Webinar: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers
Having trouble viewing the webcast? Contact Technical Assistance Here.
The Alliance for Excellent Education and the New Teacher Center Invite You to Attend a Webinar
Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers
Mariana Haynes, PhD, Senior Fellow, Alliance for Excellent Education
Terry Holliday, PhD, Commissioner of Education, Kentucky Department of Education
Richard Ingersoll, PhD, Professor of Education and Sociology, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania
Ellen Moir, Executive Director, New Teacher Center
Please join the Alliance for Excellent Education and the New Teacher Center for a discussion about meaningful support for the growing number of beginning teachers who are less likely to stay in teaching. Longstanding concerns remain about students’ access to effective teaching as states gear up to implement rigorous college- and career-ready standards. What policies and practices can redress the unevenness in teaching quality within and among U.S. schools, particularly those serving students of color and low-income students?
Panelists will highlight current trends in the teaching workforce, the research on induction programs, and a systems approach to creating supportive teaching and learning conditions. A new Alliance report will be released in conjunction with the webinar—On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers—that examines research on teacher turnover and performance and the implications for designing induction supports and professional learning as part of a coherent teacher development system. Panelists will also address questions submitted by viewers from across the county.
Support for this webinar comes from
Register and submit questions for the webinar using the registration form below. After registering, you will receive an email confirmation. Please check your email settings to be sure they are set to receive emails from firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please direct questions concerning the webinar to email@example.com.
If you are unable to watch the webinar live, an archived version will be available at all4ed.org/webinars usually one or two days after the event airs.
Mariana Haynes: Hello. I’m Mariana Haynes, Senior Fellow with the Alliance for Excellent Education, a nonprofit education policy and advocacy organization based here in Washington, D.C. Thank you for joining us today to discuss an important new report, “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers.” This was developed in close collaboration with our cohost for this webinar, the New Teacher Center, and the report sheds light on the chronic disparities in students’ access to effective teaching in the United States, which is a growing concern among both the public and policymakers.
Joining us on set is a distinguished group of researches and teacher educators to help us understand the underlying issues related to school staffing and retention and also to learn about promising programs and policies that are needed to build the teaching profession. On my left is Richard Ingersoll. He is Professor of Education and Sociology in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, and next to Richard is Ellen Moir, Chief Executive Officer of the New Teacher Center, and thanks again, Ellen, for partnering with us on this important work. And on my far left is Terry Holliday. He is the Kentucky Commissioner of Education and President of the Board of the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Now together, they bring a wealth of expertise on the key factors that are essential to developing powerful professional learning systems and effective instruction at scale and they’re committed to the work of ensuring all students have highly effective teachers capable of helping them reach their full potential.
Now like most of our webcast, the live event you are watching now is interactive and we encourage you and we appreciate your participation. Now if you want to ask questions of our webinar guests, please do so using the form below this video window and we will turn to your questions from time to time throughout this webinar. You can also participate via Twitter and we do encourage you to tweet about this webinar using the all4ed hashtag that you’ll see in the corner of the video window from time to time.
Now before we begin, I also want to extend an important thank you to the MetLife Foundation for its generous support of the webinar, but first a little background. Today, the Alliance for Excellent Education released “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers.” Now the brief provides policy recommendations and includes analyses of state-by-state attrition costs that were contributed by Dr. Ingersoll. Based on research by Richard, best estimates of available data show that more than about 230,000 teachers leave teaching in a school year costing the nation between $1 billion and $2 billion. More information on these findings, including the state-by-state breakdown, will be available on the all4ed website and you can find that under Reports and Fact Sheets.
Now the price tag for recruitment and replacement seriously underestimates the cumulative cost of eroding the caliber and stability of the teacher workforce, particularly in underperforming schools serving the neediest students. Many schools serving low-income minority students turnover half of their teaching staff every five years. Now the good news is that multiple initiatives and this is kind of national work that’s underway, will enable teachers to help all students achieve more rigorous Common Core state standards if implemented well. Now this includes developing professional standards for beginning teachers, strengthening clinical preparation, and shaping strategies that address the developmental needs of teachers throughout the career. And I want to also add that it’s important to both address not just the developmental needs in terms of the improvement in the teaching practice but as well as creating differentiated role for teachers throughout their careers.
Now as states implement new standards, there has been this ongoing debate and the debate persists about whether states have an educator workforce or the capacity to produce one with the training skills needed to ensure that students achieve the learning outcomes that are essential to succeed in school and beyond. And I just want to comment briefly on the 2013 round of the teaching and learning international survey known as TALIS that was released last month and you can find on the all4ed.org website an archived webinar with Andreas Schleicher about the TALIS. Now it’s administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, that also administers the Program for International Student Assessment.
Now TALIS captures how teachers and school leaders in 34 countries, including the United States, view their working conditions and learning environments. This is the first year that American teachers participated. TALIS highlights the shortcomings and the level of support and quality of professional learning U.S. teachers receive. Findings indicate that American teachers work harder and under much more challenging conditions than teacher elsewhere in the industrialized world. Even though they participate in more professional learning, they report that it is less relevant. It has less impact on their instructional practice. U.S. teachers have fewer opportunities to collaborate or receive feedback from their peers and two-thirds feel their professions is not valued by society. And OECD found, by using the data from PISA for those individual countries, that this is strongly linked with student achievement.
Finally, the issue of equity and educational opportunity is closely tied to how the system responds in creating optimal conditions for teaching and learning within schools. We know that the highest performing systems in the world are those that allocate educational resources more equitably among advantaged and disadvantaged schools. In the United States, this has not been the general case, and as a result, economic disadvantage has a significant impact on student achievement. So we know if the dominant teacher development policies and practices remain unchanged and the promise of rigorous standards and educational opportunity will continue to go unfulfilled. Addressing the disparities in teaching quality within and across schools is our primary challenge and it will require thinking beyond the individual teacher and addressing differences in schools as places for teaching and learning.
So let’s begin. Let’s learn more about all of these different issues. First, I’m delighted to turn to Richard Ingersoll, and again, thank you so much for the contribution to the brief on those analyses. He is a professor of education and sociology in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. His research on school management and organization, teacher turnover, and their professional status is nationally recognized. So Richard, can you provide us with a context for why induction is important, give us some of the data on attrition, and talk about the changes in the teacher workforce?
Richard Ingersoll: Yes. Well, I’ve been doing a lot of research on teachers and I want to talk a little bit about transformation, some big changes that are happening in the teaching force, and why induction, support, and mentoring for beginning teachers is really a very important thing, and it’s very timely, and this webinar is a very timely thing. First of all, I use national data so it’s big picture. This could vary across states and districts but big picture, and the data I use are called the Schools and Staffing Survey. This is the biggest source of information on teachers in the world and certainly on the U.S. teachers.
What do these data tell us? The first thing they tell us is that the teaching force has been ballooning in size. It’s been increasing at a very rapid rate, far faster than the student population of this country. Now there’s huge implications and this raises a lot of questions, among them, well, why is this? Why is the teaching force going up so much faster than the student population and how are we paying for this?
But for our purposes here, I’d like to focus on one implication, which is that we have far more beginners in this very large occupation, now the largest occupation in the nation. The Census Bureau tells us that elementary and secondary teaching is the largest occupation in the nation. Why? I want to talk about the implication of the hiring, the ballooning of the teaching force over the last couple of decades, and what it’s meant is far more beginners. We call it greening.
So just to give you an example, 25 years ago in the late-1980s, the most common teacher, the most frequent teacher, was someone in their 15th year, so we had 15-year veterans and then we had a number of teachers less experienced than that and a number of teachers more. All right, let’s flash forward 20 years and the data tell us that the most common teacher in the late-2000s was someone in their first year, so the most common teacher was a 15-year veteran, now it’s someone in their first year. We went from about 60,000 first-year teachers to now 230,000 first-year teachers. We call this greening, this massive change in the ratio of veterans to beginners in this very, very large occupation.
Now since 2008, we’ve had a recession, less hirings, some layoffs, and so fewer beginners, and so it’s changed a little and the most common teacher now is a five-year veteran. But nevertheless, this trend holds, which is that teaching has become a very, very large occupation primarily of beginners. It’s not that there’s not veterans but the number of beginners far outweighs the veterans.
So that’s another whole transformation that’s happened and there might be good and bad in that, but the next trend I want to focus on is this largest portion, beginners, of the largest occupation, is less stable than it used to be. It’s quitting at much higher rates. So teaching has always been an occupation in which there are very high quit rates in the first few years. We generated these data starting a decade ago and about 40 to 50 percent of those who go into teaching in any given year are gone in five years. But that’s actually been going up. That’s been inching up. The high rates of beginning teacher attrition have gone up steadily over the last few years and this is a problem.
Now there’s no assumption here that all of this is bad. We wouldn’t want 100 percent retention of teachers. We want people that aren’t very good at it to leave, to move on, and we want fresh blood to come in. On the other hand, very high levels of attrition of teachers is not cost-free at all and it’s particularly telling when we look at the reasons these new teachers give for why they leave. About a fifth of them leave because of layoffs, terminations, school closings, what we call school staffing actions. Another third of the high levels of quitting of these first-year teachers is for family reasons, personal reasons. You want to raise babies, you want to care for your elderly folks, your spouse moves to another state.
But the biggest reasons, the primary reasons for these relatively high levels of beginners in teaching are two and they’re sort of flip sides of one another. On the one hand, I’m leaving teaching because I want to get a different or better career. On the other hand, I’m leaving teaching because I’m dissatisfied. Those two reasons alone count for well over half of this increasing numbers of beginners leaving and there’s increasing numbers of beginners in an increasing number of teachers, if I’m saying that right, so we have this growing problem. That’s the context.
So given those changes in the teaching force, it’s not surprising that reforms centered around induction and support for beginning teachers have become a very important thing. And there’s been a growing trend in these and in fact we’ve had a large increase over the last couple of decades in the numbers and percentages of beginning teachers that get some kind of support. These are district or state programs and what do they entail?
Well, there’s a wide variety of components, supports that are provided to teachers, everything from face time with the principal or the vice principal, having a veteran teacher assigned as a mentor, having beginning seminars for the incoming hires, setting aside structured time for collaboration between the veterans and the newcomers, providing assistance. There’s a whole series of different components and what we find is that while increasing numbers of beginning teachers are getting some kind of induction, and mentoring, and support, it varies dramatically just what they get from very, very thin, skinny sorts of programs, so to speak, that are lower cost, all the way up to very well thought out comprehensive induction programs where mentors are trained. They’re also given time off, veteran teachers, and they spend time every week or every two weeks with beginning teachers, and they show them how to do it, and they let them become much better teachers.
So this brings us to really the big question which is, well, does it matter? Does it do any good? All right, we have this ballooning of beginning teachers. We have this increase in support and induction provided across the 50 states. That’s increased but does it matter? Does it do any good? I’ve done some research in this. We’ve had a growing body of solid, empirical, data-driven research. Does it affect how well teachers instruct in the classroom as their caliber of a teacher? Does induction affect student achievement? Does induction affect their durability, their retention, how long they stick around?
And what we found, interestingly enough, is that the vast majority of studies on this issue show positive effects. This is very important because in any given issue in education, when we do research to see, well, does something make a difference? Does this matter? Are charter schools better? Usually the findings are very mixed. You have one study showing no improvement, other studies show some improvement. The legislators get very frustrated with we researchers, “Well, you won’t provide us a clear answer.”
In this particular reform, induction support for beginning teachers, the vast majority of the studies actually show positive effects. There’s improvements in the teachers’ classroom instruction, just their day-to-day how well they’re doing it. There’s improvements in their retention and there’s improvements in student achievement, the bottom line for everybody. But there’s a but here, and the but is that it sort of depends what you get, back to a point I made earlier. Inductions increased, induction has a positive effect, particularly having a mentor and having collaboration time between a new teacher and veterans in their same grade level or department.
Those are important but it sort of depends on what you get and the lesson we draw from the research, from the findings, is that you kind of get what you pay for. If you provide a very thin program, you don’t get that much improvement in these various outcomes. If you provide a more well thought out, comprehensive program, the data show that you actually get all kinds of improvement.
And so just to summarize, lots more beginning teachers, higher quit rates, all the more need for support for these beginning teachers. We have lots of reforms going on and the data show they do and can work. Thank you.
Mariana Haynes: Okay, that’s good news, right? We have a lot of information that things work. That in itself is very important. So let’s turn to Ellen now, who has done a lot of work in this area as well sort of in terms of its application and applying this research and the lessons learned to supporting beginning teachers. Ellen is the founder and chief executive officer of New Teacher Center dedicated to improving student learning by accelerating the effectiveness of new teachers and school leaders.
So one of the things that’s become very clear is the number of students who come from low-income backgrounds that are in classrooms and that teachers serve something like on average in the United States over about 30 percent and we know that that’s much higher in a lot of locales. So what can you tell us from your vantage point about what kind of organizational supports contribute to the stability and to the effectiveness of these beginning teachers?
Ellen Moir: That’s great. Thank you very much, Mariana, and Richard, I think I should be on the road with you because the data that you’ve just shared really gives the platform for the kind of work that we’re doing. So let me begin by just saying every child deserves a great teacher and I think that’s incumbent upon us as Americans to ensure that regardless of a child’s zip code that we’re advocating for talented teachers for every child. And my question really is, as I approach this topic with you, is for policymakers and stakeholders, superintendents, leadership teams, and school districts, and union leaders, what can we do to really retain teachers and get them on the path to excellence early? So I’m delighted about this particular session because the path to equity is usually important and with new teachers being the majority these days, we’ve got to get this right.
So one of the group causes is that teacher effectiveness is critical for student learning, yet 50 percent of all new teachers leave, and it seems as if the best and the brightest are the ones that are choosing to leave. At the same time, the problem is that low-income students are generally the ones that are getting the most inexperienced teachers and this kind of attrition, or I call it abandonment of students, is happening on a regular basis, and it’s something that’s just not okay. I, as a parent, would never want my child to be in a school that has this kind of churn constantly.
So the entrepreneurial, if you will, the insight that I had and my colleagues had early on, was that teachers are made not born, and that trying to figure out how we personalize teacher learning and teacher development from the start of one’s career has been the path and the journey that we’ve been on for many years now. And although induction is happening everywhere, to Richard’s point, there’s induction light and something that’s much more powerful, and I’d like to talk to you about a powerful approach.
So if you’ll look with me at the slide, this really looks at the New Teacher Center trains mentors, I want you to really hone in on the importance of a systems approach to this work. Now early on, we started, in all honesty, in a one-on-one mentoring role where we’re mentoring one teacher, but now we’re looking much more at how do you build a system, and cultures, and schools with a climate and conditions that ultimately will keep teachers as they’re engaged in induction. So in our work, we’re building on a comprehensive approach where it’s really a talent development strategy built into the system. Expert teachers are recruited, rigorously selected, released full time, and their full-time job is to put their arms around a group of brand new teachers, to be in their classrooms every week, to give them feedback, to observe, give feedback, to use assessment data to drive instruction, and to personalize and assess really what the new teachers really need at any given time.
Now as we build this model out, students are the primary beneficiaries. New teachers are on the path to excellence early, and feel efficacious, and competent, and at the same time, you have expert teachers and systems who are in a new role where they actually are giving rich feedback and acquiring a set of skills that they haven’t had before, so they’re also teed up, if they so desire, and a district can build the kind of capacity and system, ladder or lattice, where expert teachers could become on the path to principals or they could continue to teach. So this is a very rigorous, comprehensive approach that goes over the teachers’ first two years of teaching.
We are upping retention in every city we’re in by 20 percent. Now this is hugely important, that at the end, when you look at a second-year teacher and in a district that is getting that kind of gain, not only are they saving money, most importantly, we’re building these habits of mind and mindsets for new teachers to be on that path to excellence early.
And as we think about this work though, I also want to make sure that the conditions are right, so we developed the Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning Survey that we’re now administering across America and have surveyed 1.2 million teachers and educators, and I think this is hugely important because we’re getting at the voice of teachers. We’re trying to understand from them, looking at a set of eight or nine conditions, what matters, so vis-à-vis time. We’re looking at resources or the amount of time to be connected to your principal, the work in professional learning communities. Are you getting feedback, and mentoring, and coaching if you’re a new teacher?
So these are some of the conditions and as we’re surveying teachers, we’re capturing the voice of educators. We’re then using the data. The data is publicly available on the website for school districts to use. And I think this is important: A survey is only as good as how we turn the data around, how we move a school that has poor conditions to being one that has much more effective conditions. And what are we really learning? There is a link indeed between the more positive the conditions are in a school, the better the student achievement gains are, and we’re gonna be able to keep teachers in these schools, so principals play a huge role in building the culture and context to retain teachers, not only new teachers but all teachers.
And in our work, we’ve recently done cross-state analysis to better understand what kind of similarities there are across states and what are some of the differences, and let’s just look at a few areas. One, for example, is instructional practices and professional development in time. Across all nine states, there’s indicators that that is low impact, not really happening, and teachers are begging for more opportunities for learning. If you want to visit the link shown you can actually look at the data yourself and take a look at it.
Now we also want to look at beginning teachers and what they view as the conditions for success. Well, if you look at the slide, you can see that new teachers often they have a mentor. Sometimes they don’t know if they have a mentor and sometimes the mentor may not be carefully selected and may not be having an impact. What we ultimately care about is that we are seeing a change in teacher practice to ultimately improve student learning. So I think it’s important to say that we disaggregate the data not only at the school lever but within a school, let’s look at the data and the impact on new teachers, on experienced teachers, and as the community of teachers as a whole.
As we’re thinking about policy recommendations, I want to make two important recommendations: One of course is no surprise to any of you, that there’s comprehensive induction everywhere, for every new teacher, not just by the luck of the draw because they land in a school in Kentucky with Commissioner Holliday but instead any new teacher in America lands in their first year wanting to be better than any of the rest of us and that they get that jump start early on. And the second recommendation is that we embed teaching and learning conditions into all of our school improvement initiatives. Let’s look at data. We’re really good at talking about data. Now let’s collect the data, get teacher voice, and really listen to our educators so that we can ultimately create the most successful opportunities for all students to be successful. Thank you.
Mariana Haynes: Well, thank you, Ellen. It’s terrific work and it’s very exciting, this relationship between the application of what impacts retention through comprehensive induction and then adding this piece around the working conditions, a very powerful tool, obviously. And one state that’s been using this, Dr. Holliday, if you can bring us into kind of the way that Kentucky has been using the survey, the Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning Survey, and I understand you’re going to be moving into your third administration of your use of TELL?
Terry Holliday: Yes, in ’15.
Mariana Haynes: So how does Kentucky integrate it into its school improvement policies or leadership development? How is the data used to drive improvements in specific conditions? And I know you’ve also had some real success in using TELL with low-performing schools, so you can tell us a little bit about how you’ve been using that.
Terry Holliday: Sure. I think if anybody in policy land looks at what’s happened the last six or seven years with state policies, state education agencies have been more at the center of change, and the reason being you look at things like Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind waivers, new standards, new assessments, new accountability models, states are kind of at the center of all this. Critical to our success at the state level is a great teacher in every classroom, and so Kentucky has long been a leader in education reform but in 2009, the general assembly and the governor really gave us a path forward with new standards, assessment, accountability, but a critical piece was the collaboration and support of teachers, so all of this focus on education reform, a critical foundation in Kentucky was collaboration with teachers.
So how do you get teacher voice? How do you get the data you need to make improvements in the system? Now when we think about this system, we think about teacher preparation programs, so when we put in place the TELL survey the first time in 2011, a critical piece was providing information from first-year teachers back to the universities. What did first-year teachers say they needed more of to be successful with students? Well, no big secret here. They needed more around special education, meeting the needs of all children, differentiated learning in classrooms. So that feedback to the teacher preparation programs was very critical.
Also, the principal and the school improvement teams, they need the feedback but only from their first-year teachers. That way they could improve their induction programs but they also needed feedback from all teachers. Do you have adequate resources to do your job? Do you have time to do your job? Is the administrator supporting you? And then when they look at the retention in the school improvement plan, does this school have a large turnover? What is the difference between School A and School B? So we provide the data by school, by district, and you can compare yourself to similar schools in Kentucky. But it’s critical for a school improvement team to say, “Our turnover rate is much higher than our peers.”
What are teachers saying through the working conditions survey and usually the top issue is leadership. They don’t feel they’re supported by their leadership. The second issue is usually around time and professional development not being relevant to what they’re doing every day. They’re saying, “This one size fits all doesn’t fit for me. I need this. I need specialized. I need differentiate professional development.” We expect it for our children but we don’t ever expect it for our teachers.
And then for districts, too often we forget that the district is such a critical piece of the system. What do the district working conditions look like for building leaders? Do building principals feel like they’re supported? Do they have the resources? Are they getting the instructional coaching? Are they getting the professional learning?
So all of this feedback, we have built it into requirements. It has to be reviewed and they have to have a goal not only for the school improvement plan but also for the principals’ goals and their evaluation plan. And then the district, it has to be addressed in the superintendent’s plan. He has to present it to the school board and I present it to the state board and the state board and the governor have been heavily involved in this process from the beginning and very supportive, and that’s the reason it’s working is that the collaboration of the teacher association.
Ninety percent of our teachers respond to the survey, so that when I get this data and I take it to the general assembly and say, “Our teachers say they need more resources, and technology, and infrastructure, the general assembly, during a tight budget time, actually put more money into technology and professional development for teachers. That’s pretty unheard of these days. But without this data from the working conditions survey, how do you know the decision you’re making is having an impact and how do you know which area to address first?
So by doing it every two years, that gives the school improvement teams, the district teams, and the state team, the ability to put in place programs and practices that at the end of a two-year period, we can see if we’ve had impact. And the collaboration of teachers, universities, government, governor, and the state board of education has been very powerful and we’ve seen some improvements in our graduation rates, our college career readiness rates, and one of the few states, knock on wood, that isn’t having a lot of pushback on the implementation of college career-ready standards.
Mariana Haynes: Wow. That’s such an impressive litany that few states can report out on, and some of the things that’s interesting is we talk a lot about reciprocal accountability, how the system is accountable for the performance of those on the front lines as well as for students, but having this data provides the entry point. And I just wanted to talk just very quickly about cross-state analyses, the power of those kind of analyses where you’re looking at how you compare across states because it really highlights the importance of that systems matter, that state policies, as Terry has enumerated, so many of the things in which it’s used to bring people around solving problems.
I don’t know if you’ve touched on that but if you want to talk just –
Ellen Moir: Yeah, no. I’m happy to touch on it a little bit.
Mariana Haynes: Just real quickly, yeah.
Ellen Moir: I mean I think looking across states gives the states themselves some sense of where they fall across these Southern states and you can see where they’re ahead and where they’re behind, so to speak. But I think also by looking at trends across states helps us really understand better what teacher needs are, and I think the clear trends that have come through are a lack of professional development for teachers that’s individualized and personalized; time, this whole issue are time is also big that we haven’t figure out how to crack, I don’t think yet; and then also, more supports. And I think new teachers in particular, they’re hungry to be on the cutting edge of learning and growing. They want to feel efficacious and they want to know that they’re making a difference.
I think that we see such attrition and I want to comment on that attrition piece for a moment because you think about a 22-year-old starting their career. I mean it could be a reentry person but let’s look at a young person who’s launching their career. They spent time going to college. The want to be teachers and they get in and they feel so disillusioned, and disheartened, and discouraged that they wind up quitting, and what does that say for sort of jump starting their own career after that? I think not only are we losing a lot of talent but we’re also really hindering young people for having successful careers and opportunities in their life by our own inability to build systems that really support educators.
Mariana Haynes: Right. Thank you so much. I’m gonna turn back to you, Richard, on another point. So national data show that there’s a number of school districts each year which report problems filling teaching openings such as math and science, and also that these other shortages in reference to minority teachers or low percentages of minority teachers relative to the diversity in the student population. So do you have data that you can shed some light on why we are continuing to struggle in some of these areas or are we really struggling in these areas?
Richard Ingersoll: Yes. This is a case where there’s unfortunately a lot of misinformation out there on both the math/science teacher shortage and the minority teacher shortage, and unfortunately, a lot of the reforms and initiatives we have the data indicate aren’t gonna succeed. So let me back up a little. Everyone believes we have a math/science teacher shortage. This is a big national issue. It turns out almost every president since Eisenhower has given a speech on the math/science teacher shortage and so we have all kinds of initiatives all designed to bring more math/science degrees and people into teaching, and that’s all well and fine but there’s a bit of a misdiagnosis here.
Believe it or not, the data indicate that this nation produced more than enough qualified math/science teachers. We do not have a shortage in the sense that we’re under producing. That’s the conventional wisdom. The data don’t support that. Rather what we have, and this harkens back to our earlier discussion, is a retention problem. We lose far too many math/science teachers. So the problem isn’t shortages, we product too many, it’s we’re losing too many. The solution can’t simply be recruitment. It has to also include retention.
So for instance, President Obama, like Bush and like Clinton before him and on back, he has this new initiative, 100K in 10, wants to recruit 100,000 math/science teachers over the next ten years, the next decade. This is a wonderful initiative. It’s a very worthwhile thing to do. Who could be against trying to recruit smart college students into becoming math/science teachers?
The unfortunate fact of like is that it will not solve the problem. Let me just give you a data point here. So the president’s initiatives, bring in 100,000 new math/science teachers in ten years, but our data show that we lose over 25,000 math/science teachers every year, of which only a small part is due to retirement. Most of it’s due to dissatisfaction. So we’re kind of bringing in and people are leaving. Again, we need to have recruitment and retention both to solve this problem. It’s as simple as that.
The minority teacher shortage is also similarly misdiagnosed. We have this plaint across the nation. We’ve had this for a couple of decades that the teaching force doesn’t look like America, that as America becomes more racially and ethnic diverse, the teaching force hasn’t kept up. Now there is truth to this. There is no question we have what’s called a parity gap, that the percentage of students in our elementary, secondary schools who are minority is greater than the percentage of teachers, but what this sort of national criticism and reform efforts miss is that there’s actually been an unheralded success story.
We’ve had over 100 percent increase in the numbers of minority teachers over the last decade and a half. Minority teachers have gone up faster than minority students, far faster than non-minority teachers. There’s been a success story here that all of these recruitment efforts in something like two-thirds of the states have minority recruitment initiatives, they’ve paid off. You need to give some credit here, and if anything, sort of put more funding and support into successful programs. They’ve worked.
But there’s a huge but here. Minority teachers quit at far higher rates than white non-minority teachers, so in effect, this growth in numbers of minority teachers is all the more remarkable because it’s in spite of the fact of the high quit rates. So again, we’re being very successful in bringing people in but then a whole lot of them are leaving. Again, we need both recruitment and retention. Doing one alone simply we’re not going to close that parity gap. We are having success and there has been a diversification of the teacher force, but as I was saying, it’s all the more remarkable because of these high quit rates. That needs to be addressed.
So this is where we come back to the whole question of induction, providing support for beginning teachers particularly in these tough, hard to staff schools. The old sink or swim model, I’m a former high school teacher and this is what we had. You got the job, the principal gave you the keys to the classroom, and gave you a pat on the back, and that was it. You never saw them again. You were on your own. Some of us swam and some of us sunk.
And now there’s been a greater recognition, and the data I was discussing earlier show this, that there’s been a recognition we have a growth in induction and support programs for beginning teachers in this country but they vary. They vary in their quality. So that is really a reform that’s worthy of a whole lot more support and funding. Thank you.
Ellen Moir: Can I add a piece to that, Mariana?
Mariana Haynes: Yes, absolutely.
Ellen Moir: Not only are you getting a new teacher on the path to excellence their first year, but by virtue of helping a new teacher acquire the skills in differentiation, analyzing student work, really knowing your students well, building strong content, using assessment data to drive instruction, you are building those habits of mind and mindsets and instincts into the teacher from the get go, and if you’re in the teacher’s classroom week after week over several years, you’re helping to instill that kind of way of being. That’s the new norm. And with so many new teachers in America, we need a new norm.
And to Richard’s point also around induction, it isn’t all created equally. We have a lot of induction light in America. We give a lot of stipends to people, good and well-intentioned efforts, but the colleagues that are being stipend do not really have the time to get into classrooms and help new teachers change their practice to improve student learning. So it’s way more than give them a mentor and it’s way more than using the term induction. It’s really are we transforming new teacher practice to improve student outcomes?
Mariana Haynes: On another thread, we’re getting a question about how do you leverage untapped knowledge on the part of teachers, that there’s this expertise that they have and as they do develop, there really haven’t been great mechanisms either within schools or within districts to leverage the expertise that are within their own schools and so on. What are ways that districts can start to be more strategic about how they do that?
Terry Holliday: I think they have to focus on pathways for teachers that not necessarily lead to administration but lead to teacher leadership. In Kentucky, we have a teacher leader master’s program and it’s critical for us to continue to define what roles will teachers have like a full-time mentor. And I know this is something that Ellen and New Teacher Center really push is having expert teachers be mentors for these first and second-year teachers.
Also, we need other career pathways. How can you not tap into the knowledge of expert teachers who are still full-time in the classroom? Well, we all did PLCs but who facilitates those PLCs? Who makes sure that the information is shared across the school and the district? Our principals don’t quite often have time to do that and teachers would prefer listening to other master teachers, so we gotta define those roles and we probably have to change our pay system. Quit necessarily rewarding years of experience and higher degrees but focus more on career pathways that focus more on the leadership. That’s what other nations are doing.
Ellen Moir: And I’d like to suggest also in addition to what Terry just said, a lot of talented teachers want to keep doing teaching kind of roles whether they’re in the classroom or outside of the classroom, so I like the notion of a career lattice where you can step in and out of various roles because the ladder notion makes it seem like you’re going to become only an administrator. The other point I wanted to make is we have a history of one size fits all professional development and we also we bring in experts from outside. Honestly, sometimes these are experts but they haven’t taught in decades.
So I think that in response to the question specifically, let’s tap the talent, and what Terry was saying, let’s tap the talent of the expertise that we have in our districts, build their capacity to facilitate, to present, to lead, and compensate them accordingly.
Mariana Haynes: And we also know through TALIS and other surveys that decision making is very important to teachers’ feeling of efficacy and satisfaction, so not just in terms of a career ladder but involving them in critical decisions around curriculum instruction and so on is so important.
We’re getting a lot of questions about preparation. What is the link between preparation retention? How does personalized learning happen in preparation that would make it more likely that teachers get the skills they need and more likely to be retained? So does anybody want to take that one on in terms of –
Richard Ingersoll: Sure.
Mariana Haynes: Okay, Richard.
Richard Ingersoll: Well, we’ve actually just finished a study analyzing national data trying to address this question: Does the amount, depth, and breadth of the education and training teachers get before they teach have any bearing on their durability, on their retention? And there’s a lot of interest in this and of course we now have a tremendous amount of ferment, and controversy, and criticism, and experimentation surrounding the preparation of teachers in this country and how do we define the qualified teacher? What kinds of experiences should they and should they not have?
And so we did this whole analysis which of these many types of components and aspects of preparation are related to their retention? And it turns out, well, some are and some aren’t. It’s very interesting. So whether you have an education degree or a degree from arts and sciences, that has little bearing on your retention. Whether you came to a traditional route into teaching or an alternative route, that has little bearing. Whether you went to a very high, selective university or a less competitive university, that has little bearing on this particular outcome, retention.
What does have bearing? It’s interesting. Being taught in the how of teaching, not so much in the subject matter, the how, the methods. This word pedagogy is often used. So for instance, one of the strongest factors that is correlated with retention is how much practice or student teaching have you had before you started as a teacher? It turns out that the way we prepare teachers in this country varies dramatically across different states, different colleges, and schools of education. How much actual practice teaching with children and teenagers candidates for teaching get varies, from none all the way up to more than a semester.
Twenty percent of the teacher new hires in this country have never spent any time before their job teaching kids or teenagers. Their first day on the job is their first day.
Mariana Haynes: Stunning, isn’t it? That’s pretty stunning.
Richard Ingersoll: Forty percent of new science teachers have never spent any time in the classroom teaching before their first day on the job, and what we found is that this is a huge factor in their retention. Those that had more of this practice teaching ahead of time had far better durability. I mean it seems like something of an obvious find to me, but then we look at the fact that our training varies and a lot don’t get this.
Another couple of factors that have a strong bearing is did you get to observe others teaching in their classrooms during your preparation? Did you get any feedback on your own teaching? So what we found was, yes, the amounts, and depths, and breadth of preparation does affect retention but it sort of depends, and some factors are really strongly correlated and some aren’t.
Mariana Haynes: You’re a teacher educator, right, Ellen?
Ellen Moir: Yes, I am, and I directed teacher education at UCSC for a long while before I started the work with beginning teachers, and I want to make sure I say this because even the best teacher education program, the best, the one that is absolutely top notch, we have still found that there’s a gap in how new teachers begin their work. And the reason that there’s a gap is that even the best program where they’ve had a lot of experience teaching, as Richard just described, student teaching and a lot of placement work, the master teacher is running the classroom really, and it’s a simulated experience, and oftentimes it’s in a school where the conditions are better or the principal is really talented. So I wanted to just say that we need new teacher induction across the board for all new teachers, particularly for those in the hardest to staff schools.
And then the other point I would make is we all now know what it is that really talented teachers know and are able to do and we need to backward map and make sure that in our selection into pre-service programs and into our development of teacher preparation candidates that we’re building those kinds of things into the practices. So if we think differentiation is important, then teach these candidates how to really personalize instruction, diagnose student needs, know their students well, create interventions that are powerful, assess, drive for higher levels of instruction, and likewise, if we think that reflection and inquiry are important, then make sure the programs give our candidates ample opportunities for reflection.
Also, learning to teach is a lifelong endeavor. It’s all about continuous improvement and being able to problem solve, so let’s teach candidates how to problem solve and how to really drive for higher levels of learning for all students.
Mariana Haynes: Terry, you had an interesting vantage point, a particular vantage point, coming from with your role as president of the board for CCSSO, and so where are some of the entry points for states around some of these issues in terms of the preparation question?
Terry Holliday: Well, I think there are gonna be at least two national efforts that will really help us get there. I think the secretary just recently announced that we’re going to rekindle the teacher equity plans that were part of the original No Child Left Behind. Every state’s gonna get data. They’re gonna get it in September from the Office of Civil Rights, and what that data is gonna tell us is what we already know but it’s going to be public now, so the transparency of the data will really help that our high poverty schools have the largest turnover rates, that our high poverty schools have the largest percentage of first-year teachers, and our poverty schools have the least effective teachers as far as student achievement. Of course that’s kind of a circuitous argument there. They’re high poverty, so they’re gonna have low achievement and they got all these first-year teachers, so research on that just kind of proves the point. I mean everybody knows that.
The other piece is teacher preparation. I know the secretary will be pushing reform and reporting requirements around teacher preparation. I spent a few years working with the Commission on Accreditation on educator preparation programs and I think those new accreditation standards get at what both Richard and Ellen are talking about, more clinical preparation. For example in Kentucky, we think of teacher preparation not as a four-year work. It includes the first year of teaching because they don’t get licensed until the end of their first year of teaching. So the universities have to follow and provide a mentor to the first year teachers.
If I could do two things, it would really help address high poverty schools. One, make sure those university mentors are the professors of record in methods classes because they need to be out there working with classroom teachers in their first year to find out if the methods they’ve been espousing for four years actually work. Too many of our teachers come to their first year and through the TELL survey, we know that they’re not adequately prepared to face the urban settings or the poverty settings that they go into.
The second thing that I would really work on is to place those methods teachers, professors, in the schools and teach the sophomore methods and the junior methods in real time in real space, and we’ve got a great example of where that’s happening at the University of Louisville. They’re doing it with an elementary school, high poverty school, and a middle school, high poverty school, full-time professor who actually helps kids in the methods classes get this clinical preparation much earlier and they can determine right away what the kids need, which means what the teachers need in the way of improving their preparation.
Mariana Haynes: Great. Are there other examples? I mean Ellen, you crisscross this country a lot in terms of where folks are kind of getting it right. There’s a question from Susan Jones, Clarksville, Tennessee, about schools or districts who are figuring out some of the things as Terry indicated around either partnering or especially for those beginning teachers.
Ellen Moir: Yeah. I won’t name any particular universities, but I would say that the Bush Foundation in Minneapolis has done a very robust effort to strengthen teacher preparation and link it to school districts and the development of student learning. So I think creating a seamless partnership between teacher education and the school district and quite frankly, I think the school district, working closely, as Terry just said, has the potential to go back to the university and say, “Look, these three things that you’re doing in teacher preparation really are an advantage for our candidates, but these couple of areas are really weak and we need you to strengthen those areas.” So I think that kind of reciprocal relationship.
Also, I think teacher education can become much more relevant and I think focused by partnering with school districts to better understand the needs of these large urban districts and rural American to better prepare candidates. So it’s really a seamless partnership that I think advantages both a school district because they also have the opportunity to select some of the most talented candidates to become new teachers in those districts, but also, it helps the university to really strengthen its program and at the same time make sure that it’s meeting the needs of the district.
Mariana Haynes: Richard, in your study, did anything come up around partnerships between teacher preparation and K-12 in terms of providing the location of where the clinical practice took place?
Richard Ingersoll: No, we didn’t look at that. That certainly is a growing trend, in other words, let’s ask the preparation programs in higher ed to be more accountable for their product, so to speak, that is to follow where their graduates out to schools and to provide some support. That’s out there. That’s happening in places. It’s kind of a mixed thing because traditionally the idea is you train these teachers and then they graduate and then that’s the end of it.
Mariana Haynes: You’re done, yeah.
Richard Ingersoll: Whereas extending that in developing partnerships is sort of the reform that’s in the works, but I cannot give you data on that per se, no.
Mariana Haynes: We got a question about the transition to new standards and what are the kinds of stresses that this might put on teachers that might push turnover rates even higher, and if so, what can be done to lessen the burden and stress for teachers during this transition period?
Richard Ingersoll: Well, actually we’ve just done a whole study on this –
Mariana Haynes: On that one too, huh?
Richard Ingersoll: – looking at and analyzing the data on the accountability movement and the testing environment and what impact has this had on retention of teachers. Of course we hear from the field that lots of teachers are under greater stress and they’re quitting at higher rates. Well, is that true and is it widespread across the nation? So we looked at this and we looked at what kinds of sanctions and rewards might there be, so all the schools now have standards and basically all of them have testing but they vary in what kinds of rewards and punishments, sticks and carrots, if you will, for how well the school does.
And so we looked at all that and what bearing does it have on retention and the findings were very interesting. What we found is that accountability per se and having testing of students and using those test scores to evaluate schools and teachers, those things in themselves do not necessarily drive out teachers. They’re not linked to the –
Mariana Haynes: Those are neutral.
Richard Ingersoll: Yeah, they’re sort of neutral. Now it does turn out if your school’s low performing and it doesn’t do so well on those tests and those standards, yes, there’s higher turnover rates, and then if it further turns out that if there’s sanctions, if there’s punishments on top of the low performance, then your turnover rates of teachers are even higher. It turns out incidentally that carrots do not improve the retention. If your school’s high performing and there’s some rewards there, that doesn’t actually help your retention of teachers. It may help other things.
So it turns out that having testing and standards doesn’t drive people out, lower performance does, and sanctions and punishments does. And then there’s a huge but. It turns out if you then give teachers the tools to meet the standards, in other words, then the retention is much better. In other words, if you have the bar and you ask the teachers in the schools to meet it, and then give them the tools to do the job, you will not drive them out at higher rates. Low performing schools with punishments where the teachers are supplied with adequate working conditions have the same retention rates as the high performing schools.
So what kinds of tools do they need and this is a big one. Classroom autonomy discretion. In other words, don’t just lock in how once my students are different in my fifth period math class, don’t lock it it, don’t script for me, don’t order me to do it all these ways. Give me some leeway and discretion. That’s a key tool, so to speak. That’s a key thing that teachers as professionals need.
And so these low performing schools with their sanctions, they lose lots of teachers, particularly if they just go for a very top down standardized scripted model where the teachers be on this page of the math text and this. If you give them more leeway, it turns out you don’t have higher turnover rates. So it’s a very interesting finding.
Mariana Haynes: It is very interesting.
Richard Ingersoll: Nothing wrong with accountability but you need to give those employees the tools, the resources –
Mariana Haynes: Some discretion.
Richard Ingersoll: – in this case, the discretion to meet the standards. If you don’t, you will drive them out at very high rates.
Ellen Moir: Yeah, I was really going to echo a lot of what you just said, Richard. I wanted to say in our profession, we’re really good at the what. We tell teachers all the time what has to happen but we forget that the how, how you actually implement these new standards is critically important and teachers need time and professional autonomy and guidance, and I think the more we do give teachers the tools that they need, the less stress that they’ll be under, and the more we trust them as professionals that they can actually build this out. So I think what we’re seeing with new teachers is that if new teachers are coming in to the schools with a knowledge of let’s just say the new standards, then they’re more ready and engaged in wanting to implement them.
But again, new teachers don’t know old standards. They’re ready. New teachers in some ways can be more prepared than experienced teachers because you’re not trying to get them to do something different.
Mariana Haynes: To unlearn. They have to unlearn a lot of things.
Ellen Moir: To unlearn. You’re trying to teach them a new way. But to the person that asked the question, I want to say my board likes to say “All teachers are new teachers now.” So I think it gives us a chance to do business differently together like building school professional learning communities where we’re really learning together, where we test out some new ideas, we observe each other and give feedback, and we create the safety net for people to try and take risks and do the best that they can.
Mariana Haynes: A lot of this comes back again to –
Ellen Moir: The district.
Mariana Haynes: – district, how districts frame their policies and leadership, school leadership.
Terry Holliday: Well, for 42 years I’ve been in education. I guess I’ve gone through at least eight standards movements, whether it was National Council of Teachers in English, social studies, arts, and as a district curriculum person and a school principal that was in charge of curriculum, every five or six years, we had to redo standards. What was a critical piece with this time around is we had a lot more agreement amongst states as to what we thought the standards were and they’re more rigorous and fewer this time because our target has changed. We have to get ready for college and career, not just high school graduation anymore.
But the critical piece – and I love the research supports what we actually did. Kind of a backwards model here – that teachers needed to have a voice. They need to unpack the standards. They need to work together to find the resources, and they needed to develop their own curriculum plans on how they’re gonna get the job done, and then they’re gonna get results. So I think the teacher voice, and the teacher engagement, and teacher empowerment, if you look at all the standards movements, the districts that were successful with it use those tools rather than a scripted Page 14 on Tuesday.
Mariana Haynes: Very good. Anything you wanted to add with that, Ellen? Let me bring this, too, the question about leadership practices. ‘Cause you talked about the working conditions and relationships are things that tended to be weak, like instructional practices, support, how you provide time for teachers to get together to do that. How do you prepare leaders? Is it their dispositions? Is it their way that they organize the learning within a school? What is it that are the key leadership practices to get at that objective in terms of the way that they both develop and support teachers?
Ellen Moir: I think really back to Richard’s point, as well, teachers are not leaving because of compensation. They’re leaving because they don’t feel like they have a voice, and access to the leader, and support. I just want to say that principals matter. Principals are just hugely important in this equation. I’m not sure we’ve spent enough time in education understanding really their role. They are the primary motivator of the community. They’re the leader of building a community of practice of teachers and students. Great conditions for teachers are great learning conditions for students. They all need to go together.
So I would say to me, the No. 1 most important area for a leader, a principal, would be to really be someone that’s passionate about education, that cares deeply about teachers and students, and that can facilitate learning, that can move from it being about the principal to creating a context or almost a container where –
Mariana Haynes: How do they do that? What very specific strategies do they need in order to do some of this?
Ellen Moir: Well, I think one thing they need is to have a leadership team of teachers right there with them, I think teachers teaching teachers, so figuring out where the –
Mariana Haynes: More distributed leadership model?
Ellen Moir: The distributed leadership model I think is hugely important and I think listening to teachers and then enacting transforming things based on what they just heard. I think this listening piece, really good teachers listen to their students. Really good leaders need to listen to parents and to teachers. So I think listening is hugely important.
Also, I think having empathy. I know we want rigor and we want a set of outcomes and metrics to improve student achievement. Teaching is hard. It’s complex. It’s never been more complex than today and have a leader that understands that, and is willing to really look at his or her budget, and align resources in a school to be congruent with giving teachers opportunities for learning and developing, and then creates that kind of rich feedback as part of their instead of traditional staff meetings, actually has learning community events where teachers can even see each other teaching or use video as a way in a safe community where everyone’s trying to move from good to very good to excellent.
Mariana Haynes: The feedback loops that I hear across are very critical, that these systems have these feedback mechanisms where you can get feedback that’s constructive, that’s not punitive, that it is for purposes of growth and development, and that takes changes in culture, in perception. We’re not quite sure if we’re very good at leading those kinds of cultural shifts at scale. That seems to be much more idiosyncratic. Are there things that states can incent those kinds of transformations where it’s more about the relationships and the culture that stay very focused on student learning and operate through a system. It’s kind of the Baldrige work, right, where you’re constantly using feedbacks for continuous improvement. How does that become more normative within districts and states?
Terry Holliday: So we create the structure, we can create the feedback, like we paid for the teaching working conditions survey and we have a powerful team led by teachers that helps us push and get such high participation. Then your state board can put in place the structure to require the use, analysis, and goals that impact it. So put the structure in place and Kentucky has long had a site-based management philosophy. We have a school council of teachers, parents, and in the high school we have a student, and the principal, and they make all the decisions about that expenditure of the resources.
Now you can create the structure but you can’t guaranty the outcomes, so what we have to do from a state level and from a federal level is create some focus on the outcomes and what is the right leverage for accountability of outcomes along with the proper support of resources. This is the $64,000.00 question.
Mariana Haynes: We have from Cliff, by the way, from New York. He’s asking about resources and where do we get the resources for some of this work?
Terry Holliday: Well, I can tell you this, read some of the work of Marguerite Rosa, and at the same time, we were increasing the number of teachers and students were kind of flat, we had tripled our expenditures per pupil, so this is my productivity proficiency speech for equality management. In every district, I can show you how to redirect ten percent to instruction. I can create the structure and I can show you how but I can’t force that decision because you get into a lot of political issues, special interest groups. It takes a strong district leader and a school –
Mariana Haynes: To take some of that on.
Terry Holliday: – to take those issues on.
Mariana Haynes: Go ahead, Richard.
Richard Ingersoll: Well, I was gonna say we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here. We have models out there. Now lots of people say schools need to mimic successful businesses and be more efficient and there’s problems with that. There’s some really basic differences between schools and private sector businesses, but on the other hand, there’s a central principle that’s taught in typical Management 101 courses in colleges and schools of business, and it goes like this. You don’t hold employees accountable for things they have no control over. On the other hand, you don’t give them control over things and then not hold them accountable. You need a balance here.
And so what’s we’ve seen in education is we’ve had a one sided reform. We’ve been increasing the accountability of schools and teachers but not necessarily giving them the tools, as I was mentioning earlier, the autonomy and the control. We need a balance there. If you give employees control and don’t hold them accountable, then you’ll get shirking. You’ll get corruption. If you hold them accountable but don’t give them the tools or the autonomy to do the job, well, then you drive out and you drive out your best and your brightest first.
So we need a balance here and we have examples of that in the business world. And so you give the teachers the training, the time, the resources, the class sizes, the equipment, the tools to do the job, give them some voice and some say in how it should be implemented, and then you hold them accountable. You don’t do one without the other.
Ellen Moir: That’s right.
Richard Ingersoll: And one thing about this, we’re not talking about extra money, necessarily. I did mention salary increases. Salaries are important but we’re talking about management of the buildings. I mean giving teacher’s voice is not necessarily a reform that costs money but it does take a change in sort of the way we manage and organize these workplaces.
Mariana Haynes: That’s huge. That’s a huge factor, and like you say, you’re not asking for more money. You’re talking about full participation in the business of improving schools as a collective effort.
Richard Ingersoll: Giving teachers some voice in those things.
Ellen Moir: Engaging teachers, trusting teachers, not blaming them, and not hitting them over the head but really scaffolding them, and supporting them, and bringing them into the important conversations.
Richard Ingersoll: People maybe don’t realize this. In the media, teachers are often blamed and the assumption is that teachers are running the show and they’re at fault here, but what they don’t know is that in most schools, teachers actually have little say over the curriculum policies, the discipline problems, the discipline policies in the school day, et cetera. When I was a high school teacher when I tried to implement, sometimes I was just told to just shut up and go away sort of thing.
Ellen Moir: So you did.
Mariana Haynes: Ultimately, you did.
Ellen Moir: You didn’t shut up but you did go away.
Richard Ingersoll: So now I’m trying to have a voice and so the idea is, again, let’s treat this line of work more as a profession. The idea is that professionals have the expertise and let’s take advantage of that expertise, and then a lot more of these reforms would actually work.
Ellen Moir: That’s right, because America spends billions and billions of dollars on professional development that teachers hate. I just think we could do such a better job by really engaging in the teacher voice that both Terry and Richard – what we’re all advocating.
Mariana Haynes: Well, this is a great place to end this webinar. Thank you so much. This has been a wonderful conversation, very powerful, very compelling. Thank you, and thank you to all of you for joining us. All of the archived video and many of the resources you’ve heard about today will be posted on the all4ed.org/webinars location as well as the brief, “On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers,” as well as the PowerPoint slides.
So thank you, again, and have a great day.
[End of Audio]
Welcome to the Alliance for Excellent Education’s Action Academy, an online learning community of education advocates. We invite you to create an account, expand your knowledge on the most pressing issues in education, and communicate with others who share your interests in education reform.
or register for Action Academy below: