieved

            February 27, 2017, from http://www.fairtest.org/teacher-evaluation-fact-sheet

No Compromise on Educational Savings Accounts

In a recent blog post, Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita wrote that Two Agendas Can’t Coexist, where he outlines the necessity of compromise regarding the Educational School Account (ESA). Mr. Vellardita’s sees vouchers as inevitable, he writes “over the last few decades, the private sector has made a market presence in education. Its growth in the education market continues to see a rise in charter schools and vouchers (33 states have some form of a voucher). With the ascendency of the Trump administration, this trend will continue.” Mr. Vellardita suggests that since the voucher movement is growing in momentum, the CCEA might as well accept the unavoidable, and support the voucher program, he notes that “Choice’ will be at the heart of any resolution.” I reject this approach. This is the moment when we should have the political courage to take a stand on the issues we believe in, and stopping the corporate takeover of our public schools is the issue we need to rally behind, regardless of national trends and local politics.    

As a proud association member, I applaud most of CCEA’s legislative efforts. I believe that the Clark County School District should be compelled to pay teacher salary advancements regardless of negotiations. Student test scores should not be used in evaluating teachers, the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) teachers provide valuable support to our new and struggling teachers. And a weighted funding formula is good policy and should be implemented throughout the state. However, the CCEA should never compromise on the core principle of adequately funding our public schools. Under no circumstances should we allow citizens to take money out of a school system that is at the bottom of national rankings and apply it to private for-profit schools. As a result of the 2016 election, and the recent conformation of Betsy DeVos  for Secretary of Education, public education is under attack, and we must fight with everything we have to prevent our public education system from being preyed upon by Wall Street investors. Retreat is not an option and the CCEA is wrong on the ESA issue. This is an association of teachers, and policy must reflect the will of its members, not just the few seated around the executive board’s table. Because the CCEA did not ask its members how they felt on the issue of ESAs, it is up to us to let the CCEA officers and executive board know where we stand. Contact your representative today, they work for us, and remember, we must stand for something, or we stand for nothing.

Why I Oppose DeVos and the Privatization of our Public Schools

One of President Trump’s most controversial cabinet appointments has been Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Despite her experience as a businesswoman, philanthropist, activist and noted political campaign contributor, Secretary DeVos has no experience in public education. She did not attend a public school, her children did not attend public school, she has never worked in a public school, and as her disastrous Senate confirmation revealed, was seriously lacking in even the most basic understanding of public education policy. As a professional educator, I felt bewildered, let down, and angry that the President would appoint such an unqualified person to lead the Department of Education. But, as we all know too well, elections have consequences, and certainly those who are committed to the mission of public schools to educate all students regardless of their zip code, feel that Trump and his Secretary will try to undermined our schools with disastrous voucher programs, designed to steer money away from public schools into the pockets of private, for profit, investors. As a candidate, Trump stated “There’s no failed policy more in need of urgent change than our government-run education monopoly." Much to the chagrin of many, President Trump has been resolute in keeping his campaign promises, and he warned us that “As president, I will establish the national goal of providing school choice to every American child living in poverty. If we can put a man on the moon, dig out the Panama Canal and win two world wars, then I have no doubt that we as a nation can provide school choice to every disadvantaged child in America.” Except that we already have choice in public education. Open enrollments, magnet, career & technical academies, public charter schools, and virtual schools are all examples of choice. However, Trump and DeVos don’t want just choice, they want to destroy our public schools for ideological and political reasons. Many on the right believe that public schools, colleges and universities are bastions of liberal thought that “indoctrinate” their students to hate America. They have taken God and school prayer out of the classroom, shown tolerance to LGBT people, and practice multiculturalism and inclusion. In the political realm, public schools employ teachers who belong to teacher unions, who overwhelming use their due to support Democrat candidates for office. Dismantle the public schools, destroy the unions, and no more political support for Democrat candidates.

My home state of Nevada is a microcosm of the debates swirling around education policy. In the 2015 Legislative session, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, with bipartisan support, passed the largest education package in state history. In fulling his vision of a “New Nevada,” Governor Sandoval understands how important properly funding and supporting education is to include expansion of full day kindergarten, Zoom schools for English learners, Victory Schools for chronically under-performing schools. In addition, AB 394 has given schools and their leadership teams, enhanced autonomy and budgetary discretion. The education reforms are not without controversy as the legislature passed the most lenient voucher program in the nation known as the Education Savings Account (ESA). Essentially parents will be able to apply and receive a percentage of their education investment placed in an account, approximately $5,200 that they can then use for educational expenses such as private school tuition, tuition at eligible institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, fees, transportation, specialized services or therapies for students with a disability. The argument for this program is that parents should be able to choose where their student attends school, whether it be a public school or private school. They argue that students would vote with their feet forcing underperforming school to improve, or face closure, free market capitalism at its purest. Arguments against the program is that parents will drain already chronically underfunded public schools of valuable resources. The 2016 Quality Counts report, for example, puts Clark County per pupil funding at $7,745, while the national average is about $10,763. States like New York and Massachusetts, two of the highest performing states, each having numerous districts that spend close to $20,000 per student. Of course the price tag for attending private school can be prohibitively high even with the ESA, for example the Meadows School, for the 2015-16 school year, charges high school students $25,775, while faith Lutheran charges $11,500, not counting books, uniforms, and additional fees. It is not surprising then that of the 8,000 ESA applicants, most come from the wealthiest parts of the Las Vegas valley. It should also be noted that a neighborhood school serves a social function, particularly in communities of color, they are anchor points as one generation after another pass through their corridors, passing on history and tradition. Because of this, most students, even in under-performing schools, choose not to be bused out of their neighborhoods to new unfamiliar neighborhoods. Luckily, the Nevada Supreme Court has temporarily put a halt to ESAs on the grounds that legislators would have to find alternative funding outside of school budgets.  

It is my opinion that Secretary DeVos’s plan to privatize American schools is shortsighted. Our public schools are our best hope to ensure that all students, regardless of zip code, have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. In addition, our schools are our best defense against the tyranny of ignorance, and threat of demagoguery. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out  "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."   

TEAMS an Education for the Future

“ I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” -Mark Twain

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it” -Alan Kay

Why do many students find school boring and irrelevant? Because school is mostly boring and irrelevant, that’s not just my opinion; that’s what students have told me over my 15 years in the classroom, and I am not just talking about students who have fallen through the cracks. Even our best and brightest, those matriculating to MIT, Princeton and Stanford have told me how mind-numbing school can be. If that’s what our model students think, you can begin to understand why our at-risk students do so poorly or drop out of school entirely. Why is this? Because in most cases, school does not do a very good job preparing students for the “real” world, or tap into student’s talents and interests. That is why kids don’t apply themselves, kids who do well, are not necessarily learning in a deep and meaningful way, they just become good at doing school. They know what they have to do in order to receive the grade they want, mostly memorizing and regurgitating information gleaned from reading the textbook or listening to a lecture, unfortunately this is the modus operandi of most Advanced Placement classes. Students who are “educated” this way usually are not required to think critically, creatively or required to solve problems.

