The Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report that recommends the best approach for increasing teaching effectiveness, or the extent to which teachers can, and do, contribute to students' learning. 

CAP proposes that the heart of the debate about “teaching-effectiveness reforms” include two very different types of strategies that school systems could leverage to increase the measured effectiveness of the teaching workforce. Sociologists and economists who study human capital call the first type of strategy “selection” and the second “development.” The report’s author, Craig D. Jerald, recommends a more memorable way to think of the two strategies: 

• “Movin’ it”: This strategy treats a teacher’s effectiveness as fixed at any given point and time, then uses selective recruitment, retention, and removal to attract and keep teachers with higher effectiveness, while removing teachers with lower effectiveness. The resulting “churn in the workforce" raises the average level of effectiveness over time.
• “Improvin’ it”: This strategy treats a teacher’s effectiveness as a mutable trait that can be improved with time. If enough teachers improved their effectiveness, then the accumulated gains would boost the average effectiveness in the workforce.

The report argues that policymakers at all levels should seize the opportunity to move beyond the belief that schools need to choose one strategy or the other and instead encourage school systems to maximize gains in teaching effectiveness by leveraging a combination of “movin’ it” and “improvin’ it” policies. 

The report concludes by providing the following recommendations to increase teaching effectiveness:

• Federal and state policymakers should incentivize school systems to eradicate ineffectual and unproven professional development and invest in proven models.
• School systems should describe how they will anticipate and prevent hurdles while supporting, overseeing, and monitoring professional development to ensure that it gets the results it should.
• Districts should conduct comprehensive audits of all of their investments in professional development to determine whether each investment, and all investments taken together, provides real opportunities for all teachers to improve.
• States and districts implementing new evaluation systems should take every step possible to ensure that the feedback teachers receive from evaluations is as valuable as teachers have been promised.

Read the report on the CAP website.

The Center on Education Policy (CEP) recently released an update to its 2006 Public Education Primer. The 2012 edition highlights important and sometimes little-known facts concerning the U.S. education system, how things have changed over time, and how they may change in the future. Together these facts provide a comprehensive picture of the nation’s public schools, including data about students, teachers, funding, achievement, management, and non-academic services. The Primer is posted on the CEP website and can be downloaded free-of-charge.

To advance the quality of literacy instruction in the United States, the International Reading Association ― the world's foremost expert on literacy ― today announced the formation of an expert research panel that will provide leadership regarding some of the biggest issues in the field. 

The Literacy Research Panel, which is chaired by the preeminent literacy researcher and author P. David Pearson, Ph.D., of the University of California at Berkley, will respond to critical literacy issues facing policymakers, school administrators, teacher educators, classroom teachers, parents and the general public. 

The panel has identified four critical issues in literacy that will serve as its opening focus:

The Achievement Gap. While the disparity in academic performance of students of different races has narrowed slightly, the gap between socioeconomic levels has actually increased. According to the U.S. Department of Education's 2011 Condition of Education report, about 68 percent of 12th-graders in high-poverty schools graduated with a diploma in 2008, compared to 91 percent of 12th-graders in low-poverty schools. Moreover, the gap between the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile continues to widen.  

Motivation and Engagement. Though the high school dropout rate has been incrementally decreasing in recent years, an alarming 28 percent of students still do not graduate on time. This problem isn't contained to high school ― 25 percent of college freshmen drop out before the end of their first semester. Many students simply aren't being motivated or engaged in a way that will lead to increased retention at either the high school or college levels.  

Standards and Assessments. The new Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts present many challenges, including classroom implementation and professional development, and strong guidance is needed for schools to use the standards in a way that benefits students.  

Teacher Education. The ability to assess student literacy progress toward curricular goals and to lead effective classroom conversations are vital skills in need of systematic development. We need better methods of teacher evaluation and a way to counter the implicit assumption in policy circles that there's no payoff for teacher education or professional development.

"I'm thrilled that the International Reading Association has taken this bold step to reassert IRA's role in informing policy and practice at all levels — international, national, state and local," said Dr. Pearson, chair of the IRA Literacy Research Panel and professor of Language and Literacy, Society and Culture at Berkley's Graduate School of Education. "We need to make sure that our most trusted research is used to improve professional development and classroom practice on the way to more equitable achievement for every group of students — anywhere and everywhere."

The panel intends to engage with policy circles at the national and state level. However, the panel aims to do more than affect policy change; it aims to enhance effective literacy instruction across the country by introducing constructive initiatives to change policy and practices where it matters — in districts and schools.

Members of the Literacy Research Panel include:

• Peter Afflerbach, Ph. D., professor of Curriculum and Instruction and director of the Reading Center at the University of Maryland
• Nell Duke, Ed.D, professor of teacher education and educational psychology and co-director of the Literacy Achievement Research Center (LARC) at Michigan State University
• Virginia Goatley, Ph.D., ex officio, research director at the International Reading Association and associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Albany
• John Guthrie, Ph.D., professor emeritus, Department of Human Development at the University of Maryland
• Kris Gutierrez, Ph.D., professor of Literacy and Learning Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder
• Kenji Hakuta, Ph.D., the Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education at Stanford University
• Peter Johnston, chair of the Department of Reading at the University of Albany
• Gloria Ladson-Billings, Ph.D., the Kellner Family Chair in Urban Education and Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Nonie Leseaux, Ph.D., the Marie and Max Kargman associate professor in Human Development and Urban Education Advancement at the Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Elizabeth Moje, Ph.D., associate dean for Research and Arthur F. Thurnau Professor in the School of Education at the University of Michigan
• Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar, Ph.D., the Jean and Charles Walgreen Jr. Chair of Reading and Literacy and a teacher educator in Educational Studies at the University of Michigan
• P. David Pearson, Ph.D., chair of the Literacy Research Panel and professor of Language and Literacy, Society and Culture at the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley
• Victoria Risko, Ed.D., ex officio, president of the International Reading Association President and professor of education emerita at Vanderbilt University
• Timothy Shanahan, Ph.D., professor of urban education, director of the Center for Literacy and department chairman of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Illinois at Chicago
• Catherine Snow, Ph.D., the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Karen Wixson, Ph.D., dean of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro's School of Education

"Each year, students struggle to excel because they lack the necessary literacy skills," said International Reading Association President and ex officio Literacy Research Panel Member Victoria Risko. "In the United States, an estimated 32 million adults are unable to read, and about 40 percent of high school graduates lack the literacy skills sought by employers. We're proud to call attention to this issue and work with teachers to improve the quality of literacy instruction across the globe."

The Panel's specific action steps in addressing its four priorities will be determined in the coming months. The Panel will participate in several activities at the International Reading Association's 2012 Convention to be held in Chicago from April 29 to May 2.

Members of the Panel will also serve as a resource for the editors of Reading Research Quarterly

as well as for IRA's director of research. They will also support the Association's advocacy mission.

For more information on the Literacy Research Panel, read this article from the December 2011/January 2012 issue of Reading Today. 

 

In their study entitled The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Students’ Outcomes in Adulthood, Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman from Harvard and Jonah Rockoff from Columbia pose the question: “Is teacher value-added a good measure of teacher quality?” Their report analyses the “value-added” (VA) approach, which rates teachers based on their students’ test score gains. A teacher's VA is defined as the average test-score gain for his or her students, adjusted for differences across classrooms in student characteristics (such as their previous scores).

The VA question has sparked debate largely because of disagreement about (1) whether VA  provides unbiased estimates of teachers’ impacts on student achievement and (2) whether high-VA teachers improve students’ long-term outcomes.

The researchers analyzed school district data from grades 3-8 for 2.5 million children linked to tax records on parent characteristics and adult outcomes. Their report abstract states that students assigned to high-VA teachers are more likely to attend college, attend higher ranked colleges, earn higher salaries, live in higher SES neighborhoods, and save more for retirement. They are also less likely to have children as teenagers. On average, having such a teacher for one year raises a child's cumulative lifetime income by $50,000 (equivalent to $9,000 in present value at age 12 with a 5% interest rate). They propose that the earnings gains from replacing a low value-added (bottom 5%) teacher with one of average quality grow as more data are used to estimate VA.

The researchers conclude that good teachers create substantial economic value and that test score impacts are helpful in identifying such teachers.

To view the report, charts, presentation slides, and a video of the presentation, visit http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.html.

 

 

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the report Improved Federal Enforcement Needed to Better Protect Students' Rights to Testing Accommodations (GAO-12-40) about higher education and disability.

Standardized tests are often required to gain admission into postsecondary schools or to obtain professional certifications. Federal disability laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require entities that administer these tests to provide accommodations, such as extended time or changes in test format, to students with disabilities. GAO examined (1) the types of accommodations individuals apply for and receive and how schools assist them, (2) factors testing companies consider when making decisions about requests for accommodations, (3) challenges individuals and testing companies experience in receiving and granting accommodations, and (4) how federal agencies enforce compliance with relevant disability laws and regulations.

To conduct this work, GAO interviewed disability experts; individuals with disabilities; officials from high schools, postsecondary schools, testing companies; and officials from the Departments of Justice (Justice), Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS). GAO also reviewed testing company policies and data, federal complaint and case data for selected testing companies, and relevant laws and regulations.

GAO recommends that the Department of Justice take steps to develop a strategic approach to enforcement such as by analyzing its data and updating its technical assistance manual. Justice agreed with GAO’s recommendation.

Among accommodations requested and granted in the most recent testing year, approximately three-quarters were for extra time, and about half were for applicants with learning disabilities. High school and postsecondary school officials GAO interviewed reported advising students about which accommodations to request and providing documentation to testing companies, such as a student’s accommodations history.

For more information, visit http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-40.