Americans love their teachers. This may surprise you given the current media storm surrounding public education. Yet 71 percent of Americans said, when asked in this year’s PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, that they have trust and confidence in the men and women who teach in the public schools, and 67 percent said they would like a child of theirs to take up teaching, the highest favorable response to this question since we first asked it over 30 years ago. This level of support is not included in recent media coverage.

Americans also understand how important great teachers are to our nation’s schools. In the poll, they told us that the single most important national education program should focus on quality teaching and teachers.

At PDK International we believe that the one of the most important school reform strategies must focus on finding and keeping great teachers. Making no apologies, teachers and principals need to identify and nurture the young people we want to join our profession and to show them how teaching will look very different in the future and as a result be even more rewarding.

Our model of real school reform focuses on providing support and opportunities to educators all along their career path. The PDK family of associations includes the Future Educators Association® (FEA), a student organization that recruits the best and brightest high school students to become the next generation of great educators. FEA particularly focuses on recruiting students from underrepresented populations and those students with high aptitudes in science and math.

In March 2010, the United States Department of Education recognized how important FEA is and granted it status to receive federal Perkins funds, which provides financial support to high school FEA programs across the country. With access to federal dollars many states—including Arizona, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and others—are aggressively supporting new FEA classes in partnership with colleges and universities and with affiliates at the National Education Association and the National Association of Secondary School Principals.

PDK’s commitment to recruiting and keeping great teachers does not stop with the Future Educators Association®. Just last month, Pi Lambda Theta (PLT), the colligate honor society for educators with the highest objective standards for membership, joined the PDK family of associations. PLT recognizes and celebrates exceptional academic achievement of undergraduate and graduate education students, and then assists them through those first critical years transitioning to the classroom. After making costly investments in their training, our nation can no longer afford to lose half of our new teachers within the first five years of entering the profession. 

Yes, Americans love their teachers, and we know why. In this year’s PDK/Gallup poll, we asked Americans to tell us words that describe the teacher who had the most positive influence in their lives. The top two responses were “caring” and “encouraging.” Educators have the capability to touch the hearts and minds of our nation’s students in ways more profound than what can be measured on standardized tests. Every day, they change lives. That’s why finding and keeping great teachers must be our nation’s number one priority, and why it is PDK’s mission as a great association of education professionals.

McKinsey & Co released a report, “Closing the Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining Top-Third Graduates to Careers in Teaching,” that misses the mark in how to attract and retain the best young people to the education profession.  To read the report, you would believe the only career attractor is salary.  Au contraire!

For some, salary is the driver. However, Dan Pink, in his book Drive: the Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, “makes an excellent case that focusing only on salaries as a workplace attractor and motivator misses important future trends that he links to his “Motivation 3.0.” Dan writes that autonomy, mastery, and purpose are the three elements that will attract tomorrow’s employees to tomorrow’s workplaces, including in our nation’s schools and classrooms.

Sure, comfortable salaries and other fringe benefits are important, but these are not the primary drivers that McKinsey researchers would lead us to believe are essential to attracting the best educators in the future. In contrast to the McKinsey report, the leaders at the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) have identified a far more compelling proposition for how the education profession can attract and retain the next wave of great teachers. In his Phi Delta Kappan article, “The Next Generation of Learning Teams,”  (October 2009) Tom Carroll, NCTAF president, presents an alternate teaching model utilizing cross-generational learning teams that benefit student learning while improving teacher recruitment and retention efforts.

In this compelling article, Tom argues that the current model of the classroom teacher as a sole practitioner defies a movement that is occurring in all workplaces. Businesses and organizations are moving away from individual employees working in silos independent of one another, toward a working environment that utilizes cross-functional teams that focus on learning, innovation, and collective action. Schools must do the same. NCTAF describes this model as “learning teams” working in “learning studios” to address “learning challenges.” Their research depicts a very different work environment in our schools that is far more attractive than how our schools currently operate—an environment that will both attract and retain great educators, while significantly increasing student learning.

PDK has a vested interest in attracting then next generation of great teachers. The Future Educators Association®—a member of the PDK International family of associations—is the only federally-recognized, high school-based student organization that recruits and prepares high school students to become the next generation of great educators. Pi Lambda Theta (PLT), also a member of the PDK family, continues what FEA starts by recognizing and supporting exceptional undergraduate and graduate students in education.

It rests with PDK and other education organizations to show these prospective members of our profession a vastly improved way to work together—to to be both learners and teachers at the same time, as Tom Carroll and his team at NCTAF envision. PDK is highly motivated to take on this task. The McKinsey & Co. report, “Closing the Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining Top-Third Graduates to Careers in Teaching,” is wrong. Fortunately, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) presents a much better alternative: a forward-looking approach to attracting and retaining great educators that recognizes the intrinsic rewards great employees crave and deserve.

In both my education and Navy careers, I’ve held many leadership positions. Whether I was a division officer on a United States Navy destroyer, high school principal, deputy superintendent at the Michigan Department of Education, or executive director of PDK, I worked daily with others to solve problems.

And in all those jobs, we didn’t start the problem solving process by assigning blame. Problems are solved by understanding the problem, then researching solutions, then implementing those solutions in ways that address the original problem. Finger-pointing is not a step in this problem-solving process because assigning blame never solved a problem. If anything, finger-pointing ensures that the problem remains because we  lose support from people who will help solve the problem. So what’s my point?

I watched the movie Waiting for Superman. It is a dramatic movie, and I like many in the audience, cried at the end. The movie captures moms, dads and grandparents wanting the best education possible for their child or grandchild, knowing that a good education opens doors of opportunities. I get that. It’s exactly what my wife and I wanted for our daughter. No question—those opportunities are not available to all children—and that’s wrong.

To its credit, the movie portrays, in a very personal way, the inequities not just in our schools but in our society.  In following urban families, we gain an understanding of the challenges they face.  It’s very moving, and the movie helps audience members understand that we have not incorporated new teaching approaches quickly enough in our public schools.

After all, our schools were designed 100 years ago and they “sorta” worked for 75 years—for many but not all of our children. But what “sorta” worked then isn’t working now for an increasing percentage of students. We have problems with our current educational system. It’s essential that we find solutions.

But finger-pointing doesn’t solve the problem. No, it’s not the parents fault, or the politicians, or teachers or even teacher unions, and we can’t blame the students.  We have been unable to react quickly enough to globalization, technology, a new economy, and unforeseen needs in our workplace. And as a nation, we continue to do a poor job addressing equity and opportunity for all of our citizens. But we need to work together to solve these problems—and we need to recognize that it will take time, and that there are no silver bullets.

I’ll be curious to watch what effect the movie “Waiting for Superman” will have. Will its dramatization result in a clarion call for change with people working together, or because the movie decided to identify scapegoats, will it result in segments of our citizens working at cross purposes, ensuring that we continue to do what we’re currently doing?

Bill

So often, we hear that students need to learn “critical thinking.” After watching “Waiting for Superman” and hearing the unrelenting chorus of support for that movie, I’d say many adults need to improve their own critical thinking skills.

Filmmakers, even those who call themselves documentarians, muster the facts they need to support their point of view. Nobody should mistake Davis Guggenheim’s film for a piece of journalism. It is clearly not that. He starts off with a point of view and pursues it all the way to the credits. Viewers, of course, have no clue about what was left on the cutting room floor because it didn’t adhere to Guggenheim’s point of view. My guess would be a lot.

Guggenheim is clearly charmed by the notion that charter schools are the way to improve public education. And he has predictably chosen the teachers union, especially the AFT and Randi Weingarten, as the bogeyman. He makes a lame attempt to demonstrate that suburban education also needs improvement but the  focus of his story is really on the woes of urban education.

