The Value of Teachers

Great article from the NY Times, January 11, 2012. Once again, goes to show the impact of effective teachers - as Ken Leithwood has found is the #1 factor to improving student achievement. As administrators, we must focus our energies in supporting teachers with ensuring instruction is differentiated and driven by assessment for learning. Every student needs an important adult...


The Value of Teachers

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Suppose your child is about to enter the fourth grade and has been assigned to an excellent teacher. Then the teacher decides to quit. What should you do?

The correct answer? Panic!

Well, not exactly. But a landmark new research paper underscores that the difference between a strong teacher and a weak teacher lasts a lifetime. Having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college, the research suggests, and 1.25 percent less likely to get pregnant as a teenager. Each of the students will go on as an adult to earn, on average, $25,000 more over a lifetime — or about $700,000 in gains for an average size class — all attributable to that ace teacher back in the fourth grade. That’s right: A great teacher is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to each year’s students, just in the extra income they will earn.

The study, by economists at Harvard and Columbia universities, finds that if a great teacher is leaving, parents should hold bake sales or pass the hat around in hopes of collectively offering the teacher as much as a $100,000 bonus to stay for an extra year. Sure, that’s implausible — but their children would gain a benefit that far exceeds even that sum.

Conversely, a very poor teacher has the same effect as a pupil missing 40 percent of the school year. We don’t allow that kind of truancy, so it’s not clear why we should put up with such poor teaching. In fact, the study shows that parents should pay a bad teacher $100,000 to retire (assuming the replacement is of average quality) because a weak teacher holds children back so much.

Our faltering education system may be the most important long-term threat to America’s economy and national well-being, so it’s frustrating that the presidential campaign is mostly ignoring the issue. Candidates are bloviating about all kinds of imaginary or exaggerated threats, while ignoring the most crucial one.

Mitt Romney, who after his victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday seems increasingly likely to be the Republican nominee, refers to education only in passing on his Web site. The topic receives no substantive discussion in his 160-page “Believe in America” economic plan.

This latest study should elevate the issue on the national agenda, because it not only underscores the importance of education but also illuminates how we might improve schools.

An essential answer: more good teachers. Or, to put it another way, fewer bad teachers. The obvious policy solution is more pay for good teachers, more dismissals for weak teachers.

One of the paradoxes of the school reform debate is that teachers’ unions have resisted a focus on teacher quality; instead, they emphasize that the home is the foremost influence and that teachers can only do so much.

That’s all true, and (as I’ve often written) we need an array of other antipoverty measures as well, especially early childhood programs. But the evidence is now overwhelming that even in a grim high-poverty school, some teachers have far more impact on their students than those in the classroom next door. Three consecutive years of data from student tests — the “value added” between student scores at the beginning and end of each year — reveal a great deal about whether a teacher is working out, the researchers found.

This study, by Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman of Harvard University and Jonah E. Rockoff of Columbia University, was influential because it involved a huge database of one million students followed from fourth grade to adulthood.

The blog of the Albert Shanker Institute, endowed by the American Federation of Teachers, praised the study as “one of the most dense, important and interesting analyses on this topic in a very long time” — although it cautioned against policy conclusions (of the kind that I’m reaching).

What shone through the study was the variation among teachers. Great teachers not only raised test scores significantly — an effect that mostly faded within a few years — but also left their students with better life outcomes. A great teacher (defined as one better than 84 percent of peers) for a single year between fourth and eighth grades resulted in students earning almost 1 percent more at age 28.

Suppose that the bottom 5 percent of teachers could be replaced by teachers of average quality. The three economists found that each student in the classroom would have extra cumulative lifetime earnings of more than $52,000. That’s more than $1.4 million in gains for the classroom.

Some Republicans worry that a federal role in education smacks of socialism. On the contrary, schools represent a tough-minded business investment in our economic future. And, increasingly, we’re getting solid evidence of what reforms may help: teacher evaluations based on student performance, higher pay and prestige for good teachers, dismissals for weak teachers.

That, and not most of the fireworks that passes for politics these days, is the debate we should be having on a national stage.

What Works in Schools

What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action by Robert Marzano c2003 ASCD

What Works in Schools uses 35 years of research to organize 3 level factors that impact student achievement: school-level, teacher-level, and student-level.

School-Level Factors
1. Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum (identify essential content, organize, sequence)
2. Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback (high expectations for all students; communicate learning goals; timely, descriptive feedback)
3. Parent and Community Involvement
4. Safe and Orderly Environment (school wide rules and procedures with consequences)
5. Collegiality and Professionalism (correlates to school climate and student achievement)

Teacher-Level Factors
6. Instructional Strategies
7. Classroom Management
8. Classroom Curriculum Design (sequencing and pacing of content – to facilitate construction of meaning)

Student-Level Factors
9. Home Environment (much stronger relationship with student achievement than do household income, occupation, and education)
10. Learned Intelligence and Background Knowledge
11. Student Motivation

It is very clear that the teacher is key to improving student achievement: “54 percentile point discrepancy in achievement gains between students with least effective teachers versus those with most effective teachers – 29 percentage points versus 83 percentage points respectively over three years” (p. 73). Administrators need to be the instructional leaders who respect and trust teachers as they facilitate implementation of the reforms. With data being the driving force to improving student achievement, administrators need to work with teachers to, as discussed in chapter 17: 1. Take pulse of school; 2. Identify and implement intervention; 3. Examine effect on achievement; 4. Move to next issue.

