Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Internet creates a rise in cut-and-paste plagiarism

About the writer

Kellie B. Gormly is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer 

"I'm not an idiot," Danae Brentzel-Martina tells her high-school English students. "So don't try to play me for one by plagiarizing on your papers."
Plagiarizing -- claiming someone else's words as your own without proper credits -- may be shameful, but not uncommon. In a Pew Research Center study released in August, 55 percent of college presidents said plagiarism had increased in the past decade; 89 percent of those who thought plagiarizing was on the increase cited the Internet was a major reason.
According to surveys of students and faculty by Rutgers Business School in Newark, N.J., about 33 to 40 percent of high-school and college students admit to having done some kind of cut-and-paste plagiarism.
Academic integrity is important, as is respecting people's intellectual property, says Brentzel-Martina, who teaches her students to value their own ideas and work and to give credit to other people's.
"My goal is that they know how to do it (credit) properly by the time they leave my classroom," she says. "One of the biggest things that I work on in my classrooms is encouraging them to have their own ideas, so they don't feel the need to ... fall back on cheating."
When the Norwin High School teacher sees something suspicious -- often caught through the computer program called Turnitin -- she will meet with the student privately. Sometimes, the student admits to cheating by copying someone's else's work, often from the Internet. Brentzel-Martina might will give students a chance to fix it, if they simply failed to cite their sources properly.
But in clear-cut, deliberate cases of plagiarism, the students will fail the assignment. A second offense could lead to the principal's office and failing the course.
Plagiarizing is easier than ever for students, who can just copy something from a website, change the font and electronically paste it into their papers. Yet, the same technology that makes plagiarism easier for students to do makes it easier for teachers to catch. Many schools use anti-plagiarism computer programs. Turnitin, which 10,000 educational institutions use in 126 countries, scans papers and the Internet and reports on text matches.
The Turnitin software has helped numerous high-school teachers and college professors enforce academic integrity in the electronic age, says Chris Harrick of the Oakland, Calif.-based Turnitin.com.
"The means to commit plagiarism is much easier," says Harrick, a native of Peters. "It's definitely a growing concern among educators."
Turnitin isn't intended to be punitive, Harrick says. It may catch cheaters, but it, ultimately, aims to teach kids how to paraphrase and cite sources properly.
"We look at Turnitin not as a policing tool, but more as an educational tool for engaging students and helping instructors," he says.
Brentzel-Martina calls Turnitin her first line of defense. After that, she catches plagiarism the old-fashioned way: watching for writing that just looks fishy. The writing may be above the student's ability level, or it may shift in voice and tone in parts of the paper. Often, if she Googles something that looks suspicious, she will find it online.
Many people may assume that students plagiarize deliberately because they are lazy and just want to avoid doing their own work by stealing someone else's. Yet, these cases are the minority, Harrick and Brentzel-Martina say. She had a student who plagiarized on a personal-reflection essay years ago. When confronted, he told her, "I thought you'd rather have it be right than what I think."
"It's rarely that they're lazy," Brentzel-Martina says. "They're so afraid to be wrong."
Wendy Skinner, dean of students at Shady Side Academy in Fox Chapel, agrees. Students usually don't intend to steal someone else's work. Often, Skinner will hear students say that they were up until 1 a.m. working on a writing assignment, ran out of energy, and copied some work into the paper as a last resort.
"They rarely plagiarize when they are well rested and when they have plenty of time to do the assignment," Skinner says.
Plagiarism contains some gray areas and can be confusing, Skinner says. For instance, maybe a student will repeat a paragraph almost word-for-word from another source, but the paragraph contains mostly factual information and isn't easily rephrased. Maybe students gave proper attributions and citations in their papers, but only changed a few words here and there.
Sometimes, a highly gifted student may raise suspicions because his or her writing is so good, Skinner says, but after a few assignments, the teacher will know and recognize the student's ability.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Six Ways to Avoid Feeling Isolated in the Classroom

BY REBECCA ALBER
1/9/12

        In her work with UCLA's Graduate School of Education, Rebecca Alber assists teachers and schools in meeting students' academic needs through best practices. Alber also instructs online teacher-education courses for Stanford University.

It's easy to get caught up in the worlds of the tikes, teens, or tweens we teach. I remember after a couple of years of teaching eleventh graders, I would fall into speaking teenspeak to my friends. They would give me a funny look as I said, "And you know, it's like, whatever."

Unlike our friends and family working in the private sector, we teachers spend 98 percent of our time, not with peers, but with children and in our classrooms. So it's easy to forget to reach out and have adult conversations during our workdays. (Taking breaks from the room where you teach is also important.)

Sure, PLNs and other online social networking groups are fantastic and definitely serve a purpose, but we are human -- and we need human contact and connection.