What if kids went to school and actually developed a passion for learning about the things they want to know more about? What if we re-imagined school to be completely different from the factory model we have perpetuated for the last 160 years or so, and allowed the student to be the center of their own learning, stopped teaching subjects in isolation, regulated by arbitrary bell schedules. What if teachers became the “guide on the side” instead of the “sage on the stage?” What if we encouraged students to take risks and see failure as an opportunity to learn and not something to be avoided. What if we taught students to be entrepreneurs and innovators so that the next generation of creators become successful because of school not in spite of it? What if we taught our students to use the latest technology to effectively research, collaborate, and communicate ideas? Make learning relevant on their terms and not on ours.

Most schools today stress STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). The implicit goal of the STEM movement is to recapture America’s lost prestige as a world innovation leader. The prevailing narrative among policy makers is countries like China and India have quickly outpaced our ability to produce students proficient in the STEM fields and are well on their way to technological and economic domination. International tests such as the Program for International Assessment of Students Achievement (PISA) reinforce this point. As a result, the United States has taken bold measures to ensure that it remain the economic leader of the free world by emphasizing STEM education as evidenced by the proliferation of career and technical academies and magnet programs that specialize in these subjects. I believe that STEM education is a good thing, but I don’t believe that schools exist solely to train students for the workforce and that is what STEM education seems to do. The reality is that we are preparing our students for jobs that don’t even exist today. The technological revolution has affected every aspect of our personal and professional lives, yet we continue to “school” our students for a bygone era. I believe that the best way forward to is train students to think like artists and entrepreneurs, it is one thing to be able to learn STEM, but it is a much better approach to teach our students how to use their education to create something original and new, think of it as the Steve Jobs approach to design. For this reason, I propose a new acronym, one that will prepare students to be creators, innovators, and collaborators. My school will be built upon the TEAMS acronym, Technology Entrepreneurship, Art Math and Science, STEM education with a purpose.  

Project Based Learning and the High School Social Studies Curriculum: Strategies to Develop 21st Century Competencies

The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), and its strict accountability measures for testable subjects such as math and reading, had the unintended consequence of marginalizing other subjects such as the social studies. This has had a profound impact on our student’s overall performance in reading as indicated by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or the nation’s report card. Since 2002, eighth grade students have made no discernable progress in reading despite the fact that schools report spending upwards of 60% of their time on the subject (Tieso, 2013). Countries that outperform us in reading point out that the only difference in curriculum is the fact that they “provide their students with a comprehensive, content-rich education in the liberal arts and sciences” (Tieso, 2013, p. 97). Our continual shortchanging of the social studies has not only led to historical amnesia, and reduced reading scores, but is a lost opportunity to develop student’s skills, and  habits of mind that will help them be successful after they leave school. The problem is that high school history students are not learning the skills and dispositions that will help them be successful in post high-school education, the 21^st century economy, and civic life.    

            For students to be successful in the 21^st century economy, they will need to possess skills beyond the traditional reading writing and arithmetic (Huang, Hodson, La Torre, Obregon, Rivera, 2010). The new economy puts a premium on abilities such as critical interpersonal skills to include speaking, listening and the ability to function as part of a team. Students need to learn the skills to help them find and assess appropriate information using technologies such as the World Wide Web and databases. Students need to know how to communicate effectively in both verbal and nonverbal ways through a variety of platforms to include digital networks. An understanding of American history is critical if students are to become contributing members of our democracy, students will need to understand basic scientific principles such as the scientific method if they are to become critical thinkers and adroit problem solvers. Living in a global society requires that students be fluent in multicultural understanding and foreign languages (Uchida, 1996). While teacher-centered classrooms are the predominate configuration in most American schools, they are ineffectual in developing the previously mentioned skills and dispositions.     

            Traditional teacher centered pedagogy is not conducive to students learning 21^st century skills, while teacher lectures and demonstrations are important to the learning process, students should be at the center of their learning, they should be provided with several opportunities to engage in “hands-on” learning (Odom, Bell, 2015). An effective way to engage students in a student-centered lesson is through the use of Project Based learning or PBL. According to Lattimer & Riordan (2011) “PBL is typically considered an approach to teaching in which students respond to real-world questions or challenges through an extended inquiry process. PBL often involves peer collaboration, a strong emphasis on critical thinking and communication skills, and interdisciplinary learning” (p.18) Research indicates that inquiry based teaching pedagogies such as PBL are an effective way to engage students, as Weimer (2012) points out “while no evidence proves that PBL enhances academic achievement as measured by exams, there is evidence to suggest that PBL ‘works’ for achieving other important learning outcomes. Studies suggest that PBL develops more positive student attitudes, fosters a deeper approach to learning and helps students retain knowledge longer that traditional instruction” (p. 44-45). The 21^st Century economy requires that students think creatively and become problem solvers, in addition, providing students a diversity of student-centered lessons will help them retain their learning, according to Starko (2013) “creative applications of core content are among teachers’ most powerful tools in building students’ understanding. If we want students to master the content, they must do something with it beyond simple repetition. They must use it in meaning ful ways and make it their own” (p. 55). In addition “collaboration, creative problem solving, and problem-based learning have all been shown to increase creativity in children. This recent research supports what earlier researchers have maintained about creative learning environments: they must be flexible, free, open to unusual or divergent answers, and collaborative” (Cullen, Harris, & Hill, 2012, p. 11).

            Addressing this problem would benefit a variety of stakeholders to include social studies teachers, curriculum designers, administrators and of course students. I believe most teachers want to do everything possible to ensure that their students are successful in school, I believe the reason most social studies teachers do not engage their students in PBL, is simply that they do not know any better. Despite the fact that PBL has been effectively used for many years, my school district has never provided training on its benefits and implementation. In addition, I  never received PBL training in my education preparation program. Despite these facts, I believe it is important that teachers provide their students opportunities to hone the skills and dispositions that will make them successful  in post high-school education, the 21^st century economy, and civic life. Student-centered pedagogies like PBL will do just that.   

     

References

Axelrod, A., Markow, D., Metropolitan Life Insurance, C., & Harris Interactive, I. (2000). The

            Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher, 2000: Are We Preparing Students for

            the 21st Century?. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, doi.

Cullen, R., Harris, M., & Hill, R. (2012). The learner-centered curriculum. San Francisco, CA:

            Jossey-Bass.

Huang, D., Leon, S., Hodson, C., La Torre, D., Obregon, N., Rivera, G., & ... University of

            California, L. E. (2010). Preparing Students for the 21st Century: Exploring the Effect of

            Afterschool Participation on Students' Collaboration Skills, Oral Communication Skills,

            and Self-Efficacy. CRESST Report 777. doi. 10.1037/e642072011-001

Lattimer, H., & Riordan, R. (2011). Project-Based Learning Engages Students in Meaningful

            Work. Middle School Journal (J3), 43(2), 18-23.

