With all good reason we focus school accountability on the improvement of student achievement and accomplishments. The bottom lining in most discussions about education relates to children. School Report Cards measure student academic achievements in reading and math, promotion and graduation rates, daily attendance, and student disruption/discipline events. When the measures of achievements increase and the measures of disruption/discipline decrease, especially when measured in each of the disaggregated student populations, we celebrate how a school has “moved the student achievement needle.”
The driver of school improvement, however, begins with the teachers who cause student learning. An essential question in the dynamic of moving the measurement needles of student achievement is “How are we addressing the measurement needles of teacher instruction and student nurturing?” If we do not take care of the engines for school improvement, we can only hope that students will intuit what they are supposed to know, do and be.
The first step in addressing teacher needle movement is to ask, “Does the teacher have a valid working needle?” It may seem to be a question asked and answered, but an appropriately licensed teacher is not always the case. Is the teacher licensed to teach the subjects assigned? With teacher shortages, teachers may be assigned to teach outside their licensed subject areas. This may be a short-term staffing fix, but it has consequences for student learning. Is the license a standard issue or an emergency or provisional license? Teachers who have not completed the criteria for a regular license often work with an emergency or provisional license while they complete the course work required for a regular license. Half- or partially-prepared teachers also present consequences for student learning. Teachers with emergency and provisional licenses also are less expensive to hire. What is the teacher’s most recent professional development in the subject of their approved license? Or, has the teacher renewed his or her license with credits or certificates unrelated to their licensed subject area? A teacher who was issued a regular license based upon their academic major, but constantly renews that license with non-subject area professional presents consequences for student learning. If your ELA or math teacher does not have a regular license and/or has not engaged in ELA or math professional development, your teacher does not have a working professional needle.
Apply the same inspection as presented above to each teaching assignment. The same pros and cons present themselves for teachers of art, business education, computer technology, foreign language, music, science, social studies, and technology education. Teachers with strong working professional needles make a more significant and consistent contribution to student learning than unprepared teachers.
The second step in addressing teacher needle work is to ask, “What is the school district doing to strengthen each teacher’s professional needle?” A school board invests in school facilities improvements, school technology improvements, school transportation improvements, curricular additions and improvements, and arts and athletics program improvements. Board investment in improving a school district’s assets is expected. So, what expectation exists for the board’s investment in their teachers’ professional development?
The first expectation should be one of aligning district goals and district resources. When the board makes improving student achievement a major district annual goal, the board should support that goal with a commensurate amount of time and money for the professional development needed to accomplish the goal. Time and money translate into professional development to strengthen and enhance teacher knowledge, skills and attributes.
The second expectations should be that professional development directly related to a teaching assignment is not negotiable by the board or by any teacher. Every teacher regardless of assignment should receive the same expectation for and financial support of their professional development. And, every teacher regardless of assignment should be required to engage in the district-provided professional development. The aggregate of professional development for all may seem like a lot of money, depending upon the size of the school staff. The aggregate of professional development for all also says a school board should expect significant movement in student achievement needles when the board annually aligns major financial resources to its major goals.
The third step is requiring every teacher to improve student achievement or accomplishments due to the teacher’s instruction. This step follows from assuring that every teacher is regularly licensed for their teaching assignment, every teacher is actively engaged in professional development to advance their licensed subject area, and the school board annually invests in professional development aligned with district annual goals for every teacher. If these three conditions are in place, then a school board should expect that every teacher will move the learning needles of students assigned to their instruction.
Some student achievement needles are measured and published – ELA and mathematics. Schools gain and lose comparable and competitive status based upon ELA and math needle movement. Because social studies and science education also are translated into Common Core-like standards and often are related to legislative mandates (civics and financial literacy education, science-based industry and careers), achievement in the social studies and science receive some public scrutiny albeit minor compared to ELA and math. Other achievement needles never seem to be discussed let alone measured and published. Art, music and theater education are applauded, but student knowledge and skills are not measured. Business, computer-science education, and technology education are vaunted by every state’s business and industrial lobbyists, but what gets measured also gets prioritized and these subjects linger in the shadows of open and public discussion.
Instead, a school board must discuss in open session its goals for annual improvement in student achievement and accomplishment in every subject. Measures of current student knowledge, skills and dispositions must be discerned and published along with expectations of improvement.
We can only imagine what could be achieved and accomplished in a school when every teacher is properly licensed, every teacher is engaged in profession development of their teaching assignment, every school board annually aligns and commits significant financial resources to its goals for the improvement of student learning in all subjects, and every teacher is required to advance measures of student learning every year.
“Can’t be done”, is the usual response to what this blog proposes. Teacher shortages in specific subject areas make short-cutting license alignment necessary. Budget shortages make hiring provisionally- and emergency-licensed teachers a necessity. “Pipe dreamer”, is the usual comment. No school district mandates district-provided professional development for all teachers. Teachers demand personal control of their professional development. “Expecting too much”, is the usual rejoinder. No district measures each student’s growth in every grade level and every subject area. It would take too much time and money and result in too little advantage.
That leaves us in the current status quo. Too often, we assign unprepared teachers, expect little from professional development, only talk about high expectations but make no investment in accomplishing those expectations, and do not require student growth in every grade level and every subject. If we don’t take the appropriate steps to assure that every teacher has a working profession needle with accountable investments and accountability for improving and working their needle, we can’t expect anything but happenstance to cause student achievement needles to be moved.