He’s right, of course, that the quality of education in many urban schools is awful. Washington, D.C. chancellor Michelle Rhee says quite bluntly that the kids in her district are getting a “crappy” education.

But charter schools are not the solution and the unions alone are not the problem. Every gain made by the union has been accepted by someone on the other side of the table, whether it’s been a negotiated or a legislative change. The union isn’t capable of making sweeping change, positive or negative, by itself. Union leaders like Weingarten require partners in every effort. So, any criticism of excessive union power grabs must be accompanied by an equal amount of contempt for the school board members and legislators who allowed them to achieve so many of their goals. Who, for example, agreed to the outrageous use of the “rubber room” in New York City?

The problem with American education is that most adults simply don’t care about the quality of their local schools. They complain loudly and consistently about paying too much in taxes, failing to recognize the benefit of what they receive in return. They pay little attention to whom they elect for local school boards and once their own children are out of the system, schools are far from their minds. Adults who don’t live in urban centers generally don’t understand that the quality of education in that big hub city is relevant to the healthy future of their states, indeed the entire national economy. So, when they read about some of the shenanigans in urban districts, they turn a blind eye — or worse, talk about “those” people — because they think it doesn’t affect them.

The challenges facing our schools are evidence of a much deeper national divide over race and culture. There is a deep-seated unwillingness to do what it takes to provide excellent education for all children — especially poor black and brown children. That’s a battle we’ve been fighting in this country for decades and one that  won’t be resolved by building more charter schools or by bashing the union.

As Michelle Rhee asked at the end of the movie, do we have the fortitude to make the difficult decisions? By that, she really means do we have the will to support leaders when they make the difficult decisions. I think the answer is too often, no.

But, where there’s a will, there is a way. The question is whether Americans have the will to create classrooms that serve all children. This is not an issue for educators alone. Ninety percent of the teachers and principals in the public schools already answer that question every day just by showing up to work. None of them start the day intending to provide a “crappy” education for a child. But, can the broader American public be convinced to care at the same deep level about providing every child with a quality education. Can a movie spur such a widespread response? I hope it does, but I think it might be naïve to expect that it will.

The September 20, 2010 issue of Time Magazine has a couple of articles on education. One is entitled, “How to Recruit Better Teachers” by John Cloud. I don’t agree with everything in the article but, overall I think its balanced reporting. What fascinates me is what’s missing.

If we’re talking about recruiting better teachers, why don’t we, except for Phi Delta Kappa, recognize that the place to start recruiting is high school? We have complete and unfettered access to the next generation of great teachers in our high schools. All we need to do is to create programs that identify, support and mentor the best high school students so they can join our ranks in the future.

It’s simple. U.S. high schools identify their best teachers to teach a class about becoming an educator.  Students would learn the latest research on effective teaching, whether they might become an elementary, secondary or postsecondary educator. The class would be engaging and hands-on–designed as a class that would attract the best students (we can do this as the Teach for America program demonstrates).  It would factually present information on the advantages of becoming a teacher and the skills required. There would be particular attention to address areas of highest need, i.e., math and science teachers, and recruiting great young people from underrepresented populations so that the complexion of our teaching force more closely mirrors our students. There are three essential elements to making a program like this successful.

Funding – A high school teacher recruitment program must not cost U.S. high schools lots of money to implement. Fortunately, this issue has been addressed now that PDK’s Future Educators Association® (FEA) program has federal recognition. Federal Perkins dollars will cover most of the costs for a local high school class.

A Great Recruiter – The U.S. military identifies it best members to serve as recruiters. We need to do the same. The teacher of record must be terrific, someone who is caring, encouraging, personable, all the important traits that Americans associate with their best teachers (see this year’s PDK/Gallup poll results at pdkpoll.org). A place to start is to utilize teachers who have received national board certification.