Odom, A. L., & Bell, C. V. (2015). Associations of Middle School Student Science Achievement

and Attitudes about Science with Student-Reported Frequency of Teacher Lecture

Demonstrations and Student-Centered Learning. International Journal Of Environmental

And Science Education, 10(1), 87-97.
Starko, A. (2013). Creativity on the Brink? Educational Leadership, 70(5), 54-56.

Tieso, C. L. (2013). Moving the Past Forward: From a Birmingham Jail to Occupy Wall

            Street. Gifted Child Today, 36(2), 96-113. doi: 10.1177/1076217512474982.

Uchida, D., American Association of School Administrators, A. V., & And, O.

            (1996). Preparing Students for the 21st Century.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Student Centered Teaching

One of the key elements of a 21st century education is the shifting of focus from a teacher-centered classroom to a student-centered classroom, a classroom that gives students “voice and choice” as they engage in real world problem solving through creative critical thinking, collaboration, and use of technology. According to Weimer (2013) there are five elements of the learner-centered classroom, they are lessons that focus on students as active learners   rather than passive receptacles that teachers need to fill. They empower students by giving them control over their learning, teaching that encourages collaboration. In the student-centered classroom students have the opportunity to reflect on their learning and engage in explicit learning skills instruction.

In the article New Learning Environments for the 21st Century: Exploring the Edge , Brown points out that 21^st century schools should be cross disciplinary in nature. That today’s learners need access to multiple ways of knowing and that a one size fits all curriculum is counterproductive, as today’s learners have been conditioned to expect choice in the things they consume. Today’s students want to create and learn at the same time, and by doing this they will bridge the gap between knowledge and knowing (Brown, 2006). One of the best pedagogical approaches to create the learner centered classroom is the implementation of project based learning or PBL. In a study of the educational outcomes of PBL, Pedro Hernandez-Ramos and Susan De La Paz found that students who engaged in project based learning activities in a middle school social studies classroom learned more than students in a traditional classroom setting (Hernandez-Ramos and De La Paz, 2009). Project based learning requires students to engage in real-world 21^st century skills and elicits greater overall learning. In addition students learn the skills they will need to be competitive in the modern economy. A 21^st century education must take advantage of the revolutionary changes brought by computer technology and the internet. According to Harry Pence (2010) teachers must become acquainted with the technological environments of which their students are familiar. This approach will enable teachers to connect with their students and build upon their interests using technology. This approach will not only hook students, but will engage them throughout the lesson leading to greater student learning.  

                  My educational system is still rooted in the industrial error but is desperately trying to move forward. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems facing my school district are teachers who do not recognize the need for change. Many teachers I know, still cling to antiquated notions of education such as the need to cover tremendous amounts of content, overreliance on multiple choice tests, and lectures. These approaches are not serving the needs of our students as students want a more active role in their education. However, I believe that a paradox exists in that our school district wants to see growing participation in advanced placement courses, which are often taught in a rote way, but emphasize the  need for 21^st century skills and approaches this raises the question is the advanced placement curriculum and 21^st century approaches compatible? Is it possible to teach the AP curriculum in a PBL or other student-centered format?

Brown, J. S. (2006). New Learning Environments for the 21st Century: Exploring the Edge.

            The Magazine Of Higher Learning, 38(5), 18-24.

Hernandez-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning History in Middle School by Designing

            Multimedia in a Project-Based Learning Experience. Journal Of Research On

            Technology In Education, 42(2), 151-173.

Pence, H. E. (2010). Teaching in the 21st Century. Journal Of Educational Technology Systems,

            38(2), 103-110.

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San
            Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Why Schools Must Change

The Clark County School District, the fifth largest district in the nation, resembles in many ways the factory system of the industrial era. In the 19^th century, industrialist experimented with ways in which to make their factories more productive, thus lowering costs and raising profits. At the same time, they had to contend with assimilating immigrants who had little experience of industrial and urban life. Work was structured around a bell system that signaled workers when it was time to start, break for lunch, and when it was time to end the workday. Complex tasks were divided into parts, so that each worker was responsible for only a small part of the finished product, they had very little autonomy and were under the constant supervision of their immediate supervisors. The factory system worked well for the time in which it was implemented. Educators, faced with the same challenges of assimilating immigrants and educating large populations of students turned to the factories for inspiration as to how to most efficiently educate their students. Schools were structured around individual subjects, students were grouped by age, and a bell system let students know when it was time to change classes. Schools and factories operated in a similar fashion for the last one hundred and thirty years or so.    

Unfortunately, the schools designed for a 19^th century economy are still ubiquitous today.  These factory school are anachronisms that seem woefully out of place in our modern technologically rich environment. One of the most problematic vestiges of the old factory model of education  is the teaching of subjects in isolation. A century ago an educated person was someone who had memorized massive amounts of information and could recall it at will, in an age when access to knowledge was reserved for a small minority of educated elites, this made sense. But today, thanks to personal computing and internet technology, students have instantaneous access to information once only dreamed of. This has called into question the relationship between learners and knowledge (Wiles & Bondi, 2014, p. 65). In addition, schools still function like factories in that they have standardized almost every aspect of education. While most education leaders talk about the importance for differentiation of instruction and giving students voice and choice, the school’s infrastructure impedes these very things. Teachers are locked into teaching by quarters and semesters, they must teach in such a way that denies the interdisciplinary nature of knowledge. Teachers themselves continue to work in the isolation of their classrooms, interacting with their colleagues intermittently or not at all.

While many schools across the country approach education in the manner previously described, there are some innovative schools that are forging ahead and reimagining what school could be. One such school is High Tech High located in San Diego California. What makes HTH different is that they base their curriculum on Project Based Learning, students work collaboratively to solve problems and design projects across the curriculum (Robinson & Aronica, 2015, p. 129). At HTH teachers are facilitators of student learning, not the sole source of all knowledge. Students are encouraged to take risks, ask questions, collaborate, evaluate and think outside of the box, all traits that will help them be successful in the world of work and college in the 21^st century economy.    

  

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that's
            transforming education. New York, NY: Viking.

TED Conferences, LLC (Producer). (2010). Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
            [Video file]. Retrieved from
            http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

Wiles, J.W., & Bondi, J.C. (2014). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (9^th ed).
            Boston, MA: Pearson.

Why I oppose AB 303 and Support the Common Core State Standards

My name is Jeff Hinton, I am a National Board Certified Teacher, 2014 Nevada Teacher of the Year, and 13-year veteran teacher in the Clark County School District, I currently teach U.S. History and Government at the Advanced Technologies Academy.  I support the Common Core because I know that higher education standards are needed if we want our students to be competitive in the 21^st century knowledge economy.

Earlier this year, in his state of the state address, Governor Sandoval outlined an ambitious plan to move Nevada forward, he spoke optimistically of a “New Nevada” a Nevada that would diversify and modernize its economy by attracting high tech businesses to the Silver State, businesses such as the Tesla Gigafactory. This is exactly what we need to do to make Nevada a better place to live for our families and students, however recently the Brookings Institute published a report indicating that despite the fact that Nevada is quickly growing jobs in the STEM fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math we are unfortunately not producing enough workers with the necessary skills to fill those jobs. In a recent article Tom Skancke  of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance pointed out  “This last year, of the 251 opportunities of new businesses to locate here, 35 percent of those businesses chose not to come here because of workforce availability and education,”

As a veteran teacher I have taught both the old Nevada Content Standards and the Common Core Standards and I would like to take a few minutes to tell you why I believe, in my professional opinion, the Common Core Standards will help student acquire the skill set necessary for the New Nevada economy. Due to the unprecedented changes brought about by the digital revolution, teacher’s  have the incredible task of preparing students for jobs many of which don’t currently exist. The old Nevada Content Standards were appropriate for the time and purpose for which they were created but today seem anachronistic and outdated. Due to the proliferation of internet connected devices, memorization and regurgitation of  information no longer can be considered the pinnacle of a high quality education. Instead, students need to be able to think critically and analytically. Because data is so ubiquitous, they must be able to evaluate sources for validity, content and meaning, they must be able to ask probing questions and more importantly find answers to those questions. Students must be able to evaluate multiple sources of primary and secondary evidence and draw conclusions based upon their interpretation and evaluation of the evidence. Our students must be effective communicators both orally and in written language across a variety of platforms. They must learn to be expert collaborators, because the innovations that will move the New Nevada forward will not happen in isolation. This is what the Common Core does. 

I know there are some fantastic educators present who don’t share my enthusiasm for the Common Core, and certainly the standards are not perfect, and I believe we should have a conversation about the number of standardized tests students take, but let’s not confuse the issues. The Common Core and the number of required tests are two different conversations. In the market place of ideas the Common Core has already prevailed, we have decided that these standards are indeed the best we can do for our students that repealing them will have a detrimental effect not only on our students but on our teachers as well.  The truth is teachers are suffering from reform fatigue, repeal of the standards will only reinforce what many teachers already believe, “give it enough time and the Common Core will just go away just like every other reform before it.” This state needs to prove to teachers, students, parents, and stakeholders once and for all that she is serious about improving our schools, that a New Nevada is possible but only with a commitment to higher more rigorous Common Core standards.

Educational Edutopia

              American history is full of examples of philanthropists who enjoyed incredible financial success and then committed themselves to giving their fortunes away in the pursuit of making the world a better place. Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Bill Gates loom large in this pantheon of humanitarians whose work improves the lives of millions through their charitable giving. Institutions of higher learning, libraries, concert halls, and disease eradication are but a few of the philanthropic ventures undertaken by these remarkable benefactors. There is another philanthropist whose work is not as widely known, but whose impact on the world may be just as significant, particularly in the field of education. Director and writer George Lucas is the founder of Edutopia, an organization dedicated to education research and dissemination of ideas and practices that give all students the tools they need to be successful in the 21^st century economy.

George Lucas founded Edutopia with the understanding that education is the key to improving the human race. Edutopia works to accomplish its mission through research and dissemination of its findings through their free website http://www.edutopia.org/ . Edutopia contains articles, videos and blog posts dedicated to improving education through a variety of innovative approaches, what Edutopia calls its core strategies. Strategies include comprehensive assessment, integrated studies, and project based learning. Combined, these approaches have the potential to reshape education and improve the lives of children all over the world.

            A significant way in which Edutopia is affecting education is through its research into comprehensive assessment. Traditional formative and summative assessments that rely on multiple choice bubble tests are not effective in measuring the wide range of learning outcomes associated with higher-level thinking. Edutopia espouses an assessment approach that advocates authentic assessments that differentiate the ways in which a student’s learning can be measured. These assessments focus on the creation of real-world products that support social, emotional and academic achievement. As an educator, I have incorporated comprehensive assessment strategies in my own classroom and with outstanding results. Through authentic assessments I have a better understanding of my students learning while at the same time fostering critical thinking and creativity.

            Edutopia is improving education by advocating for integrative studies. George Lucas understands that technology has profoundly changed the way we work and live. The internet has democratized knowledge to the extent that anyone with web connectivity can instantaneously access information, any time and any place. As a result, students must acquire a skill set that is radically different from the industrial age system of the past. Students must be able to integrate a variety of information and synthesize academic content. Learning should no longer take place within the silos of rigid academic subjects, but students should have the opportunity to see how English, history, science and math converge and make connections across academic disciplines.

            Modernizing education so that it better prepares students for the realities of the 21^st century workplace requires students to think critically, problem solve, work together in teams and communicate across a variety of mediums and networks. Traditional curriculum approaches such as lectures do not adequately educate students in these dispositions. Edutopia advocates instead for project based learning. Project based learning is a learning strategy in which students explore real-world problems and challenges while at the same time acquiring a deeper knowledge of the subject through hands-on projects. This approach to education gives students the opportunity to learn the skills and dispositions necessary for them to be successful. My own experience with project based learning has shown me that students, even reluctant learners, respond positively to this learning approach. Students enjoy exploring ideas and subjects more when they can make the connection to real-world situations. They also benefit greatly from working in teams to solve problems.

            George Lucas and Edutopia are making the world a better place by giving educators the information and tools necessary to prepare their students for the modern world. Anachronistic teaching strategies do little to promote the skills and dispositions that students need to compete in the modern technological world. Comprehensive assessment, integrated studies, and project based learning are but a few of the strategies that Edutopia advocates for improving education. While many philanthropists have spent their fortunes creating structures and institutions to promote the general welfare, George Lucas and Edutopia are disseminating ideas that will significantly change the way students the world over are educated creating a legacy that will be felt far into the future.

Why Teacher Voice Should be at the "Core" of the Education Policy Debate

“I hate history class, it’s boring!” If I had a nickel for every time I heard a student utter that sentiment I could retire by now. Nevertheless, before we condemn our students for their historical illiteracy and lethargy, we should acknowledge that there may be some truth to their protestation. Since time immemorial, teachers have taught history by giving lengthy lectures requiring students to memorize long lists of names, dates and events. In many history classrooms the textbook is the only thing students read, despite the preponderance of rich source material. Section after section, chapter after chapter, students endured what has become known as the “Bataan Death March” to finish the thousand plus page tome before the end of the school year. I don’t blame teachers, they are simply doing what they needed to do to cover the antiquated academic content standards required of them. To assess those standards teachers tested what students learned by giving “fill in the bubble” multiple guess tests. This “memorization and regurgitation” approach requires little to no higher level thinking and most students forget the material they crammed into their heads after they take the test. No wonder student’s find history boring.     

Thankfully in Nevada we have Common Core standards, which provide a fresh and intellectually invigorating  approach to how we teach and learn. Good history instruction should be less about “drill & kill” and more about analysis, interpretation and understanding the complexities, decisions and points of view of historical actors. As the Common Core points out the best way to do this is through an analysis of original documents. When students analyze and interpret document they have the opportunity to interrogate the past by asking questions, proposing claims and counter claims and deriving meaning directly from the source material. What makes this approach particularly powerful is the fact that teachers don’t tell students what to think, but how to think. Teaching history in this way is by far much more intellectually stimulating and rewarding, and requires students to think at a much deeper level than the traditional “one damn thing after another” approach. Common Core standards bring my classroom alive as my students debate the past and think critically about important events in American history.

Our technological world necessitates that we change the way we teach and the way our students learn. As the new Nevada economy brings high tech jobs to the Silver State our students must graduate with the skills and dispositions sought after by the 21^st century economy. Students need to be able to think critically about information and make judgments based upon evidence. They need to be able to answer their own questions through research, and they must be able to effectively communicate across a variety of platforms and networks. This is what the Common Core requires and why I support the standards.

Unfortunately, not everyone believes the Common Core standards will raise student achievement in Nevada, and there has been movement within the state to repeal them. Last week Citizens for Sound Academic Standards presented a forum to debate the Common Core Standards. Speaking against the standards was Sandra Stotsky, a professor emerita of English at the University of Arkansas and James Milgram, a professor emeritus of math at Stanford University. Supporting the standards was the Nevada Deputy Superintendent of Education Steve Canavero. The “debate,” unfortunately, was little more than the professors making spurious attacks against the standards, oftentimes making statements that have been proven to be untrue such as the claim that the Common Core was not a state led effort, but was the creation of the federal government. The highlight of the evening came when Aaron Grossman, a curriculum specialist with the Washoe County School District, gave his articulate and passionate support for the standards. Despite Mr. Canavero’s, Citizens for Sound Academic Standards forbade other teachers, from giving their opinions. According to the Nevada Appeal "One point of order that caused controversy in the meeting was the eventual decision not to allow teachers to talk about their experience with Common Core. Stotsky and Milgram said that wasn't appropriate for the forum, with Stotsky saying the Department of Education could hold its own forum. But Nevada Deputy Superintendent Steve Canavero disagreed.” and went on to say that "This is the only time I've had teachers silenced," he said. "I find that appalling, personally." It defies common sense that the “experts” would not want to engage with, and hear teacher’s points of view, I found it to be insulting and condescending. As a National Board Certified Teacher, teacher leader and Nevada’s 2014 Teacher of the Year my experience and knowledge of the Common Core and the positive impacts it has had on my teaching and my student’s learning should have been part of the conversation. Dale Erquiaga, Nevada’s Superintendent of Education, released the following statement “I consider our educators to be the most credible and knowledgeable speakers about Nevada’s standards.” At least our Superintendent has the sense to know that teacher’s voices matter. I sincerely hope that in the future any conversation involving Nevada’s academic standards involve the people who know them best our teachers.              

Accomplished Teachers Helping to Shape Policy

On Monday February 2^nd  the 78^th Nevada Legislature will convene, and our elected officials will begin the arduous process of lawmaking. Many of our elected officials ran on pro-education platforms and promised to improve Nevada’s education system. Nevada’s Governor,  Brian Sandoval, pledged to make education one of his top priorities this session and plans to move Nevada from the bottom of the state education rankings by implementing such reforms as “read by three” expansion of zoom schools,  school choice to include “opportunity scholarships” and the growth of charter schools among others. No one doubts that our Governor and lawmakers are dedicated to improving education outcomes in the silver state, our economic future depends on it. The way in which to effect educational change, however, is the subject of spirited debate between free market corporate reformers and those who support traditional education policies. Regardless of one’s political ideology, it is imperative that teachers are informed of the issues. We cannot passively sit on the sidelines and have things happen to us, we must demand a seat at the table and share our knowledge and experience with those who will be making important decisions about our educational future.

The recent midterm election significantly changed the political make-up of the state. The “red wave” saw Republicans swept into every state Constitutional office as well as gain majorities in the senate and the assembly for the first time since 1929. In the Nevada legislature, there are 21 state senators led by Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson (R) and Senate Minority Leader Aaron Ford (D) and 42 assemblypersons led by Speaker John Hambrick (R) and Assembly Minority Leader Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D), the legislature is sometimes referred to as the “gang of 63.” As teachers we will want to develop good working relationships not only with senate and assembly leadership of both parties, but with education committees in both houses, the senate Committee on Education is led by Becky Harris (R), and is co-chaired by Scott Hammond (R). The assembly Education Committee Chairwoman is Melissa Woodbury (R).

Nevada has a “citizen legislature” because it meets every odd numbered year for only 120 days beginning in February. Legislators in both the assembly and the senate are limited to serving a maximum of 12 years (3 terms in the senate and 6 in the assembly). Due to their short tenure, representatives will want to make a name for themselves very quickly, especially those who aspire to higher political office and leadership within their caucus.  In addition, the “red wave” saw Republicans pick up a total of 17 seats in both houses, this means that many of our representatives are freshman with relatively little political experience. In addition, due to the short session there will not be a lot of time for legislators to learn about the issues, this is where we can help. Accomplished teachers understand the realities and day-to-day challenges of working in our public schools and therefore can help legislators understand the “real world” impact education policy will have on our state.   

    

As I mentioned before accomplished teachers must have a seat at the table, but we must initiate the conversation. The first step is to know who your representatives are. You can use this interactive map to find out http://mapserve1.leg.state.nv.us/whoru/  Once you have identified your representatives you can you can then use the state legislative website to track legislation that is important to you, the Nevada Electronic Legislative Information System can be found here https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015  I

You can become an advocate for our profession by learning about the issues that impact our field. Legislators need your professional judgment and insight on a variety of issues like charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, class size reduction, read by three, zoom schools, Nevada Performance Framework, Common Core, all day kindergarten, TFA, among others. 10 things to consider when lobbying your legislator (NEA)

1. POLITICS IS CONSUMER-DRIVEN

Help your legislator understand why your position is important to his or her constituents. Fight where the legislator lives through grassroots organizations at home.

2. DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Know your stuff. Understand your issue, the bill you support or oppose, and the legislative process before you approach your legislator. Know who the players are, who decides what, and which issues are hot at the moment.

3. INFORMATION IS POWER

The secret is the distribution of information to legislators and their constituents. Be prepared to give the legislator information he or she can use, including what you are hearing from other legislators and from people back home.

4. A LITTLE PROFESSIONALISM GOES A LONG WAY

Be credible, honest and trustworthy. Never threaten, lie or conceal facts. Stay calm — if you lose your cool, you lose the case.

5. BE POSITIVE

Always make your case without being critical of others' personalities or motives.

6. THERE ARE NO PERMANENT FRIENDS AND NO PERMANENT ENEMIES

Don't take your traditional friends for granted. Never write off a legislator just because of party affiliation. Don't make enemies of legislators — you may need them as friends in the future.

7. BUILD A BOND, NOT A GAP

Research things you might have in common with the legislator. Use shared values to create easy, friendly, frequent communication with legislators.

