US Approach to Reform Unlikely to Improve Education

According to participants, the first International Summit on Teaching, held in NYC last week, made a strong argument that the approach to reform taken by the US, an approach incredibly different from those pursued by the highest achieving nations, is unlikely to improve our education system.  

Although it is somewhat hard to believe, this summit marked the first time the United States invited other nations to the US to learn from them about how to improve schools. Government officials and union leaders from 16 nations engaged in candid conversations and reached substantial consensus about how to create a well-prepared and accountable teaching profession. The approaches identified did not include the de-professionalizing the education profession. To the contrary, the growing de-professionalization of teaching and leading in America was widely acknowledged as out of step with the strategies pursued by the world’s educational leaders. In fact, the summit was kicked off by the Finnish Minister of Education, who began with the following statement: “We are very proud of our teachers.” 

A few findings from the summit worth repeating:

1. Most teachers in the United States go into debt in order to prepare for an occupation that pays them, on average, 60% less than the salaries earned by other college graduates. Those who work in poor districts earn less than their colleagues in wealthy schools and often pay for many of their students’ books and supplies themselves. 

2. Approximately one-third of beginning teachers in the US leave within the first five years, and those with the least training leave at more than twice the rate of those who are well-prepared. Meanwhile, some policy makers have pressed for the elimination of requirements for teacher training and pay increases for teachers who gain more education as well as for firing those later who fail to raise student test scores. Those who stay are likely to have few opportunities for substantive and sustained professional development. Those who find helpful professional development opportunities, are likely to pay for most of it out of their own pockets. 

3. In contrast, officials from countries like Finland and Singapore described how they have built a high-performing teaching profession by enabling educators to enter high-quality preparation programs where they receive a salary while they prepare. There they learn research-based teaching strategies and train with experts in model schools attached to their universities. Furthermore, they enter a well-paid profession – in Singapore earning as much as beginning doctors -- where they are supported by mentor teachers and have 15 or more hours a week to work and learn together – engaging in shared planning, action research, lesson study, and observations in each other’s classrooms. 

4. In Singapore, many teachers are encouraged to become master teachers, curriculum specialists, and principals, expanding their opportunities and their earnings with still more training paid for by the government. Teacher union members in these countries work closely with their governments to further enrich teachers’ and school leaders’ learning opportunities. The Singaporean Minister explicitly noted that his country’s well-developed teacher evaluation system does not “digitally rank or calibrate teachers,” and focuses instead on how well teachers develop the whole child, support each others’ efforts, and contribute to the welfare of the school.

If, the focus had been on educational leadership as well as teaching, it is likely that the key findings would have been very similar:  leaders going into debt to take on incredibly demanding jobs with comparatively low levels of pay; high rates of turnover for new leaders, particularly when their first assignment is within a high needs school with limited support; lack of opportunities for paid full-time internships; strong interests arguing for less training, an elimination of certification, and higher stakes evaluation; etc.  Concerns would have also been raised about the placement of individuals with no educational experience into school, district and state educational leadership positions. Rather than seen disparagingly as "insiders," experienced educational leaders in countries like Finland are considered an essential component of an effective educational system.

Importantly, just as this summit was taking place nearly every successful program developed to support the learning and development of teachers and leaders in the United States was on the chopping block for possible termination by the Obama administration or Congress.  Among these, the TEACH Grants that subsidize preparation for those who will teach in high-need schools; the Teacher Quality Partnership grants that support innovative pre-service programs in high-need communities; the School Leadership Development grants that support innovative school leadership preparation for high-need schools; the Striving Readers programs that have supported professional development for the teaching of reading and writing all across the country, and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards' national board certification for teachers and leaders, which certifies accomplished teachers and leaders and provides powerful professional development for practicing educators. 

According to the Washington Post, these small but incredibly powerful programs cost less than $1 billion dollars annually.

Our leaders like to compare US test scores to those of other countries but rarely seek a deep understanding of how education systems differ. If the lessons of this summit are taken seriously, it is clear that the current approach to reforming education in the US is wrong headed. The question is, are our leaders willing to learn from our international colleagues and change direction?  

If you are interested in learning more about the summit, Linda Darling-Hammond wrote a piece for the Washington Post's Answer Sheet, which provides a really nice overview.