Looking Ahead – The curriculum for this class would describe what teaching will look like in the future. Content will include new research on what constitutes great teaching including the work at the University of Michigan’s Teacher Education Initiative, or materials coming out of Barnett Berry’s Center for Teaching Quality. Using technology to extend the classroom would be another important component of the curriculum for a class on what it takes to become a great teacher.

At PDK, we’re implementing this program right now through FEA.  It is a long-term solution, not a quick fix, but it’s exciting to develop the only national high school-based teacher recruitment initiative.

So hopefully, when I open Time Magazine three years from now and read an article on recruiting great teachers, nothing will be missing as the article will describe how FEA is one important component contributing to a stronger American teaching force.

Bill

Often, the first question reporters ask when interviewing me about the PDK/Gallup poll results is, “What did you find most surprising?”That’s a good question because when you create new questions, you always have in your mind how you think Americans will respond. So here is my list of the most surprising results from the 2010 PDK/Gallup poll of the “Public’s Attitudes Toward their Public Schools.” (you can a FREE copy of the poll report at http://www.pdkpoll.org)

• When asked, 73% of Americans said they believe academic success is based on how hard students try, not on their natural ability. In creating this question, I thought Americans would be evenly split, half thinking it was natural ability, and the other half believing it was effort. It’s reassuring that most Americans still believe hard work pays off.
• With all the talk by the President and others about turning around poor performing schools, I was surprised that only one in five Americans believes that the federal government should hold schools accountable. I wish the U.S. Department of Education leaders would examine their accountability strategies and recognize that they must work closely with state departments of educations (SEA). I think they understand SEA’s are the agent for accountability but their messages are either off target or misinterpreted.
• It should never surprise me that Americans believe in fairness. When asked what the primary purpose of teacher evaluation should be, 60% of Americans indicated that evaluation should be used to help teachers improve their ability to teach, significantly higher than the other two alternatives, i.e., documenting ineffectiveness that could lead to dismissal, and establishing salaries based upon performance.
• I was pleasantly surprised by the high percentage of Americans (71%) who state that they have trust and confidence in the men and women who teach in the public schools. 
• I was surprised that from a list, Americans picked improving the quality of our teachers as the most important national education initiative. It demonstrates that Americans are willing to commit to long-term strategies as opposed to short-term initiatives that some policymakers find more favorable.

What never surprises me is the common sense that Americans display in responding to our questions each year about public schooling in America.

I’ve always had kind of a split personality at the start of the school year. There was the little girl who looked forward to donning a new outfit, strapping on a new pair of shoes, and rushing off to meet my new teacher. But there was also the worrier Joan, the one who was in a new school and fretted about making friends, not knowing what to wear or where to sit.

I’m facing this school year in much the same vein.

Money more than learning is likely to be the theme of the coming year as schools start to walk off, fall off, or get pushed off the funding cliff. Some schools and districts will face this with aplomb and not waste the crisis. Others will take a header over the edge, never realizing they had other options.

As districts approach the edge of the cliff, three ideas are likely to generate a lot of heat, if not light. I see possibilities in every one of them, and also reasons for worry.

School district consolidations
As spending ability continues to spiral downward, expect to hear a lot more about district consolidations.

Reducing the number of superintendents and school boards and eliminating duplicated services at the district level would be the name of the game. But there are mixed reviews about how much savings actually accrue from such changes. If those saved dollars are used to preserve classroom jobs or if a consolidation increases district capacity, then consolidations could be a worthy move.

But don’t expect local districts to volunteer for this because the powers-that-be are exactly the ones who would be losing their positions. That means state legislatures would have to find the will to set standards for consolidations. Too bad the money that will be spent lobbying on this question can’t be spent on kids instead.

Technology
Standing on the edge of the cliff may finally convince districts to explore opportunities presented by new technologies. Collaborations between districts or colleges regardless of distance would enable schools to offer certain courses through virtual networks and to share the cost of a teacher.