8. BE A PARTNER

Build coalitions and look for allies among other organizations. Be accessible to legislators and other lobbyists if they have questions or need follow-up information. Become known as a reliable resource.

9. ROME WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY

Aim for consensus rather than for a "victory." Be willing to settle for making progress toward your goal, getting the bill passed, and fine-tuning it in future sessions.

10. STAY COMMITTED

Remember — you are the expert!! You have a compelling, energizing reason to keep fighting until you get what you need.

One of the best sources of education news, in my opinion, is Education Week   http://www.edweek.org/ew/index.html  I also like http://www.realcleareducation.com/  for the education news of the day. New York Times education http://www.nytimes.com/pages/education/index.html Huffington Post Education http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/education-news/ Nationa Public Radio (NPR) Education http://www.npr.org/sections/education/  

There are a number of education think tanks and policy institutes that publish studies and white papers regarding various education policy to include the Thomas B Fordham Institute  http://edexcellence.net/  The Hoover Institution http://www.hoover.org/  National Network of State Teachers of the Year (NNSTOY) http://www.nnstoy.org/ Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) http://www.teachingquality.org/  Students First https://www.studentsfirst.org/ The New Teacher Project (TNTP) http://tntp.org/  Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) http://npri.org/ Nevada Succeeds http://www.nevadasucceeds.org/ The Guin Center for Policy Priorities http://guinncenter.org/ National Center for education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/  National Education Policy Center http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Education Sector http://www.educationsector.org/  the sources provided are not exhaustive they can help to get you started in understanding the educational issues of the day.

Accomplished teachers knowledgeable about the issues can play an important role this coming legislative session. Our experience and passion can help legislators make the right decisions when it comes to moving the state forward.    

Southern Nevada Teacher Leadership Symposium 2014 Talk

This is the talk I gave to the inaugural Southern Nevada Teacher Leadership Symposium in Las Vegas Nevada on November 21st 2014. I was honored to be asked to speak to such  a distinguished group of teacher leaders and look forward to helping to build teacher leadership in Nevada. 

My name is Jeff Hinton and I am the 2014 Michael Landsberry Nevada Teacher of the Year, National Board Certified Teacher and teacher leader. Before I begin my talk this evening I would like to thank the many organizations that made this conference possible and for inviting me to share with you my thoughts on the important topic of teacher leadership so thank you to the, Clark County School District, Clark County Education Association, Nevada Department of Education, Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, Nevada Succeeds, Public Education Foundation, Teach for America, Got Core Values, City of Las Vegas/Downtown Achieves, Boys and Girls Club, and the United Way.  

Thinking about the various organizations involved in this conference, I think it is obvious that this is not going to be an ordinary seminar. In fact in my many years of attending such events I have never seen this many outstanding and diverse organizations gathered together to further teacher leadership and professionalization of the teaching field. They are here because they realize that teacher leadership is the sleeping giant of education reform, it is the most obvious way to advance student learning, while at the same time creating a way for our district’s most highly accomplished teachers to share their wealth of knowledge and expertise with others, while at the same time allowing them to grow professionally without leaving the classroom where our best teachers are needed most.  Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come and teacher leadership is indeed a very powerful idea. 

We Have Work to do in Nevada

As you all know Nevada recently celebrated its sesquicentennial anniversary. In the last 150 years our Battle Born state has experienced booms and busts, triumphs and defeats, but no matter how desperate the times, we managed to come back, and come back stronger than ever before. And we’re doing it again as we throw off the last vestiges of a great recession that crippled our economy but not our spirit.

Our economic future is bright as new businesses open their doors and many others like Tesla Motors gigafactory prepare to do so. Despite Nevada’s incredible economic comeback we have a lot of work to do in other essential services, but in my opinion none is as important or as dire as our public education system. In a recent Las Vegas Sun article, Nevada ranked last in the nation in high school graduation rates with only 63% of its students earning a degree. In the 2014 Kids count data book, an annual publication that assesses child well-being in four domains: economic wellbeing, education, health, and family and community.  Across the 50 states and District of Columbia, Nevada ranked 48^th  overall. The National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do. The test is given in grades 4 and 8 and covers reading and math  It is considered the “gold standard” of educational achievement. The report shows that 66% percent of Nevada’s fourth graders and 72% of its eighth graders fell below proficiency in math. 73% of 4^th graders and 70% of eighth graders in Nevada fell below proficiency in reading. I should point out that there has been slight gains over the last few years, but clearly more needs to be done. The Brookings Institute recently published a report indicating that Nevada is quickly growing jobs in the STEM fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math but unfortunately Nevada is not producing enough workers with the necessary skills to fill those jobs.

Nevada clearly needs to do more to improve our education system. As we look back at the past 150 years and celebrate where we have come from, it is now time to plot a course for the future. We have a unique opportunity to reimagine what is possible in education, to break down old barriers, and overcome the challenges of antiquated thinking and archaic approaches.  We can choose to be idle observers of change, or we can decide right here and right now to be leaders of that  change. To create a system of teacher leadership that will be held up and admired across the nation. It will be hard work, but it will be work worth doing. Teacher Leadership is that new way forward.

What is Teacher Leadership? 

Over the last few weeks I have been asking my colleagues and friends to tell me what they thought about teacher leadership. A few teachers remarked that they didn’t know teachers could be leaders, some were excited by the notion of teacher leadership, most, however had no idea what I was talking about. Sean McComb the 2014 National Teacher of the year told me that teacher leadership is about recognizing the instructional expertise that teachers bring to the table and structuring roles to capitalize on those strengths to improve instruction and thereby achievement for all. The Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium defines teacher leadership as “the process by which teachers influence their colleagues, principals, and other members of the school community to improve teaching and learning practices with the aim of increased student learning and achievement.”     

The truth is teacher leadership can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and there isn’t one single definition or job description that encapsulates all that teacher leaders can do. To further clarify what teacher leadership means The National Education Association created seven domains for teacher leadership they are:

Domain I: Fostering a collaborative culture to support educator development and student learning
Domain II: Accessing and using research to improve practice and student learning
Domain III: Promoting professional learning for continuous improvement
Domain IV: Facilitating improvements in instruction and student learning
Domain V: Promoting the use of assessments and data for school and district improvement
Domain VI: Improving outreach and collaboration with families and community
Domain VII:  Advocating for student learning and the profession

Looking at this list it soon becomes apparent that most teachers are “teacher leaders” in some way and to some degree already.   

Barnet Berry the founder and CEO of the Center for Teaching Quality or CTQ coined the term “teacherpreneur”  to describe this emerging field. Teacherpreneurs  are teachers who lead, but don’t ‘leave’ their students or schools. They have taken on leadership opportunities to further their career, yet are still able to devote time to classroom teaching. They mentor new teachers, lead school improvement efforts, develop curriculum and provide professional development for their colleagues. In addition, teacher leaders may serve as policy advisors, liaisons between schools and the communities they serve, and conduits for building parent relationships. A recent Metlife Survey of the American Teacher found that half of teachers already have leadership roles in their school. Teachers serve as department chairs, instructional resources, teacher mentors, or leadership team members. The report found that half of teachers are at least somewhat interested in teaching in the classroom part-time combined with other roles or responsibilities in their school or district, including 23% who are extremely or very interested in this option.

Professionalization of the Teaching Field & Need for Teacher Leadership 

The education reform debate is complex and multifaceted, there are many proposals as to how to effectively improve student learning to include raising standards, holding teachers accountable for their student’s learning by tying their achievement on standardized tests to teacher compensation, lengthening the school year, decreasing class size, higher per pupil funding and activating market forces by giving students a choice as to where they can go to school by providing vouchers and promoting charter schools, but most would agree that the first and most important step to improve education is to make sure that there is a high quality teacher in every classroom. Unfortunately teacher morale is at an all-time low. A recent survey indicates that teacher satisfaction has declined 23 percentage points since 2008, from 62% to 39%,  including five percentage points since last year alone. Teacher satisfaction is the lowest its been  in 25 years. Half of teachers report feeling under great stress several days a week, an increase of 15 percentage points, over 36% of teachers reporting that level in 1985.  In addition, nationwide, enrollments in university teacher-preparation programs have fallen by about 10 percent from 2004 to 2012, according to federal estimates from the U.S. Department of Education's postsecondary data collection. 

With fewer students interested in entering what has recently been called the “embattled  profession,” the question becomes, how do you attract & retain the best and brightest students into the field?  The Clark County School District started the year with over 600 teacher vacancies, requiring the need for substitute teachers in critical areas such as math. Many of the vacancies occurring in at risk schools, which disproportionately affect kids who can least afford it. The New York Times recently wrote that “At the moment, the average teacher’s pay is on par with that of a toll taker or bartender. Teachers make 14% less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education.” Those individuals who possess the qualities the teaching profession is looking for have been lured away from teaching to careers that can offer real incentives for motivated individuals. There are few career paths for classroom teachers who desire to take a leadership role and become part of the process.

Traditionally, if a teacher wants to take on more responsibility, earn more money and gain prestige they would go into administration. But for many teachers leaving the classroom is not an option. Their passion is teaching students and most teachers do not want to give up what they love most. In addition, it is these highly effective teachers that should stay in the classroom where their talents, knowledge and experience can be best put to use and shared with their colleagues and students alike. According to the New Teacher Project (TNTP) 20 % percent of teachers “who are so successful that they are nearly impossible to replace” leave their schools as a result of “neglect and inattention.”  Research indicates that in order to increase the likelihood that Gen “Y” teachers remain in the profession they need opportunities to participate in decision making at the school and district level; a positive and supportive school culture which fosters teamwork and effective lines of communication; professional opportunities that include collaboration and technology; in-depth feedback and support from administrators and colleagues; time set aside for regular collaboration, with a fair and a differentiated compensation structure which includes rewarding outstanding performance, acquiring new knowledge and skills, and assuming new roles and responsibilities.”        

We need to create within the system career paths or trajectories that do not take the teacher out of the classroom fulltime but develop hybrid roles in which teacher splits their day between teaching and teacher leadership responsibilities. This is not a novel idea, some of the best performing school systems in the world already have advancement opportunities for their best and brightest teachers. The International Summit on the Teaching Profession recently released a report titled “Building a High-Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from Around the World.” In the world’s leading school systems teachers have a variety of paths for career advancement that involve “horizontal movement” that is a greater range of responsibility that does not take the teacher out of the classroom.

The National Network of State Teachers of the Year published a report titled “Re-Imagining Teaching: Five Structures to Transform the Profession.” In it they cited the need for a career trajectory to attract and retain top teaching talent.  According to the report “Research on continuums in other fields tell us that it takes ten years to develop expertise in a profession, and that such expertise is developed through deliberate practice. A loss of over 40% of teachers annually, inhibits the ability to develop a solid cadre of expert practitioners. Given the time it takes to develop expertise, the annual loss of teachers is exacerbated by the long period of time it takes to replace the experienced teachers that leave. This lack of a  cadre of expert practitioners not only impacts the profession but impacts efforts to distribute leadership as there are fewer expert practitioners to take on leadership positions within a school.” This is especially so in at-risk schools, where teacher turnover is highest and our students most in need of highly accomplished teaching talent. 

In addition, “while many professions are moving to flatter organizations with greater value placed on middle-level experts and fewer top-level positions, leadership in teaching is still organized as a top-down structure.”  There has been modest movement across the nation to formalize teacher leadership. A survey of the country finds that two states and one jurisdiction currently have comprehensive teacher career initiatives, Twenty states currently have multi-tiered certification systems with tiers for advanced or master teachers, eight states currently have certification endorsements related to teacher leadership, three states have “designations” for master teachers, four states have adopted continuums of teaching practice rubrics, and only one state has adopted policies for and nine states are exploring the development of teacher licensing systems linked  to teacher effectiveness. As I have stated earlier, we have a unique opportunity to capitalize on the cooperation and shared enthusiasm of so many disparate organizations to see teacher leadership develop in our state.       

Advocating for our profession

Teacher leaders need to advocate for their profession. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and wait for reforms to be done to us, but rather we must take an active role in shaping policy and changing perceptions of what teacher leaders are and can be.  We must initiate the conversations at our work sites, talk with other teachers and administrators about teacher leadership. Teacher leadership must develop at the grassroots level, it cannot be another top down mandate, and we must be the voice. I recently had a conversation with a colleague about teacher leadership and Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) in particular.  She told me that she didn’t trust it, that she believed that PAR was a way for the school’s administration to use their pet teachers to spy on underperforming teachers. She perceived it as another top-down mandate and obviously didn’t have much buy in or faith in the idea. After talking with her about teacher leadership, what it is, and who teachers leaders are. She began to understand the way in which highly accomplished teachers can be a useful resource for new and remedial teachers.

But advocating for our profession can go beyond face to face conversations. Social media can be a powerful way to deliver our message and connect with others who share similar ideas. Today social networks have cache, as more and more individuals and institutions use social media it has become increasingly more important to have a digital presence. Doing so will help you connect and be connected to important voices in teacher leadership and it is an excellent way to stay informed and keep abreast of the latest research and initiatives in this emerging field.           

Teacher leaders need to be engaged in policy and understand the issues so that they can clearly explain them to parents and stake holders. As the state teacher of the year, for example, people want to know my position on a variety of issues like the Common Core. You will have people ask you your thoughts about the Nevada Performance Framework,  merit pay, charter schools, vouchers, alternative routes to licensure,  tenure reform, first in last out,  and the list goes on. It is important that as a teacher leader that you be able to speak with authority to these issues. As a teacher leader your colleagues and the public will come to you with their questions and concerns regarding education policy, and when they don’t come to you, must go to them as a an advocate for what we are trying to do.

Challenges:

As promising as teacher leadership is, it is not necessarily right for all teachers. Some may not want to, or be able to take a leadership role in their schools. There will be many challenges to implementing teacher leadership. I recently asked my State Teacher of the Year colleagues what they thought the greatest challenges to teacher leadership are. Kathy Collins Assini 2014 New Jersey Teacher of the year pointed out that:

“Not every teacher wants to be a leader, but teachers should look to support those who do and who have the capacity to be leaders. However, every teacher that wishes to be a teacher leader does not necessarily have the skills and demeanor to be one. Working with adults is not the same as teaching students. Where does the training come from? Does it come once someone is identified or do you train and see who passes the test? Does the Administration always see the same characteristics in a teacher leader as the staff does? Often times very different skills are needed. So often we have heard that it is tough to be a profit in your own land. I think often times the most resistance comes from within our own ranks. "What do you mean she will only have to teach 4 periods when I have to teach 6?" There has to be a clear definition of what the teacher leader will do and what they will be responsible for. Also there has to be a clear delineation between teacher leader and administrator if the leader’s job is to coach and assist fellow teachers. In many districts there is not a lot of trust, so it is hard for teachers to let someone in, both figuratively and in reality.”

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that Administrators are absolutely essential to making teacher leadership work and it is important that we include them in designing teacher leadership models. According to the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium “Teachers in leadership roles work in collaboration with principals and other school administrators by facilitating improvements in instruction and promoting practices among their peers that can lead to improved student learning outcomes. By doing so, they support school leaders in encouraging innovation and creating cultures of success in school. Teacher leadership can neither be effective nor successful without principal support, but neither can the principal maximize his or her effectiveness without harnessing the talents and expertise of teachers in leadership roles.”  A recent Metlife report indicated that 75% of principals feel the job has become too complex.  Job satisfaction among principals has decreased nine percentage points in less than five years, to 59% very satisfied down from 68% very satisfied in 2008. A distributive model of school leadership could potentially take pressure off of the principal as teachers and administrators work together to improve student achievement allowing principals to focus their time and energy on the day-to-day operation of the school, and highly accomplished teachers focused on student achievement through various teacher leader initiatives.      

My path to Teacher Leadership

            I want to talk a little bit about my path to teacher leadership.  Before I was a teacher, I was a U.S. Marine. There were certain principles that the corps instilled in me that I carry with me to this day. The Marines taught me to accomplish the mission no matter what, to be dedicated to the task at hand, but most importantly the Marines taught me the importance of teamwork. Marines also lead from the front, that is to say that I would never expect another Marine to do something that I wasn’t prepared or able to do first.

I knew that I wanted to be a teacher leader before I knew there was such a thing, using the lessons I learned in the Marines I honed my skills in my content area and pedagogy by earning master’s degrees in both curriculum & instruction and U.S. History from UNLV. I also sought out every new opportunity I could find to expand my repertoire in regard to teaching and learning. Through the last thirteen years I have been involved in numerous professional development opportunities to include being a  James Madison Graduate Fellow, Barringer research fellow at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, veteran of several Gilder Lehrman summer seminars for teachers, and the Rock n Roll Foundation’s summer seminar at New York university among others. These wonderful experiences have helped me grow as an educator exposing me to new experiences and giving me the opportunity to collaborate with teachers across the country. Over the years I have done my best as a department leader and colleague to foster collaboration and teamwork within my own workplace, unfortunately there has been a persistent and stubborn legacy of teachers working in isolation. Classrooms become fiefdoms of which teachers seldom stray, and visitors seldom enter.            

But the most impactful  professional achievement of my career by far has been earning National Board Certification. When I meet another National Board Certified teacher I know they are a teacher who takes their profession seriously, they are committed practitioners who are dedicated to student achievement, they are teachers who go above and beyond what is required to hone their craft. National Board Certified Teachers are reflective practitioners committed to becoming better teachers to drive student achievement. Of course there are teacher leaders who are not National Board Certified, but it is the mark of professional distinction and in district of almost 18,900 teachers, only a little more than 2% are National Board Certified. It is an exclusive club, but one in which I hope becomes less so in the near future.    

Earlier this year state teachers of the year met together in Arizona to discuss educational issues and to prepare for the upcoming year as teacher leaders. One activity that stuck with me was a role playing scenario in which teachers assumed the role of a teacher, concerned parent, administrator, community member and public official. We had the opportunity to look at key educational policy issues through the lens of various interest groups, and I became very interested in the political side of education. So much in fact that I became a candidate for the Nevada State Assembly this past election cycle. Early this month voters in my district informed me, however, that my services would not be needed in Carson City this coming legislative session. While I lost the election, I did learn about how our political system works, and more importantly I stepped out of my comfort zone by putting myself in a new and sometimes uncomfortable situation. I see teacher leadership the same way. Teacher leaders will have challenges, and we will be required to step outside of our regular routines and will undoubtedly find ourselves in difficult and maybe even frightening situations, but this is how we grow. This is how we become teacher leaders.                                        

In Summary

In conclusion, we have a lot of work to do to realize our vision of teacher leadership. Leveraging institutional change will not be easy, as it is natural to cling to the status quo even when that means persistent failure. The time is right for a paradigm shift and I believe we have the support to do it. The Teacher Leadership Exploratory points out that  a prerequisite for successful and effective teacher leadership, is changing the cultures of schools so that teachers are accepted as leaders among their peers and that old norms of teaching, working in isolation are replaced with new norms of collaboration and teamwork. Of course this is going to require a restructuring of the teacher work day so that teachers have the time built into the day for collaboration.  This requires a clear articulation of school wide goals, training of principals as well as teachers to understand the role of teacher leaders and support for teachers and other education professionals to work together to serve the needs of all students in the school.”

Teacher leadership is in its infancy in Nevada.  We will need to work hard to deliver our message to policy makers and stakeholders so that they will see that empowering our highly accomplished teachers to take on leadership roles within their school communities is in the best interest of students and their learning. This must be a grass roots effort. We have seen the backlash over the years at perceived top-down mandates, and as a result, we need to have this effort led by teacher practitioners if we are to have the support of our colleagues. One of the biggest obstacles to this effort will be our perennial nemesis, time! We need time to collaborate, time to reflect, time to assess student data, and time for meaningful professional development.     

  Historically the field of education has been slow to adapt to change, and when change comes, it is seen by many to be the “reform of the day” soon to be forgotten as the next “new thing” is foisted upon teachers weary from the last reform that didn’t work. Teacher leadership however is not a new concept, it is not a new reform, we have been doing it for years, but we just called good teaching and professionalism. The difference is now that teachers need to be recognized, supported and compensated for their leadership. We must have a way to share our experience, knowledge and passion with our colleagues for the benefit of student achievement. I hope that you will join me and the other passionate, dedicated professional educators gathered here tonight to commit to furthering teacher leadership in the state of Nevada, the stakes have never been higher, the opportunity has never been greater and the future has never been brighter.