And especially with humans are own age. (There's nothing more disconcerting than making a reference to pop culture you think kids you teach will know. I recently referenced the singer Prince. The students stared at me blankly...FAIL!)

With budget cuts being what they are these days, less and less professional development opportunities are happening for teachers during the workday. So it's even more important to get proactive and create time to collaborate or just connect with your colleagues.

Here are some suggestions:

Arrange to eat lunch with a few colleagues at least twice a week. If you are inviting kids to your room, or sitting alone in your classroom with your thoughts and turkey sandwich, fine, but just not everyday.
Create a time once a week or every other week where you merge your class with another teacher's. Meet outside, in the cafeteria, or library to read together, do writer's workshop, or practice speech debate.
If a secondary teacher, co-teach once in awhile during your conference time. The other teacher can do the same, lending you a helping hand. Follow the visit with a reflective conversation sharing how you think the lesson went.
Create a walking club with a group of teachers and office staff. Walk the block or campus during lunch or recess.
How about a lunch time book club?
Host a round robin share once a week with a group of colleagues you admire. Sit in a circle and each share for 3 minutes a strategy, activity, or project that really shined that week in your classroom. Leave 10 minutes after the round robin for one on one time to give specifics for those wanting more information.
If it's just too difficult to do much with other adults during your workday...

Visit a museum or gallery with a colleague after work, or see a film related to education or your content and follow it up with a coffee/cocktail and a chat
For early risers, have breakfast together or a cup of coffee before the start of the school day
Sign up with a colleague for an evening class or weekend conference
The key here is that isolating in your classroom can be a fast road to feeling low efficacy, lonely, even unhappy -- in plain, to burning out. And burn out is the great hazard of our profession. Staying connected, in real time, face-to-face, with your teacher colleagues is essential.

About his research on happiness, Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert puts it this way:

"We are by far the most social species on Earth," explains Gilbert. "If I wanted to predict your happiness, and I could know only one thing about you, I wouldn't want to know your gender, religion, health, or income. I'd want to know about your social network -- about your friends and family and the strength of the bonds with them."

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

An Educator's End-of-the-Year Thoughts



















A former teacher and instructional coach, Elena Aguilar is now a transformational leadership coach in the Oakland Unified School District.

The responses to my post last week raised some interesting questions. I described how I offered my middle school students the letter-writing genre as a way to express their feelings. Many wrote to loved ones who were no longer in their lives; their letters were powerful and heavy with emotions.
One reader raised questions about how teachers can prepare for and manage students' emotions that arise. This has had me thinking about my responsibility as a teacher with the fragile emotional states of young children. At the time that my students began writing the letters I described, I'd been their teacher for over a year -- I looped with my middle school students. I knew them well; they knew me. I believe there was a lot of trust. I don't know if I would have, or should have opened up such emotions had this not been established.
At the same time, however, I know that my students came to school with a whole lot on their minds. Giving them some space to express these feelings might have allowed them to process their experiences, or release them enough to be able to focus on other things. I don't know.
I was reminded of an article I read a few months ago about another teacher in Oakland, in a high school for recent immigrants. At Oakland International High School, Thi Bui, the school's art teacher offers her ninth and tenth graders the genre of the graphic novel as a way to tell their immigration stories. Her students communicate their sometimes traumatic experiences in a visual form -- how appropriate and meaningful for students who speak very little English.

Vacation

I'm supposed to be writing my book -- seven hours a day -- that was my goal. So far this week I've logged less than an hour. Sometimes you just need a break from work. You need to cook for your family, build legos with your boy, watch distracting TV shows.
A beautiful friend, colleague, artist, and the mother of two little children recently received the worst news possible, the kind we all dread. News that comes with a time frame. News that includes the words "metastases." She's not even 40 yet. She did a year of every kind of grueling treatment you can imagine. She has two babies.
This news put a stop to my creative output this week. Right now, there's not much I can do for her, in spite of my desire.

Next Year

As is natural, I suppose, I've been reflecting on my own mortality, my choices, and how I spend my days. My first thought: Too much time spent working. Next year -- less working, more time with family, more time to sing and hike and hug my boy.
Maybe next year more of a balance. I love my work; it's deeply meaningful and energizing and my son does have his own emerging life. Maybe a little less time working, once the book is done.
Do you make New Year's resolutions? I prefer "intentions" (I feel less guilty when I break them). For inspiration, see these resolutions by the folk singer/songwriter, Woody Guthrie. Strangely, many of them resonate, especially the last one.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Things We Love About Teachers

WATstaff

8 Things We Love About Teachers

by WAT Staff  

love_heart.pngTeachers are an incredible group of people—and we should know because we spend every day working with thousands of teachers around the country.  And, not surprisingly, the more we've worked with teachers, the more we've discovered the corporate love of learning, love of kids and love of education that teachers as a whole seem to have.  Here are 8 things we love about teachers

  1. They're dedicated.  When a teacher becomes a teacher, they're not just taking a job, they're committing themselves fully to the care and education of twenty (or more!) kids.  Every day. 
  2. They go above and beyond.  There are few teachers who stick to worksheets and lectures, but we've never met them.  Instead, every teacher we know goes above and beyond to deliver innovative, interesting and creative lessons that engage, inspire and teach. 
  3. They're fun.  We dare you to go into any faculty lounge at lunchtime in any school in America and try not to laugh.  It's impossible.  That's because teachers are a lot of fun—it shows  and they make learning fun for our kids.
  4. They love technology.  We believe that technology plays a vital role in our children's future—teachers seem to innately understand that and work hard to give their students opportunities to interact with new technology in a meaningful way.
  5. They love kids.  Ask any teacher why they do what they do and they'll tell you it's for the kids.  And, since their motivation is in the right place, the kids benefit.
  6. They love learning.  Who better to teach kids than someone who loves to learn?  Teachers love to learn.About literature.  About science.  About technology.  About everything.  Talk about inspiring!
  7. They're multitaskers.  Let's just say that anyone who can make algebraic equations interesting to ten-year-olds while simultaneously contemplating the varying learning styles in their classroom and remembering core standards is the ultimate multitasker.
  8. They're innovative.  Put ten teachers in a room and you'll get ten different ideas on how to teach any given lesson.  Isn't that what we want for our kids?  Creative and innovative teachers inspire creative and innovative students.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Theresa: I AM a teacher!

Theresa: I AM a teacher!

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
Theresa
“Oh, you’re not a real teacher.”
“Thanks for turning in your report card pick up attendance sheet, but yours doesn’t count.”
“Since you’re not a real teacher you don’t get a new computer for your classroom.”
“You’re so lucky that you only have10 students in your classroom at a time.”
Those are just some of the typical comments I get throughout the year at my school. I feel like I really have many obstacles to overcome just in how I am perceived by my coworkers as a special education teacher. I have learned not to take too much offense when one of my colleagues or administrators makes a comment similar to those above, but it still stings a bit.
I understand that what they are trying to say is that since I do not have a homeroom I do not get the same things or have the same requirements as does a teacher with a homeroom. One of my colleagues was recently asked about her classroom, “Why do you need to use all of this space? You’re just a resource teacher.” She later called me to vent about her experience, and I told her that I wish this were the first time I was hearing things like this, but it wasn’t.
Yes, it is true I do not have a homeroom, and I do not teach all of the subjects to each one of my students, but that does not make me any less of a teacher than my colleagues. I sometimes wonder if people realize the extent of what I do with my students every day.
I often have the least amount of supplies to work with in my classroom. If I need things like calculators, books, or geoboards, I am borrowing them from my colleagues. I need to collaborate with more than six teachers on a weekly basis, so just trying to find the time to do that while making sure I use the right approach for each person’s personality can be a struggle.
Those “few” children I have in my classroom? It sometimes feels like there are 50 kids instead of 10. This is especially true when Miguel is upset because someone cut in front of him in line, Jack got a detention in library and is taking his frustration out on me, Juan is crying because he lost his favorite blue pencil, and Alan is covering his ears while humming loudly because they announced we’re having a fire drill today. I’m handling all of that all while still trying to teach the lesson to the other students in the classroom who are ready to learn.
I am constantly adapting and accommodating the curriculum to best meet the needs of my students while allowing them to be successful. It takes time to make worksheets, PowerPoints, and modify tests. I still have to grade assignments and give grades to my students. Then there are all of my special education duties, writing IEPs for all of the students on my caseload. Keeping track of their goals, and staying current on the progress monitoring of their goals. Every quarter I’m writing their IEP report cards in addition to their regular report cards.
I’m not asking to receive any extra or special praise for being a special education teacher; I am just doing my job. But please, please don’t tell me I’m not a teacher. I AM a teacher!

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Good to great classrooms do...

Good to great classrooms do...

New research on pedagogical strategies and the formula for excellence in primary school classrooms

    A happy classroom, with sensitive behaviour management, is part of the formula for excellence. Photograph: www.alamy.com
    What exactly is it that "excellent" primary school teachers do that makes their practice different from "good" primary teachers? Well we have some interesting answers from researchers at University of London's Institute of Education. Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford, professor of education at the Institute, says that it's a bundle of behaviours working together that can make a difference to children's development and, therefore, their life chances. All children benefit from classrooms like this but disadvantaged children benefit most of all, she says. Iram is one of the lead researchers on one of this generation's outstanding pieces of research on the educational development of children, with particular focus on those from disadvantaged backgrounds – a longitudinal study of around 3,000 children who are being tracked from ages 3-16 known as EPPSE – Effective Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education - being run by academics from London, Birkbeck and Oxford Universities. Her finding about what the difference is between "good" and "excellent" in classroom teaching is just one small part of the study that had been going for more than fourteen years. It looked specifically at effective primary pedagogical strategies in English and maths in Key stage 2 (ages 7-11) in the English national curriculum. The behaviours individually are not rocket science – they can be found in good classrooms everywhere – but it is the combination of all of them together which produces the chemistry to transform good to excellent practise and therefore children's academic and social/behavioural outcomes, she says. So what are they? 1. Excellent organisational skills – teachers make sure all children understand the learning objectives and associated concepts and have extremely well organised resources and smooth classroom routines. 2. Positive classroom climate – adults and children in the class like and respect one another. Classrooms are happy places, children are less disruptive and behaviour management is sensitive (no-one is humiliated). 3. Personalised teaching - teachers are sensitive to the individual needs of children and provide resources to match those needs. The teachers are more likely to link learning in the classroom with the world outside the classroom door and to provide homework that links directly to lesson content. 4. Dialogic teaching and learning – this harnesses the power of talk to extend and stimulate student thinking to advance their learning and understanding. It provides opportunities for higher order thinking. 5. Plenaries – teachers in the best schools are twice as likely as teachers in poor schools to use a plenary and they use it to recap on the lesson, provide feedback, challenge thinking and provide opportunities for further discussion. Because plenaries seem to have such a big effect, here are some examples of them highlighted in the research: • At the end of a poetry lesson introducing alliteration and onomatopoeia, the teacher asked the children to write a chorus of the class poem together – it had to include alliteration and onomatopoeia. The teacher then asked individual children to add in verses they had written during the lesson to create a whole class poem. The session was so effective the children were disappointed when it ended! • At the end of a maths lesson which involved asking the children to measure desks and sort out an imaginary desk order – the teacher resolved the variety of results by turning to a discussion on averages and middle numbers for the plenary. The children shared their results with each other and discussed options for finding the most representative measure (median, mode, mean) and were encouraged to argue for their point of view. Lots more examples of effective plenaries can be found on the Guardian Teacher Network here. Effective Primary Pedagogical Strategies in English and Mathematics in Key Stage 2: A study of Year 5 classroom practice from the EPPSE 3-16 longitudinal study. Download from the Department for Education website here Authors: Siraj-Blatchford, I., Shepherd, D-L., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., Sammons, P. & Sylva, K.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Valuing Teachers



Opinion: In an Ed Week commentary, Eric Hanushek discusses some policy implications of his findings about the impact of good and bad teachers.

For some time, we have recognized that the academic achievement of schoolchildren in this country threatens, to borrow President Barack Obama’s words, “the U.S.’s role as an engine of scientific discovery” and ultimately its success in the global economy. The low achievement of American students, as reflected in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (see “Teaching Math to the Talented,” features, Winter 2011), will prevent them from accessing good, high-paying jobs. And, as demonstrated in another article in Education Next (see “Education and Economic Growth,” research, Spring 2008), lower achievement means slower growth in the economy. From studying the historical relationship, we can estimate that closing just half of the performance gap with Finland, one of the top international performers in terms of student achievement, could add more than $50 trillion to our gross domestic product between 2010 and 2090. By way of comparison, the drop in economic output over the course of the last recession is believed to be less than $3 trillion. Thus the achievement gap between the U.S. and the world’s top-performing countries can be said to be causing the equivalent of a permanent recession.
According to the president in this year’s State of the Union address, this is “our generation’s Sputnik moment,” the time when we realize the urgent need to step up the performance of our education system. Only today, unlike in the 1950s, we have a clear idea of what it takes to improve achievement. The quality of the teachers in our schools is paramount: no other measured aspect of schools is nearly as important in determining student achievement. The initiatives we have emphasized in policy discussions—class-size reduction, curriculum revamping, reorganization of school schedule, investment in technology—all fall far short of the impact that good teachers can have in the classroom. Moreover, many of these interventions can be very costly.
Indeed, the magnitude of variation in the quality of teachers, even within each school, is startling. Teachers who work in a given school, and therefore teach students with similar demographic characteristics, can be responsible for increases in math and reading levels that range from a low of one-half year to a high of one and a half years of learning each academic year.
But while most parents are able to distinguish a good teacher from a bad one, few have any idea what difference it makes in the lives of their children. And researchers do not help, tending to talk in terms of standard deviations of achievement and effect sizes, phrases that simply have no meaning outside of the rarefied world of research. Here, I translate the researchers’ shorthand into concepts that might be more readily understood: the impact of teachers on the earnings of individuals and on the future of the economy as a whole.
Measuring Teachers’ Impact
Many of us have had at some point in our lives a wonderful teacher, one whose value, in retrospect, seems inestimable. We do not pretend here to know how to calculate the life-transforming effects that such teachers can have with particular students. But we can calculate more prosaic economic values related to effective teaching, by drawing on a research literature that provides surprisingly precise estimates of the impact of student achievement levels on their lifetime earnings and by combining this with estimated impacts of more-effective teachers on student achievement.
Let’s start with the researcher’s point of view. With a normal distribution of performance (the classic bell curve), a standard deviation is simply a more precise measure of how spread out the distribution is. Somebody who is one standard deviation above average would be at the 84th percentile of the distribution. If we then turn to the labor market, a student with achievement (as measured by test performance in high school) that is one standard deviation above average can later in life expect to take in 10 to 15 percent higher earnings per year.
That estimate may be deemed conservative for two reasons. First, it does not account for increases in years of education that may result from having a higher level of performance early on. Also, the estimate is based on information from people’s wages and salaries early in their careers, before they have reached their full earnings potential. Other calculations that take into account earnings throughout entire careers estimate 20 percent increases over the course of a lifetime.
Does 10 to 15 percent amount to much? For the average American entering the labor force, the value of lifetime earnings for full-time work is currently $1.16 million. Thus, an increase in the level of achievement in high school of a standard deviation yields an average increase of between $110,000 and $230,000 in lifetime earnings.
How do increases in teacher effectiveness relate to this? Obviously, teacher quality is not the only factor that affects student achievement. The student’s own motivations and support from family and peers play crucial roles as well. But researchers have worked hard to isolate the impact of teachers from these other influences. Rigorous studies consistently show that the impact of a more-effective teacher is substantial A high-performing teacher, one at the 84th percentile of all teachers, when compared with just an average teacher, produces students whose level of achievement is at least 0.2 standard deviations higher by the end of the school year. In fact, the impact of having such a teacher could plausibly be as large as 0.3 standard deviations.
Those impacts attenuate somewhat over time, however. The literature, though less than definitive, suggests that perhaps 70 percent of the gains achieved that year are retained in the long run by the student. The persistence of achievement gains is important, because the more sustained that these increases are, the greater the positive impact teachers will have on the lifetime skills and therefore the earnings of students. Put together, this evidence suggests that a teacher in the top 16 percent of effectiveness will have a positive impact (as compared to an average teacher) on longer-term student achievement that is 70 percent of the immediate gain, which as noted is at least 0.2 standard deviations.  That lower bound of the estimated effect is what we will use as we calculate the economic worth of a teacher by combining a teacher’s impact on achievement with the associated labor market returns.
Let’s start with some conservative estimates of the impact on an individual student. Take a good but not great teacher, one at the 69th percentile of all teachers rather than at the 50th percentile (that is, a teacher who is half a standard deviation above the average). She produces an increase of $10,600 on each student’s lifetime earnings. Even a modestly better than average teacher (60th percentile) raises individual earnings by $5,300, compared to what would otherwise be expected.
While those numbers are not trivial, they burgeon dramatically once we recognize that every student in the class can expect such increases in earnings. Consider, for example, a teacher with a class of 20 students. Under such circumstances, the teacher at the 60th percentile will—each year—raise students’ aggregate earnings by a total of $106,000. The impact of one at the 69th percentile (as compared to the average) is $212,000, and one at the 84th percentile will shift earnings up by more than $400,000.
But there is also symmetry to these calculations. A very low performing teacher (at the 16th percentile of effectiveness) will have a negative impact of $400,000 compared to an average teacher.
Moreover, the economic value of an effective teacher grows with larger classes, as do the economic losses of an ineffective teacher. Figure 1 illustrates the aggregate impact on students’ lifetime earnings for higher- and lower-performing teachers. As we will discuss below, these results are all very large compared with, for instance, the $52,000 annual salary U.S. teachers were paid on average in 2008.
An Alternate Thought Experiment
We can also approach this valuation calculation from the perspective of the impact of teacher effectiveness on the U.S. economy as a whole, rather than just on the future earnings of students. As noted above, student achievement, which provides a direct measure of later quality of the labor force, is strongly related to economic growth. Improving achievement leads to a better prepared workforce and to greater growth, and this growth translates into higher levels of national income.
Starting again with the estimates of the difference in effectiveness of teachers, it is possible to calculate the long-term economic impact of policies that would focus attention on the lowest-quality teachers from U.S. classrooms. Let us propose the following thought experiment: What would happen if the very lowest performing teachers could be replaced by just average teachers? Based on the estimates of variation in teacher quality identified above, Figure 2 shows the overall achievement impact through a cycle of K–12 instruction. Assuming the upper-bound estimate of teachers’ impact, U.S achievement could reach that in Canada and Finland if we replaced with average teachers the least effective 5 to 7 percent of teachers, respectively. Assuming the lower-bound estimate of teachers’ impact, U.S achievement could reach that in Canada and Finland if we replaced with average teachers the least effective 8 to 12 percent of teachers, respectively.
Here the estimated value almost loses any meaning. Closing the achievement gap with Finland would, according to historical experience, have astounding benefits, increasing the annual growth rate of the United States by 1 percent of GDP. Accumulated over the lifetime of somebody born today, this improvement in achievement would amount to nothing less than an increase in total U.S. economic output of $112 trillion in present value. (That was not a typo—$112 trillion, not billion.)
Admittedly, these estimates are subject to some uncertainty. So if you think those that are given here are too high, even though they are based on the best of contemporary research, then just cut them in half. You will still have effects on growth of one-half of 1 percent per year, which produces impacts of $56 trillion over the lifetime of today’s child. In other words, to make the very large effects disappear, you have to make either the very strong assumption that student learning has little effect on the U.S. economy or the equally strong assumption that teachers have little impact on students.
What Would It Take?
The majority of our teachers are hardworking and effective. The previous estimates point clearly to the key imperative of eliminating the drag of the bottom teachers. Here we can offer several alternatives.
One approach might be better recruitment so that ineffective or poor teachers do not make it into our schools. Or, relatedly, we could improve the training in schools of education so that the average teaching recruit is better than the typical recruit of today. Unfortunately, we have relatively few successful experiences with either approach as compared to considerable wishful thinking, particularly among school personnel.
An alternative might be to change a poor teacher into an average teacher. This approach is in fact today’s dominant strategy. Schools hope that through mentoring of incoming teachers, professional development, or completion of further graduate schooling, ineffective teachers can be transformed into acceptable (average) teachers. Again, however, the existing evidence is not very reassuring. While such efforts undoubtedly help some teachers, there is no substantial evidence that certification, in-service training, master’s degrees, or mentoring programs systematically make a difference in whether teachers are in fact effective at driving student achievement.
The final option is a clearer evaluation and retention strategy for teachers. Today, obtaining an entry job into teaching is virtually tantamount to an indefinite contract that stays in force regardless of actual effectiveness in the classroom. Yet the calculations above show the enormous value to individuals and society of “deselecting” the least effective teachers.
Is such a policy change feasible? If we contemplate asking 5 to 10 percent of teachers to find a job at which they are more effective so they can be replaced by teachers of average productivity, states and school districts would have to change their employment practices. They would need recruitment, pay, and retention policies that allow for the identification and compensation of teachers on the basis of their effectiveness with students. At a minimum, the current dysfunctional teacher-evaluation systems would need to be overhauled so that effectiveness in the classroom is clearly identified. This is not an impossible task. The teachers who are excellent would have to be paid much more, both to compensate for the new riskiness of the profession and to increase the chances of retaining these individuals in teaching. Those who are ineffective would have to be identified and replaced. Both steps would be politically challenging in a heavily unionized environment such as the one in place today.
Salary Politics
The above discussion also highlights the difficulties in recruiting high-quality teachers, due in part to the difficulties of paying them well. Collective bargaining mechanisms do not provide incentives for the best people to enter or remain in the profession and likely hold the average pay down: given the uniform salary structure, increases in salary are bound to be unrelated to increases in effectiveness, making large pay raises raises politically problematic. This is likely one of the main reasons that teacher salaries now lag those in other professions. In the 1940s, the salaries of male teachers were slightly above the average pay for all male college graduates, and female teachers had higher salaries than 70 percent of other female college graduates. Today, despite the collective bargaining process, the salaries of male teachers are at the 30th percentile of the distribution of all college graduates, and women who teach are at the 40th percentile of their college-educated peers.
Teachers’ salaries today are based on credentials and years of experience, factors that are at best weakly related to productivity. In a competitive marketplace, a firm must compensate employees according to their productivity or risk bankruptcy. Yet no school district goes out of business if it retains ineffective teachers and pays them as much as effective ones. Salaries become political footballs, and it is often awkward for politicians to explain why a large pay increase goes equally to ineffective and effective teachers.
The challenge of implementing reform of the teaching profession remains considerable. Most of the benefits of implementing the “thought experiment” explored here would be fully realized only many decades later, while the costs of economic, and especially political, reform must be paid at the beginning. These costs would be steep, as they would likely negatively affect some of the most vocal constituents in education policy: current teachers.
The magnitude of the above valuations of teacher effectiveness, however, suggest that we should be willing to consider more radical reforms than have been commonplace in recent decades. Salaries several times higher than those paid teachers today would be economically justified if teachers were compensated according to their effectiveness. But unless we can replace the current system with one that better links teacher recruitment, compensation, and retention to effectiveness, we should expect both our schools and our economy to underperform relative to their potential. The cost to the nation at a time of intensifying international competition is high indeed.
Eric A. Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Teachers of the Year: Kick Open Your Classroom Door