2010 has already witnessed a shift in book sales; textbooks are surely the next frontier. Amazon revealed in July that its sales of e-books had topped its sales of print volumes for the first time. How long will it take before districts turn to e-books as an alternative to printed textbooks for all students in all courses? Equipping every student with an e-reader can’t be that far away.

Embraced wisely, technology can retain or expand options for students and excite them anew with the possibilities of learning. Or the money can be squandered as badly as in the day when districts sold bonds to pay for computers in the classrooms.

Teacher pay
The new PDK/Gallup Poll on the Public Attitudes Toward the Public Schools makes clear that quality teaching is the public’s top national priority for education. But, as adults feel their own belts being tightened, they are increasingly angry at teachers for seeking higher salaries and retaining benefits that the rest of us lost long ago. They are tired, really tired, of the standard pay scale for teachers and want to see pay tied to improvements in student learning. Many in the public perceive teacher pay as the culprit that’s threatening to push districts over the financial edge.

The twin pressures of the march toward the cliff and the aggressive efforts by the Obama-Duncan team to promote performance pay mean lots of action on teacher pay is looming. Because performance pay will go hand in hand with changes in teacher evaluation, introducing performance pay could achieve what the anti-tenure crowd could not: a way to muster out low-performing teachers. And that will be a very popular move with the public.

Not even massive infusions of money from Gates, Broad, and other benefactors can prevent this funding crisis. When we finally land on solid ground again, my guess is that the face of American education will be sharply different than before we began. En route, some districts will surely crash on the rocks, either unable or unwilling to navigate their way down the wall. But some districts will seize the opportunity of the crisis, find their wings, and fly off that cliff to safety. I really hope my kids are in those schools.

I just finished an hour-long webinar (Kappan Conversations: Beyond the Printed Page) with Steve Wolk about his article in the April Kappan, “What Should Students Read?” In this exceptional article, Steve challenges schools and teachers to get out of the rut of teaching the same books year after year. By broadening the literature that students read, he says teachers will bring immediacy and spontaneity to student learning.

During the webinar, Steve talked about his view that teaching is a profession that requires courage and creativity. Part of being a teacher is being willing to take risks on behalf of students. As he notes, most teachers have more freedom than they are willing to use to decide what books to teach and how to teach them. Rather than stretch and push against perceived barriers, they too often stick with bland textbooks and the tried-and-true classics.

“Teachers aren’t encouraged to take risks but part of being a professional is about taking risks,” he said. “If we wait for someone else to change our schools, our schools won’t change. Teachers have to change them.’’

He wrapped up our conversation by saying that he wishes teachers who do stretch beyond the ordinary would share their stories about their creative efforts.

Like Steve, I also want to hear those stories. So, I’ll throw out his challenge to you. What risk did you take this week to benefit your students? How did you connect a classic piece of literature to something from a newer genre? What new opportunity did you provide for your students because you believed they had the ability to learn something new? You can post those stories on the Kappan blog anytime. Maybe your one small step will encourage others to take their own step — or perhaps a leap.

The Learning First Alliance (LFA), a consortium of 17 of the largest and most influential education associations gathered for its annual leadership council meeting in Washington, D.C. on April 22-23, 2010. The leadership council includes elected association officers and their CEOs and deputies. I served as chair of the LFA executive board this year, and offered the following remarks at the beginning of the event.

“Welcome everyone to this year’s Learning First Alliance Leadership Council. I am Bill Bushaw, and it has been my privilege to chair LFA’s executive board this year. Foremost in the next two days is our opportunity to share our values with each other, and to do so with sincerity and candor.  And as we work together, I am confident that we will make great progress because of the talented and dedicated leaders sitting in this room.   

Speaking of a talented and dedicated leader, our executive director, Claus VonZastrow invited Jack Jennings to join us at the last LFA executive board meeting in March. Jack has directed the Center on Education Policy for the last 16 years and is one of the brightest men I know. During that meeting, Jack gave us a sound advice—advice I have often thought of since then.  He told us to identify our values about public education, and then propose a plan—our plan—based on our values.

With Claus’s leadership, we have done much of this already. For example, I think we agree that: 

• We want ALL children to have the skills they need to be as successful as possible. That’s been our focus for the last several LFA leadership councils.
• We want their parents and guardians to be central to that success.
• We want our nation’s teachers to have the resources they need and the respect they deserve.
• We want our school leaders, both appointed and elected, to have the skills and determination to rally their communities.
• And we want our universities to research better ways for teachers to teach and students to learn.

So it’s really quite simple.  We confirm our values and we put forth our plan.  But in doing so, we should recognize three challenges.

First, good plans take time to implement, and it takes time to see the results. Symbolic initiatives suggesting that real change can be measured in months are without merit. They waste everyone’s time.  We must get a message out to all Americans that we are committed to progress for the long haul, not for a quick headline. 

Second, we cannot wait for things to be perfect before implementing our plan. We will never have all the money we think we need; we will never have all the political support we think we want.  But we must not wait. We must start now.

Finally, drawing on an African proverb used often by Al Gore, if you want to go quickly, go alone—if you want to go far, go together.  We must reach out to others, recognizing that we will have differences, but in spite of those differences focus on the values that we have in common, and build upon these.

Whether it’s with the leaders in this administration; with the members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans; with other social agencies; or with the business community, we will need allies in order to deliver a 21st century education to ALL of our children.

The following quote is attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, If we are to achieve results never before accomplished, we must employ methods never before attempted. We have much to talk about in the next two days. Let us talk about our values; let us talk about our plans; and let us rededicate ourselves to work together within LFA and with others.  Let us employ methods never before attempted.”

Most agree that national education standards are politically unpalatable in the U.S., so in its place, 48 of the 50 governors and their state superintendents have volunteered to work together in developing common core state standards. This effort began last year, and since then, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) have made extraordinary progress. A draft K-12 common core standards became available for public comment on March 10, 2010, and initially, the standards have received mostly positive reactions. From my two previous blog posts, you should know that I fully support this effort.

So at a time when the initiative is making excellent progress, why would the President throw a wrench into the works? In February, President Obama announced to the nation’s governors that he wants state-level funding for Title I programs to be contingent upon the adoption of standards–whether it is the national common core standards, OR in lieu of that, standards that each state creates with their own four-year public university system, which must ensure that students who are not held to the national common core standards will not need remedial coursework upon admission to a postsecondary institution in the system.

This is a big stick or carrot depending upon how you view it, as Title I funding currently represents about $15 billion a year given to states. From my perspective, it undermines the voluntary underpinnings of this initiative.

So back to my question, why link common core standards to Title I funding?  I think the answer is simple—the governors and state superintendents wanted the President to make this link and raise the stakes to force state adoption of the standards with few or any changes. 

These state leaders realize that adoption of the standards will proceed through state-level hearings.  Invariably, that means state legislators, state board members, and others will want to alter, water down, or add additional standards.

At a personal level, I’ve witnessed the powerful forces to add standards during the standards creation process. It seems everyone has their “pet” requirements that must be covered, and this has resulted in too many standards; and this leads to teacher’s not being able to cover everything that’s required. The common core state standards initiative has fought this tendency successfully so far.

So here is a future scenario as I see it.  When a powerful state legislator proposes to the governor and the state superintendent that their state should eliminate five of the common core standards (“these are too difficult for our students”), and replace them with 15 other standards (“our students are unique from all other students and need these skills”), the governor and state superintendent will respond (tongue-in-cheek), that while they would like to consider the suggested changes, they can’t as it would jeopardize Title I funding.  This is called political cover.

So while I dislike the President connecting common core standards to Title I funding, having worked in the state-level education arena, I understand why the parties involved, i.e., the administration, the governors, and the state superintendents, have probably agreed that this is the route to go. 

What do you think?