Marzano reminds us teachers need to see how the PD learned can be applicable to their subject disciplines if it is to make its way into classrooms. When I was a classroom teacher, I viewed my classroom as a “laboratory” where I conducted action research. I remember investigating the impact of using reading-to-learn and writing-to-learn strategies on student achievement and the affective. Two years ago, I was involved with a small group of teachers at my former school in a ministry project on Assessment for Learning, with culminated in a video being produced. The education officers provided monthly workshops after which one of them observed the class during implementation, followed by feedback. This repeated itself on a monthly basis and allowed for much growth and reflection. Through the process, my confidence grew as my assessment was now driving the instruction. Such learning became lasting in all my classes as I wrote learning goals on the chalkboard, co-constructed the success criteria with the class, provided descriptive feedback, and students self and peer assessed. The impact on student achievement was significant.

We are reminded: “If a school is willing to do all that it can at the school level and if all teachers in the school are at least competent in their profession, the school can have a tremendous impact on student achievement” (p. 75). It is focusing on teachers and their instructional practices that makes all the difference. Marzano’s 9 are: Identifying similarities and differences; summarizing and note taking; reinforcing effort and providing recognition; homework and practice; non-linguistic representations (mental images, pictures, graphic organizers, act out, physical models); cooperative learning; setting objectives and providing feedback; generating and testing hypotheses; questions/cues/advance organizers. Interesting data provided: “schools generally account for only 20 percent of the variance in student achievement and that student background characteristics account for the other 80 percent...the negative effects of these factors can be overcome” (p. 123, 125).

* The videos are available on the Ontario Ministry of Education web site: http://www.edugains.ca/newsite/aer2/aervideo/planningassessmentwithinstruction.html

Creating the Opportunity to Learn

Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving from Research to Practice to Close the Achievement Gap by Wade Boykin and Pedro Noguera. ASCD, 2011

Reflections
The focus of Creating the Opportunity to Learn is to close the achievement gap of Blacks and Latinos. I am reminded of the quote “Good for all. Essential for some” by then-Education Officer Anthony Azzopardi back in 2005 when I was contracted to help rewrite the Ontario high school mathematics curriculum. The reality is teachers have students with varying abilities, interests, and readiness. There may be students who have immigrated to Canada from war countries and have not been in school for a few years. There may be students living in poverty. There may be students functioning at the beginnings of the English language. To close the achievement gap, which has remained virtually unchanged, we must meet the needs of our at-risks students. Research gives us hope: “Under the right conditions, poor and minority group children can achieve at high levels” (p. xi)”.

It all begins with relationships and having high expectations for all students. Students know if we genuinely care. We must be disturbed with the findings of the meta-analysis from 1968 to 2003 of Tenenbaum & Ruck (2007): “Teachers have more positive expectations for White students than they do for Black or Latino students. Teachers direct more positive speech (in the form of praise, affirmations, and positive feedback) toward White students” (in Boykin & Noguera, p. 79). With low expectations, these students get asked low-ordered questions, receive more criticism than praise, and less time to answer questions. Sizer (1984) reminds us that “schools should function as the equalizers of opportunity” (in Boykin & Noguera, p. 199) so we must confront out stereotypes.

In addition to high expectations for all students, we need to focus on teachers’ instructional and assessment practices. Much has been written about differentiating instruction and assessment for learning. The focus is on meeting students’ academic, social, and emotional needs – not just “cover curriculum”. At my previous school, I was a part of a pilot study on implementing Assessment for Learning (AfL) – writing and sharing learning goals, co-constructing success criteria with the class, providing descriptive feedback, and student self and peer assessment. My class in the video studyquickly saw how Alf made them actively engaged in their learning, resulting in: “The more self-efficacious a student is, the more likely he or she will pursue adaptive self-regulatory learning strategies and believe that effort matters. The more self-regulated a student is, the more confident he or she will be about the possibility of success and believe that efforts will make him or her ‘smarter’” (p. 67). Similar findings occurred in all subsequent classes, including grade 9 applied mathematics, with AfL being used to drive the instruction.

As Chenoweth (2007) reminds us: “...simply must do whatever it takes to meet the educational and social needs of the children they serve...there is no one single factor that is at the core of a successful school...there is no magic bullet” (in Boykin and Noguera p. 179). Further, “catching up is difficult, particularly when one considers that middle-class White students often have access to substantially superior resources, both within school and at home, that affect learning outcomes” (p. 15). Through the complexity, we cannot give up. We know from the research of Ken Leithwood that the teacher is key. Through quality teacher-student relationships, teachers are empathetic, supportive, fair, and genuinely care. With each small success, students gain confidence and self-efficacy. We need all students actively engaged in higher-order thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving – and they need to see what they are learning relevant and meaningful. We need teachers engaged in professional learning conversations about best practices and development. We need parents as partners. We may need the support of guidance counsellors, administration, and the school social worker. This is a team effort and a worthy one.

Teaching Boys Who Struggle in School

Teaching Boys Who Struggle in School: Strategies that Turn Underachievers into Successful LearnersBy: Kathleen Cleveland
ASCD, 2011

Teaching Boys Who Struggle in School (2011) seeks to “examine how the way we ‘do school’ might be interfering with an underachieving boy’s potential for achievement” (p. 8). Fear of failure is a reality as some boys prefer to “self-sabotage”. Cleveland describes the Boy Code as: “to behave like superheroes and hide their emotions, but they also do not want to be perceived as smart, always fight instead of talking through a conflict, and do not enjoy reading and writing...boys often purposely shun such tasks in order to avoid being associated with anything feminine or ‘girly,’ thereby stunting their ability to master the kind of skills necessary for success in school and, arguably, outside of school as well” (p. 40).

The book seeks 4 overarching goals: (1) Replace negative attitudes about learning with productive perspectives; (2) Reconnect with school, with learning, and belief as a competent learner; (3) Rebuild life skills and learning skills that lead to academic success and success in life; and (4) Reduce need to use unproductive and distracting behaviours as means of self-protection. The author describes 6 pathways to re-engagement:

(1) Support
• trusting student-teacher relationships
• nonthreatening learning environment
(2) Guide
• clear expectations (how and what teacher communicates)
• informational feedback (identify strengths [the medal], shortcomings, and
how to improve [the mission] – before summative assessment)
• positive reinforcement
(3) Reinforce
• tools for communication (physical domain – appropriate distance, maintain
eye contact, use facial expressions; verbal – voice modulation, taking
turns; cognitive – detect emotions in others, anticipate other’s reaction)
• tools for collaboration (cooperative learning)
(4) Adjust
• zones of comfort (adjust physical environment)
(5) Ignite
• active learning (“All genuine learning is active, not passive. It involves
the use of the mind, not just the memory. It is the process of discovery, in
which the student is the main agent, not the teacher” p. 175)
(6) Empower
• engaging literacy-building activities (“Reading is the key to academic
achievement” (p. 215); “If a boy cannot read, and if he cannot or will not
read, his ability to write is also diminished in nearly equal proportion”
(p. 189)

Reflections

During my 16 years as an educator, I have and continue to come across underachieving boys who are disengaged or disinterested in school. I am committed to never giving up on any child. Teaching is complex – that’s why there are no easy solutions and we must keep trying to see what works.

My board, York Region DSB, has made literacy central focus of all we do: “All teachers are teachers of literacy”. As a mathematics teacher, I have incorporated literacy and have published my action research study on “Using Journal Writing to Explore ‘They Communicate to Learn Mathematics and They Learn to Communicate Mathematically” in the Ontario Action Researcher journal (available on-line http://oar.nipissingu.ca/archive-Vol7No2-V722E.htm ). A similar, non-published study, was conducted on reading-to-learn mathematics. When I was mathematics head, I introduced ESL mathematics courses at the grades 9 and 10 academic levels. The intent was to use reading, writing, speaking, and listening as central to learning mathematics. In my current role as vice-principal, I diagnostically ask if student’s literacy skills are weak. I encourage them to read at home – whatever they are interested in and in whatever format (newspaper, magazine, book). It disheartens me to hear boys tell me they hate reading and thus do not do it. I have had an ELL boy read for 20 minutes in my office. Reading is a gift and opens doors to learning. One gets better at it through practice.

One group of students we do not do an effective job is supporting students identified with ADD/ADHD. Most often boys, they cannot focus, sit still, and are disorganized. Lost in School, by Ross Greene states we need to explicitly teach students the skills they lack. There is no point calling home to parents to tell them their child is disorganized – they know that. How do we help them become organized? We need to adapt our instruction and assessment practices to the needs of our learners. For instance, can we expect our ADD/ADHD students to concurrently listen to the teacher and copy notes? Whatever is written in the notes, does it get into the binder?

In my role as vice-principal, I monitor attendance and speak with students when I notice numerous absences and lates on the truancy list. For some students, truancy discontinues after an initial meeting with me. For others, truancy continues and I need to establish a working relationship with the student as I try to determine the reason for this behaviour. Often times, there are personal issues, other times students just don’t like school, or have gotten into a hole and they deal through avoidance. Being punitive is ineffective. Supporting students is vital as Cleveland reminds us: “The problem of underachievement didn’t happen overnight, and we need to recognize that finding solutions will take time too” (p. 218). There is never blame.