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Veteran teacher on what ‘highly qualified’ really means



This was written by educator Anthony Cody, who worked for 24 years in the Oakland schools, 18 years teaching science at a high-needs school and six years as a mentor and coach of teachers. He is a National Board-certified teacher. This post appeared on his Education Week Teacher blog, Living in Dialogue .

By Anthony Cody
As Congress wrestles with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), they have a chance to address the issue of teacher quality once again. The Coalition for Teaching Quality -- 82 organizations representing civil rights, parent, community, disability, and education advocates -- have come together to demand that Congress re-commit to the objective that all children should have a well-prepared teacher.
No Child Left Behind, the current version of ESEA, brought us a federal mandate for "highly qualified teachers" for all students. But after that law was passed, groups like Teach For America pushed for exceptions to be made, so that their recruits, with five or six weeks of summer training, could be considered "highly qualified." Now, Congress has a chance to revisit this issue. Will they choose a definition that has some meaning this time? A letter released yesterday from the Coalition for Teaching Quality yesterday states:

Although the proposal appears to retain NCLB's "highly qualified teacher" requirements, the new definition of "highly qualified" weakens the standard so much as to make the phrase virtually meaningless and its protections for at-risk students nearly nonexistent. In this proposal, teachers are defined as "highly qualified" if they have just enrolled in an alternative certification program, even if they have completed little or no training and have met no standard of competence.
This is an area where I have direct experience. In Oakland, where I worked for the past 24 years, our student population is diverse and challenging, and deserves the attention of the most experienced and expert teachers possible. However, due to sometimes difficult conditions and low pay, we have a very high turnover rate for our teachers. Although turnover greatly diminished when teacher pay was increased a decade ago, the high costs of an urban district did not allow that pay level to persist. Pay was cut, and the shortages and high turnover returned. At that time the district turned to Teach For America and other organizations that recruit and prepare new teachers. The district enters contracts with these groups, setting aside positions that will be filled by them, and paying them in the neighborhood of $4,000 per teacher, to offset the cost of recruitment and training. In exchange, these groups guarantee there will be teachers for these classrooms, which might otherwise be empty.
This solution solves a major headache for the district. Classrooms lacking a teacher are a nightmare in the fall. They must be taught by substitutes, and are often out of control. Students and parents are very unhappy, and the district gets a lot of flak. These interns are also at the bottom of the pay scale, so the district can save money.
Unfortunately, although Congress has declared such teachers "highly qualified," common sense tells us they are not. A six week summer training does not a teacher make. These novices are hardworking and well-intentioned, but they are not very effective their first year. By the end of their second year they are getting their feet on the ground. But this brings us to the second major flaw with this approach. After their second year, half of these teachers have left Oakland. Three years after they begin, 75% of them are gone. That means many of our students, year after year, are served by teachers who lack the depth of experience needed to be fully effective.
And I have to add in one key issue that is related to this. In 2005, Linda Darling-Hammond released a study that found that student achievement was better for teachers with more formal preparation. Teachers who were in alternative certification programs, who had not gone through teacher training, had poorer student performance, on average. The problem with this study, from my point of view, was that it used test scores as its means of measuring the differences between teachers. Test scores are subject to gaming, meaning intense focus on test preparation, which robs the scores of real value as an indicator of good teaching.
There was a quick and decisive reaction to this research from Teach For America and other alternative certification programs. Enter the classroom of a TFA intern teacher, and you are likely to find a large poster that says "Our Big Goal, 80% mastery." You are likely to find student test scores posted on the wall. TFA coaches began focusing almost entirely on data with the teachers they were supporting. This translated into an intense focus on test preparation. I had a TFA director ask me if I could provide her with all the questions to the District's science benchmark exams, so their teachers could focus their instruction on the right concepts (a request I declined). Clearly, Teach For America had decided that their interns would have the best test scores possible, so they could no longer be faulted for being "ineffective" by that all-important set of indicators.
I had one mentee who was teaching Biology a couple of years ago. Her students were not doing very well on her weekly tests, and she was worried they would likewise do poorly on the state exams in the Spring. Her TFA coach advised her to shift her instruction so that every classroom assignment would resemble a test. Every day for a while, her students got worksheets with multiple choice and short answer questions. Their test scores went up, but they were bored, and after a few months of this, she shifted to a more project-based approach.
So when I say these interns are "ineffective," I am not simply speaking of test scores. I am speaking of a broader range of teaching abilities, many of which take several years of training and experience to develop. The most disturbing thing to me about the dependence of many of our high-poverty schools on poorly trained interns is the level of turnover, which means students may get novice teachers year after year, and there may not be that critically valuable reservoir of experienced teachers available at the school to nurture, support and serve as role models for these beginners.
This is most certainly an issue of equity. The schools of Berkeley and Piedmont, more affluent communities bordering Oakland, do not find it necessary to hire interns like this. Parents there would not tolerate it. Oakland is largely poor, with high numbers of African American, Latino and Asian immigrants and special education students. We should have the most highly qualified teachers to respond to the needs of these students. Instead, we have had Congress creating strange definitions of "highly qualified" teachers, so as to allow us to continue to use poorly trained high-turnover interns, almost entirely in schools of high poverty.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Getting Hands-On With Fine-Motor Skills

Getting Hands-On With Fine-Motor Skills


A month ago, Eric entered my kindergarten classroom unable to hold a pencil without using the "death grip" on it. He also held scissors with multiple fingers in each finger hole and found it difficult to roll play-dough into a long snake. Eric comes from a family that struggles to ensure that there is dinner on the table, much less a snack in his backpack. His lack of exposure to fine-motor activities is already affecting him in all academic areas. He has trouble writing down his thoughts, using crayons to color in shapes, or even completing a craft because it is frustrating or painful.
Research has long shown links between students' fine-motor skills and their future academic achievement. Studies also indicate that low-income students in particular tend to enter school with low fine-motor skills. So how can we help students like Eric?
I'm always on the lookout for fun ways to improve students' fine-motor skills. Keep in mind that these activities don't have to be expensive or complicated—ordinary objects can be pressed into service easily:

Math-Based Activities

Cotton ball races: Ask students to use clothespins to move the cotton balls from one jar to another. We make this a counting activity: How many cotton balls can a student move in a specific amount of time?
Moving pipe cleaners: Cut up some pipe cleaners into shorter segments (or you can use jacks). Then challenge students to use an eyelash curler to move the pipe cleaner segments from one spot to the next. (This activity is great because it asks students to exercise the same three fingers they should use to hold a pencil. Make sure the concave side of the tongs is facing the thumb.)
Stacking cubes: This activity requires a deck of numbered cards (at first limiting it to numbers one to 10), small cubes or blocks, and paper plates marked with numbers one to 10. I ask each student to select a card, identify the paper plate marked with the same number, then stack that number of cubes on the paper plate. As the stacks get higher, students must use steady hands to balance the cubes on the growing tower.
Sorting buttons: Ask students to sort a handful of buttons into piles by various attributes. Then have students use the buttons to create patterns. (Instruct students to pick up the buttons with their fingers rather than sliding them off the table to scoop up.)
Coins in clay: Embed coins within a ball of clay, then challenge students to find and pick out all of the coins from the clay. Afterward, talk about the value of the coins you have collected. Another idea is to use small buttons or beads, then count how many the students found.
Tweezers and jars: Write different numbers on empty baby food jars and ask students to use the tweezers to put that many pom poms inside the jar. During the activity, check to ensure that students are grasping the tweezers with their thumb, index finger, and third finger and tucking in their fourth and fifth fingers—thus strengthening their pencil grip fingers.

Literacy-Based Activities

Clothespin boxes: Cover a shoebox with paper—then write the ABCs on the outside of the box. Mark clothespins with letters as well. Have students match the letters on the clothespins to those on the box, clipping each clothespin over the box's edge.
Eyedrops: Using a couple of ice-cube trays, mark the bottom of each cube compartment with a letter. Students can then use an eyedropper to put water into each compartment needed to spell their name—or a simple word they have learned. My students never get tired of this activity!
Bean letters: Challenge students to place beans around the outer edge of large letters on pieces of paper.

Miscellaneous Activities

Spray bottle art: Give students small spray bottles filled with colored water and allow them the opportunity to create artwork outside on the sidewalk or on a piece of paper with the spray bottles. You can prompt them to use their motor skills to create controlled images.
Tops and marbles: Teach students to spin tops and marbles using their thumb, index, and third finger. Once the students have learned to do this, have a contest to see who can spin them the fastest or longest.
Nuts and bolts: Provide students with various nuts and bolts and make it a game to see how fast they can put the bolts on the nuts.
Feed the water bottle: Challenge students to "feed" an empty small-necked water bottle with toothpicks.
These activities may seem simple, but they work. If you ask my student Eric about school, he will tell you that he is working on counting or learning the alphabet. What he and his classmates don't realize is that they are also improving their fine-motor skills. Doing so helps students to focus on the concepts we study—and less on the mechanics of holding pencils or taking part in hands-on activities.
And of course, reaching out to parents as partners can also strengthen students' development in this area. I help parents understand why fine-motor skills are linked to academic success and provide detailed descriptions about how to help students with these skills at home.