1. Senator Johnston, as a former principal, you are uniquely qualified to lead this committee. What is your basic charge?
Broadly speaking, we want to ensure that all kids benefit from having effective teachers and principals who set high expectations and help students meet them. Specifically, we will build on the Commission’s previous work by developing updated federal policy recommendations to improve teacher and principal effectiveness.
By way of background, in 2007, the Commission called for a major shift in the way the nation measures teacher quality—from evaluations based on qualifications to those based significantly on classroom results, together with principal or peer evaluations. The Commission also called for measuring principal effectiveness—a recommendation I welcome given that the importance of school leadership is often overlooked. Since then, a lot has changed. More states have developed the sophisticated data systems needed to measure teacher and principal effectiveness, and new requirements and funding under the stimulus law (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)) may spur additional progress in improving teacher and principal effectiveness.
We’re examining how teacher and principal effectiveness can be measured; how we can attract, prepare, better support, and retain effective teachers and principals and remove those who do not improve; how to ensure disadvantaged students have access to effective educators and school leaders; and how the next version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as No Child Left Behind or NCLB) can more effectively support teacher and principal effectiveness. We began tackling these tricky but vital issues at a public hearing in Denver late last month.
2. In these fiscally turbulent times, how big a factor will finances be and figure into your modifications of NCLB?
The Commission recognizes that communities across the country are facing painful tradeoffs at a time of belt-tightening. But we’re also at a moment of opportunity. Significant resources for a variety of critical reforms have been made available to all states under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We hope that the money will be used to undertake strategic reforms—not plug budget holes and prop up the status quo. Now is the time to ask the tough questions about what’s really working and what’s broken in our schools.
It’s also important to recognize that the way we spend money in schools is quite often rife with inefficiency. You see this in news stories about teacher layoffs, for example. In many communities, collective bargaining agreements that value seniority over effectiveness mean that energetic, successful teachers who are newer to the classroom are the first to be let go—even if they’re getting better results with students. This doesn’t make sense.
Sometimes enacting reform is about money—but often it’s simply about doing things differently.
3. Now, what about lengthening the school day or school year. The President has questioned the 180 day school year. Your thoughts?
To date, the Commission has not taken a position on lengthening the school day or school year. Our efforts continue to be focused on building effective accountability and support structures, strengthening teacher effectiveness and school leadership, and ensuring that students graduate prepared to succeed in college or the workplace. We will certainly consider any information we receive regarding extended learning time throughout our research and outreach process.
4. Many say the biggest problem is special education—the increasing number of children with autism, increasing numbers of kids with specific learning disabilities and disorders, and children with health needs. How will you address these groups?
I guess it depends on how you define “problem.” Public schools must educate all students—even those who learn differently or have special challenges—and we must continue to hold them accountable for doing so, even if it makes adults uncomfortable.
Let’s remember, NCLB has changed the game for students with disabilities. They’re no longer invisible in state accountability systems—which means they are finally getting more of the attention they deserve.
As in our initial report, the Commission will consider implications for students with disabilities across the topics we cover, including appropriate accountability systems, teacher and principal effectiveness, and others.
5. It seems that the President wants to increase graduation rates, while at the same time making it more difficult for those below average in intelligence to graduate. What’s up with these conflicting perspectives?
Contrary to what most people think, the majority of students who drop out of school don’t leave because they can’t do the work. Instead, dropouts reported in focus groups for “The Silent Epidemic” report that the major reason they chose to drop out was that classes were not interesting. Two-thirds say they would have worked harder if expectations were higher. Almost 70% of respondents said they did not feel motivated or inspired to work hard.
It’s clear we need to raise our expectations for students, make school more challenging and interesting, and help kids understand what’s at stake if they drop out or don’t take school seriously. Their quality of their lives—and our nation’s economic competitiveness—depend on it. We also need to ensure that educators and policymakers stay focused on ensuring students graduate ready for the demands of college and the workplace—and hold schools accountable for doing so.
6. I would have to say that across the United States, the one comment is that there is too much testing. Will the Commission listen to or respond to this outcry?
The Commission heard that sentiment often in its earlier public outreach several years ago, and it hasn’t diminished. We agree with those who say that the tests in use now need to be improved—but we don’t agree with those who would abolish testing. Tests are the only objective measure we have for determining how students are performing and growing over time, which schools are succeeding, and which need help.
We will continue to advocate for improvements in assessment quality, better tests for students with disabilities and English language learners, and stronger linkages between assessment and instruction, among other priorities. We also believe that the development and implementation of high-quality common standards and assessments would do much to alleviate some of the concerns now being voiced. But we would be foolish to diminish or remove from our arsenal one of the most powerful tools we have—the abundant data we receive from assessments. Instead, we should better communicate the value of this information to everyone—including students, parents, and the public.
7. Who are some of the other people involved in the Commission and can interested citizens like myself send them or you an e-mail? And if so, where should it be sent?
We have a great team of knowledgeable commissioners who are implementing or conducting research on the law, and showing the way on aggressive reforms aligned to the Commission’s vision. Our commissioners include current teachers, principals, superintendents, research and policy experts, business representatives, and other leaders from around the country. You can read about them on the Commission’s website, and you can reach them by emailing the Commission at nclb.commission@aspeninstitute.org.
8. Many teachers feel they are quite effective for normal, average children, but less effective for students with exceptionalities and disabilities. How will the Commission address this area of concern?
Well, first of all, we need to do better than “feeling” we’re effective. But we rarely take a close look at teachers’ performance and how it correlates to their students’ achievement. In most cases, teacher evaluation is not used as a tool for improvement or feedback. Seventy-three percent of teachers who responded to an independent survey several years ago said their most recent evaluation was either a formality or not particularly helpful. More recently, The New Teacher Project found that nearly all teachers are rated satisfactory—which means that excellence goes unrecognized, professional development needs go unmet, and poor performance goes unaddressed.
This is unfair, unrealistic, and needs to change. The Commission believes teachers should be evaluated in large part by their students’ achievement gains, together with principal or peer evaluations, so that we identify, support and reward effective teachers and remove those who do not improve from the classroom. But we also know there are lots of other places in the pipeline that need improvement to ensure teachers are prepared to teach all kinds of learners, including children with disabilities. Teacher preparation needs to be strengthened. Professional development needs to be targeted based on teachers’ needs—especially as illuminated by assessment data. And the list doesn’t end there. We’ll be looking at all of these issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment