Teach for Australia, revisited

I wrote a blog about Teach for Australia in February 2008 and it is still attracting comments, so I'm revisiting it here.

In a recent comment, franith has referred to the last three paragraphs of this article in The Australian, dated November 28, 2008:

"The commonwealth has already committed to funding a $500 million national partnership to improve teacher quality, and Ms Gillard announced on Wednesday night a scheme to attract the best university graduates into teaching.

Ms Gillard called on businesses to support the program, based on the successful Teach for America scheme, which will recruit top graduates to work in disadvantaged schools before they start their careers in areas such as law, accounting or management consulting.

A joint venture between Noel Pearson's Cape York Institute and Macquarie University is expected to launch Teach for Australia next year"

This sounds more substantial than other ALP government initiatives since IMO teacher quality is the central issue - will have to keep an eye on Julia Gillard, she may be evolving into a real educational reformer

The "Teach for Australia" proposal is based on, but, is also different from the "Teach for America" scheme. One important difference is that TF Australia pairs experienced mentors ("Fellows") with new recruits ("Associates"), which, I believe, TF America does not

What Gillard announced was support for a 'Teach for America' type scheme in disadvantaged Australian schools. Then The Australian newspaper added on a separate paragraph about an expectation regarding the Pearson / Macquarie University 'Teach for Australia' scheme, intended for remote indigenous school, in the most disadvantaged areas of Australia. ie. Gillard did not announce a 'Teach for Australia' scheme, which is a significantly bigger commitment to what she did announce. This may well be a newspaper beat up

I should try to contact Macquarie University in the new year to find out more about this

Here are some other related blogs I have written on this topic (most recent first):

staffing high needs schools

learning evolves pyramid

wendy kopp's book

teaching to the test

teacher training

it sounds like a miracle

curriculum reform will not improve education without quality teachers

teach for australia

mckinsey: run schools as you would run a successful business

staffing high needs schools

My focus question here, arising out of earlier discussions about Teach for America and the proposed Teach for Australia is:

What is the best way or a good way to go about staffing high-needs (or disadvantaged or urban rustbelt or remote indigenous) schools?

Recruiting and Retaining Quality Teachers for High-Needs Schools by Barnett Berry (bio) et al (pdf 23pp)

from Barnett Berry bio:

Dr. Barnett Berry's career, which began as an under-prepared, inner- city high school teacher in 1978, has focused on a wide range efforts to close America’s student achievement gap by closing the teaching quality gap.

As part of an earlier discussion on this blog about Teach for America (It sounds like a miracle), Sylvia Martinez recommended I read a shorter article by Barnett Berry. I didn't think much of that one but this longer pdf did impress me. One issue here is that it's difficult to discuss a complex issue effectively in the standard web2.0 article length. Web2.0 has produced a glut of writers many of whom don't read in depth.

first para:

The facts are daunting: Poor children and those of color are far less likely to be taught by qualified teachers—no matter how the term “qualified teacher” is defined. Studies consistently show that teachers who are better trained, more experienced, and licensed in the subjects they teach are more likely to be teaching in more affluent schools, serving more academically advantaged students.

YES, the education system is a well constructed shipwreck, designed to select the best swimmers - always has been and those who try to change this are brave

myth -> financial incentives are the silver bullet

YES, financial incentives are not a silver bullet but they are an important part of the mix, if we are serious about quality education for the disadvantaged (BB is saying this too)

Why teachers leave high needs schools:
one study:

• poor support from school administration
• lack of student motivation
• little teacher influence over decision making
• student discipline problems

another study:

• inadequate system - poor professional development, too little time to plan lessons
• bureaucratic impediments - paperwork, interruptions, teaching restrictions
• lack of collegial support

Why teachers stay at high needs schools:
one study:

• supportive school leadership (39%)
• salary and benefits (22%)

beliefs that might cause them to doubt success (and might leave to leaving):

• "overall working conditions would not allow them to be successful"
• "feel they are not sufficiently prepared"

another study:

• strong principal leadership
• collegial staff with shared teaching philosophy
• adequate resources
• supportive / active parent community

Recommendations from highly accomplished teachers

1) Transform teaching and learning conditions in high needs schools

• Class size is an important issue in high needs schools
• high stakes testing and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) does not encourage effective teaching
• there is inadequate preparation time [cf. Japan, China, Singapore]
• universal access to pre-school is important

2) Prepare and support teachers for specific challenges posed by working in high needs schools

• many teachers don't want to work in schools where it is very difficult or impossible to be successful
• utilise training which is job embedded, which focuses on student work and is led by peers in collaboration with peers
• just in time mentoring can be problematic - there is a lack of time to discuss pedagogy in depth and mentors must be of high quality to be effective (more funding for quality mentors can help here)
  

3) Recruit and develop administrators who can draw on the expertise of specially-prepared teacher leaders

• many administrators do not know how to support teachers, many use rigid, formulaic approaches
• "it takes a village to raise a teacher"
• convert some assistant Principal positions to teacher coach leadership positions

4) Create a menu of recruitment incentives, but focus on growing teaching expertise within high-needs schools.
Supportive Principals, freedom to use professional judgment and working with like minded and similarly skilled colleagues means more than extra pay

The last thing policymakers should do is develop a single incentive to attract accomplished teachers to high needs schools. Hence the word menu, above

Different teachers have different needs depending on their life circumstances, their geographic location and their age

5) Build awareness among policymakers, practitioners, and the public about the importance of National Board Certification for high-needs schools.

Conclusion:

" ... salary incentives alone will not suffice to attract and retain good teachers for high-needs schools. Working conditions matter—and most notably, access to good principals and skilled colleagues, lower class sizes and smaller student loads, high quality professional development, and classroom resources needed to help students meet high academic standards are critically important"

This analysis does impact back onto the Teach for Australia proposal

I've added a new tag - disadvantage - to this and some older posts, to help keep track and connect the dots

wendy kopp's book

one day, all children ... the unlikely triumph of teach for america and what I learned along the way (2001) by Wendy Kopp

I posted a brief comment about teach for america earlier (it sounds like a miracle), which attracted some helpful, critical responses from sylvia martinez (comments) and tom hoffman (blog)

My original interest arose partly by the endorsement of teach for america by the proposed teach for australia scheme as a solution to the australian indigenous educational crisis - even though it is important to note again there are significant differences b/w TFAmerica and TFAustralia, eg. TFAustralia pairs experienced mentors ("Fellows") with new recruits ("Associates")

In this post I want to say what Wendy Kopp says and does not say in her book

I still think it's amazing - it sounds like a miracle

Kopp's book is not analytical about education. eg. there is nothing of any substance at all in there about learning theory. Also the short teacher inservice program conducted by TFAmerica is at best highly problematic, from the Kopp account.

Kopp herself has never taught in a disadvantaged school. Her strength's are fund raising, management and promotional skills (including self promotion), which she learnt painfully

What I find amazing is the simplicity of the vision and the fact that it has succeeded significantly against the odds

Simplicity of the vision: Recruit high quality graduates to teach in disadvantaged schools

There is evidence of success in Kopp's book - although quite a lot of the evidence is anecdotal ("I visited this school and inspirational corp member was working their guts out doing this, this and this and achieving this")

More importantly, independent analysis has confirmed the success of Teach for America. This is documented in the Teach for Australia paper:

The most rigorous study to date, conducted in 2004 by Mathematica Policy Research, found that TFA teachers had a positive impact on math achievement of students as compared to students of all other teachers (who may or may not have a traditional certification background). TFA-taught students achieved the effect of roughly an additional month of math instruction over the course of a year. In reading, TFA teachers delivered similar gains as other teachers. However, TFA teachers had more substantial gains when compared to other novice teachers. In other words, Teach For America teachers were “an appealing pool of candidates…there is little risk that hiring TFA teaches will reduce achievement.” The study also notes the need for “programs or policies that can attract good teachers to schools in the most disadvantaged communities” and states “our findings show that TFA is one such program.”

The various statements in Kopp's book (some more evangelical, some more statistical quoting various surveys) are congruent with this analysis

For me the important thing is this. No one has successfully tackled educational disadvantage system wide systematically before, at least in Australia. There have been some individual successes in schools with inspirational Principals but no systemic success. Now we have a model that shows some real potential for success, warts and all.

The subtitle says it, "the unlikely success of teach for america ..."

At the end of the book there is some speculation about some of the reasons for success. This bit was interesting:

Perhaps the economic downturn, and the rise in civic committment following the tragic events of September 11 ... (Afterword, p. 187, 2003 edition)

The Australian education system, like the American has a very large gap b/w rich and poor. We need to take notice of this scheme.

Kopp's book is interesting but the real story of Teach for America will have to be told by the teachers themselves