Andrew Hargreaves has some ideas about how education can improve and stop demoralizing those who work in schools. First, he looks for the good that Race to the Top may have accomplished. Then he looks at other nations’ experience and finds that those who are most successful are not doing anything that looks like Race to the Top. Hargreaves published two books in 2012: The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence, with Dennis Shirley; and Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, with Michael Fullan.
Hargreaves writes:
Now that the bickering and backbiting of presidential electioneering is over, we have a new opportunity to look at the future of American education with fresh eyes. Many of us, especially Diane Ravitch in this blog, have been critical of the US Race to the Top Strategy and of No Child Left Behind before it.
But suppose, at this moment, even if through gritted teeth, we concede what the work of RTTT has perhaps accomplished. The rise of charter schools has prompted many districts to question the bureaucratic hierarchies and inflexibilities that have strangled innovation and improvement in the past. The new performance-based reward agenda has undoubtedly brought teachers unions to the table to set aside some of their old blue-collar mentality and engage in different conversations about professional quality and recognition. The emergence of online alternatives for learning may be opening more teachers’ minds about the ways that technology can enhance their teaching. Suppose RTTT advocates have been at least partly right when they have insisted that the system had to be broken before it could be fixed.
What does that now mean for the next four years?
First, let’s acknowledge one of the key lessons of Change 101: in any change process, the strategies that get people to one point are rarely the same ones that will get them further. Charismatic leaders can fire people up, but they often have to be followed by more inclusive leaders who are able to distribute wider responsibility for the long-haul of change. No-nonsense leaders may be able to impose immediate order on chaos, but they usually need to be succeeded by leaders who can build collective responsibility for lasting improvement.
What does this mean for the next phase of RTTT?
Are we going to face four more years of breaking up the system into more and more charter school pieces, staffed by teachers with barely one or two years experience? Should educators be confronted with another unrelenting era of fear, threat and cut-throat competition?
In the short-term, fear and threat can create a sense of urgency and grab people’s attention. In the long-run, however, states of perpetual fear and threat just drive all the best people away. Just look at the exodus of top educators who have fled Wisconsin after their grueling battles with Governor Scott Walker.
We believe it’s time to build a new platform on which we can bring our schools back together, strengthen communities of teachers, inspire the educational profession, and keep the best young people in teaching instead of seeing them cycle in and out of the system as if it were a rapidly revolving door. This isn’t just a matter of our personal preferences and beliefs. It’s what the international evidence on high educational performance is clearly showing us.
In our new book, The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235155, we describe our research evidence on some of the highest achieving schools and systems around the world such as Finland, Singapore, Alberta, and Ontario.
The first thing that is striking is what we don’t find in all these high-performing systems. We don’t find governments pushing charter schools, fast-track alternative certification programs, and salary bonuses for teachers who get the test scores up.
We don’t see systems testing all students in grades 3 through 8 on reading, writing, and mathematics with a national Department of Education setting the goals from afar, year after year.
We don’t come across governments setting up escalating systems of sanctions and interventions for struggling schools and endless rotations of principals and teachers in and out of schools that erode trust and destroy continuity.
What do we find instead?
We do find a lot of leadership stability and sustainable improvement at the system level, that establishes a platform for innovation to take off in districts and schools.
We do find educators who have gone through excellent university-based preparation programs that are also backed up by extensive practice in schools, and who study research and bring a stance of inquiry to the work they do with their students every day.
We do find a highly respected profession along with a public that lets and expects these trusted professionals to bring their collective talents to bear in their work.
We do find testing that is applied in a couple of grades, not all of them; or to a representative sample of students rather than an unnecessary census of everyone.
And we do find turnaround strategies that rely on connecting struggling schools with higher performers who are tasked with helping them, rather than on parachuting in intervention teams from the top.
In high-performing systems, there is a strong teaching profession backed by powerful and principled professional associations that are in the forefront of educational change. These professional associations are not afraid to challenge government when necessary or to collaborate with them whenever they can. Over 50% of the resources of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, for example, goes to professional development for its members; whereas just 5% or so of teacher union budgets are currently allocated for these purposes in the US.
If you want to improve as a teacher, it’s important to learn from teachers who are doing better. If you are trying to turn around as a school, look to a higher performing school that can give you clues about the best way to proceed. The same is true for the US and other nations.
If, like the US, you are languishing far below the leaders in the international rankings of student achievement, then look, with open eyes and no excuses, at what the highest performing countries are doing instead. Their path is clearly the opposite of what has been pushed on American schools.
Let’s concede that districts and unions may have needed shaking up a bit, if America’s education system was to move forward. But shaking things up isn’t the same thing as improving them. Real and lasting improvement, rather than a few triumphant turnarounds here and there, is going to need something else. High performing counterparts from around the world provide some of the best ideas about what this might be.
If the United States is going to be the world-leader in education that the country’s national wealth and international status lead everyone to expect, what might it do in the next four years to move to the next level? Here are five big changes that can make a huge difference based on the international evidence:
- Test prudently, in two or three subjects in a couple of grades, not pervasively in almost every single grade all the way up to Grade 8.
- Shift the focus from fast track programs into teaching itself, to strong pathways that retain the best teachers in the profession.
- Redirect half of the resources from top-down intervention teams whose impact is temporary at best, towards strategies for schools to assist each other in raising achievement results across district boundaries and even state lines.
- Commit everyone to exploring how technology can enrich teaching wherever it is truly needed, rather than insisting it replace teachers at every opportunity.
- Invest more resources in public services as a whole – in housing and infant care, for example – so that educators don’t always have to pick up the slack.
It’s time to look elsewhere for inspiration again. America has always learned from other countries. It adapted Harvard College from Cambridge and Oxford in England, imported the kindergarten from Germany, and adopted the Suzuki method of violin instruction from Japan. The same spirit of curiosity and inventiveness that has served Americans so well in the past can and shoud serve the nation once more.

“Andrew Hargreaves has some ideas about how education can improve and stop demoralizing those who work in schools.”
Do you know how many psychologists it takes to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
We know exactly how to improve education (or, at least, those in charge of education do – look where they send their own kids). The problem is, we don’t want to. At least, not enough of us. The people controlling this “reform” are profiting from it. Most upper and middle-class people are insulated from what’s happening because their kids go to private schools or elite public schools in gated or might-as-well-be-gated communities. And many of the remainder still think that testing and “accountability” are good things. I’ve posted before about how the principal at my local school was utterly baffled by my response to the testing that goes on at our local schools – apparently most parents are very supportive. And many of those who do get it and who are protesting are either teachers, who have already been demonized as “lazy”, “entrenched” and “entitled”, or they are poor and minority parents – in other words, the parents who created “those kids” in the first place.
BTW, off topic, but you simply have to read Edushyster today (which I know you will anyway).
LikeLike
It would be helpful to me, and perhaps others, if you could elaborate on how to improve education.
LikeLike
Simple – turn every school into a version of what Sasha and Malia are getting. Well, okay, the implementation isn’t simple, but the answer to your question is.
LikeLike
If we want to generate a discussion, it would be better if we could name some specific policy recommendations, rather than just say do what Sidwell Friends does.
LikeLike
For God’s sake, TE, suggestions for improvement have abounded on this sight – smaller class sizes, access to a broad-based curriculum including arts, languages, PE/recess, etc., freedom from standardized testing, respecting teachers as professionals – in short, all the things that happen routinely at places like Sidwell Friends and Lab Schools. I’m not sure what kind of game you’re playing to suggest that those improvements haven’t been discussed at length, but you’re coming awfully close to trolling.
LikeLike
There may be lots of suggestions for improvement, but they are not routinely discussed here. Almost every post is based around the idea that we should stop doing stupid things. Fair enough, but what should we start doing?
Here on the high plains, a cowboy knows that it is usually easier to turn a stampeding herd of cattle then to stop it.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Clearly we as a nation have lost our way and now instead of improving student learning and taking action to ensure our next generation is prepared to become great adults, we have fallen into the trap of improving test scores. This is like riding a motorcycle and looking at the 3 inches of road just in front of the rider. This will result in failure and the rider and bike will fall (I learned this from personal experience and it hurt!) I cannot tell you how many times I have heard individuals in leadership positions (principals, superintendents and of course our legislative heroes) say our goal is to improve test scores. MALARKEY! Remember, we are charged with the task of teaching children, not improving test scores.
LikeLike
I greatly appreciate this posting because it gives a list of things we should do rather than only listing the things we should not do.
I would add two additional policy proposals.
First, emulate Finland by requiring at least high school teachers to have an undergraduate degree in their subject area along with a masters degree in education. This will likely require an increase in starting salaries and salaries that differ by fields.
Second, teachers should be involved in peer evaluation of each others work, perhaps something akin to what is done in Montgomery County, Maryland. I was very surprised when a frequent poster here argued passionately that teachers should not criticize other teachers (this was in the context of a high school science teacher who regularly had to re-teach evolutionary biology to the students of a particular junior hi science teacher because he was a creationist). Teachers need to speak out when there is poor teaching done in the building or, as in this case, in the building.
LikeLike
…in the district.
LikeLike
It would be helpful to me, and perhaps others, if you could elaborate on what you mean by “poor teaching” and how it should be recognized, especially by other teachers who might not usually be in each other’s classrooms.
LikeLike
One example is in my post: teaching creationism as science. Another was a teacher of Greek myth who mispronounced every character’s name. A third is a teacher that spent the class talking about pop psychology rather than the subject of the class. A fourth teacher would have imaginary phone conversations during the class and give out hall passes if a student asked for an “autograph”.
LikeLike
University education is fre in Finland.
LikeLike
In case this is of use, http://goo.gl/PnRi2 links – for now at least – to a PDF of The Global Fourth Way by Hargreaves and Shirley, on a Sage website.
LikeLike
Because runaway child poverty undermines students and teachers in our public schools, we surely have to reduce child poverty to the rates common in Finland and elsewhere as a starter. This approach underlies the “wrap-around” services provided kids in the Harlem Children’s Zone, whose pvt charter schls are financed lavishly first by $28 mil from NYC taxpayer funds supplemented by a very handsome $56 mil from various Wall St hedge funders. HCZ thus invests 3Xper child what reg pub schls in NYC spend, not a bad start to making things work better, but we can’t do like Canada did when he “fired” an entire 8th grade and sent them all back to the reg pub schls b/c they were not the group he wanted as the founding cohort of his new $20mil high school built with corporate largesse. Canad then selected a new entering class, etc., which of course pub schls cannot do, which raises again Diane’s challenge to Kipp, take over a whole urban poor district and show us your promised stellar outcomes for all kids using only the per student funds from public sources. We certainly know by now how to set up a promising school for kids–small classes, lots of hands-on project work with close mentoring that integrates language arts with disciplinary subjects like bio, history, etc., and a school which puts music, singing, dancing, drawing, painting, building, growing flowers, keeping small pets, etc., in its everyday life b/c these are things kids love to do and the school should be a place they love to be. Let’s make sure all the toilets work, all the windows are clean and open-able, a/c in summer, heat in winter, good food in the cafeteria which students themselves prepare as rotating kitchen-classes, lots of outdoor time doing neighborhood studies(like Shirley Brice Heath proposed 30 yrs ago), trips to museums, planetariums, farms, factories, etc. about which students write and research via social studies. These kinds of schools have been recommended to us for over 100 years, first by Colonel Parker when he took over schools in Boston and Chicago in 19thC, then by Dewey, and decade after decade by pub schl and child advocates. Problem is that these kind of child-friendly schls exist mostly in pvt sector to which Pres. Obama, Secy Duncan, Gates, Broad, Walton, and all the other billionaires send their own children to. The schls they prefer for their own kids have small classes, lots of project-based learning and hands-on activities, plenty of indiv tutoring, good food, handsome environs, clean toilets. All children deserve this kind of schooling but as long as the billionaires and Obama impose an aggressive wave of privatization and testing, pub schls will be forcibly degenerated, esp those serving the poorest kids.
LikeLike
If the first step is to significantly reduce childhood poverty, we will be a long time getting to the second step. What can we do in the mean time to help?
Perhaps it is smaller classes to start. How small? What is the right trade off between higher costs and more learning? What is the evidence about class size?
LikeLike
Once again, this has been addressed here to. You have to take children where they’re at and start from there. First, children have to feel safe, even if it’s only just within the school environment. Next, children need to play before they can learn (meaning formal learning). If children haven’t had play and enrichment experiences at home, you provide them at school. Next, children need to learn before they can be tested. Rather than leaping right into the standardized testing, why don’t we start by giving kids relevant and experiential learning opportunities so they actually understand the point of the collection of facts they’re expected to learn. In fact, it’s found time after time, that when kids are allowed relevant and experiential learning opportunities, they seek out the facts for themselves. And retain them much better too.
And also, something that’s been discussed here, is providing much greater levels of counseling, social services, nursing, etc. in the schools. As just one tiny example, our family had to put our very old dog down this weekend. When I told my daughter’s teacher (small, progressive private school) about it, she spent some time talking with my daughter, offered her the opportunity to talk to anyone else in the school she would feel comfortable talking to, and let her know that she was welcome to curl up in the “nest” anytime she was feeling sad. All that for one old dog.
At the same time, there’s kids at low SES public schools that have seen family and friends brutally beaten, shot and murdered, yet there’s 30+ kids in the class, so the teachers don’t have the time or ability to deal with it, there’s 1 social worker and maybe one counselor for 500+ students, and of course everyone has to keep up with testing and test prep since the teachers’ jobs depend on it. And that’s just one small piece of the puzzle as to why kids like my daughter might “outperform” kids at overcrowded, under-resourced, low SES public schools.
LikeLike
One thing we COULD do in the meantime is break down the confidentiality “silos” that exist between agencies that serve children in poverty. This article I wrote a decade ago describes how this works even now and how it COULD work: http://waynegersen.com/2011/09/29/a-homeland-security-bill-for-education/
LikeLike
Dienne I am curious about your decision to educate your child in a private school. What caused you to choose that private school? Would you think public schools could emulate you’d child’s private school? Should other be able to choose the school that they feel are best for their children?
LikeLike
I chose private school because the rheeformers have won in my district. Class sizes are huge and most of the curriculum is dedicated to testing and test prep.
Yes, I would love it if public schools would “emulate” my daughter’s private school – her school is exactly what education should be. Public schools used to be much closer to that model until the rheeformers got in the game. There are still plenty of public school teachers fighting diligently to keep public schools the way they should be, but for the most part, especially in lower SES areas like where I live, they’re losing or have lost. Teachers are forced to go along with the madness or lose their jobs. If you want to find public schools that still use developmentally appropriate methods, you generally have to look to wealthy gated or might-as-well-be-gated areas where most of us riff-raff can’t afford to live.
Education is just one of many public goods which have been stolen from most of the public.
LikeLike
I am happy for your children that you were able to choose a more appropriate education for them.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting. I could not have said it better myself. Now to tell our newly-elected Governor of NC who is taking his cues from what Florida and Wisconsin have been doing with union busting ( and btw, there is not even a union here since it is illegal for state employees to collective bargain, we just havea lobbying organization with no real power) merit pay, virtual charter school and a ridiculous amount of unnecessary technology just because!
LikeLike
I don’t mean to be disrespectful but,
Thank you Andrew Hargreaves for telling us what we already know! The “trick” is to educate the public about these facts, more importantly, to get the politicians (with their hands out to “reformers”) to recognize these facts! I feel the same way about the “reformers” as Romney feels about the 47%. We are not going to reach the “reformers”! They are getting paid to do their job of inundating Education with private corporations.
LikeLike
Wow…. if these were implemented I might actually make my way back to public school teaching again. At the moment I am running away…. far…FAR… away…. 😦 I miss it terribly, but the schools I taught in even 11 years ago (before I went into labor with #1 Child) are gone, and there’s nothing quite like it now where I live.
To TeachingEconomist: smaller class size is a great start. A simple Google search will find you dozens of hits in under a minute as to the research you are asking about that deals with the positive effects of smaller class sizes. Wraparound services especially in disadvantaged areas to help students and families who are struggling with the effects of poverty – e.g. hunger, homelessness, poor health, gang violence – to the point where those affect the ability to learn would also go a long way toward helping to get kids ready to learn from the start. I would love to see the billionaire foundations, like the Gates Foundation, put their money where their mouths are and support proven strategies for fighting the effects of child poverty and for improving education instead of throwing their dollars at charters and online education and more testing, but that has yet to happen as far as I’ve seen. Those are dollars being spent in entirely the WRONG places IMO.
LikeLike
Sorry if this is a double post but not seeing my previous post:
Wow…. if these were implemented I might actually make my way back to public school teaching again. At the moment I am running away…. far…FAR… away…. 😦 I miss it terribly, but the schools I taught in even 11 years ago (before I went into labor with #1 Child) are gone, and there’s nothing quite like it now where I live.
To TeachingEconomist: smaller class size is a great start. A simple Google search will find you dozens of hits in under a minute as to the research you are asking about that deals with the positive effects of smaller class sizes. Wraparound services especially in disadvantaged areas to help students and families who are struggling with the effects of poverty – e.g. hunger, homelessness, poor health, gang violence – to the point where those affect the ability to learn would also go a long way toward helping to get kids ready to learn from the start. I would love to see the billionaire foundations, like the Gates Foundation, put their money where their mouths are and support proven strategies for fighting the effects of child poverty and for improving education instead of throwing their dollars at charters and online education and more testing, but that has yet to happen as far as I’ve seen. Those are dollars being spent in entirely the WRONG places IMO.
LikeLike
Been a big fan of Hargreaves for many years. Not a fan of comparisons to small homogeneous societies but the points he makes are nonetheless helpful in our efforts to move forward with more intelligent and productive strategies. Thanks for the references.
LikeLike
In studies that compare those homogeneous societies (like Finland) to our wealthier schools (which are a lot more homogeneous than we might like to admit), the US compares quite favorably to other countries’ test scores. One way Finland made the changes that put them where they are now was to work to erase the differences caused by socioeconomic disparity; this could give the US the perfect starting point if only our policymakers would get their heads out of their PAC bank accounts and think about the students first.
LikeLike
Right to the point and well-stated, tiedyedeb! In this, the richest country in the world, with all the wealth (such as of the Gates Foundation, it most certainly could be accomplished. But–no, the billions go to Pearson, K-12 and all sorts of privatization schemes.
Education is the new cash-cow, and what WE want for the country’s children matters not to the plutocracy.
However, as the pushback continues, the truth will out.
We have to keep working and fighting back. Yes, WE can!
LikeLike
About 610 billion dollars is spent on public education, dwarfing any expenditure that the Gates foundation could make (the Gates foundation was reported to have about 34 billion in assets in 2010). It is hard to see how any spending by the Gates foundation could have a large and long lasting impact on education. At best it could provide a one time 5% increase in expenditures.
LikeLike
TE – an awful lot of that $610 billion is not spent on public education, but rather “education” provided by private entities such as charters and online charters, which are no more public than Lockheed Martin, which also receives the majority of its funding from the government. If the privatizers get their way, most if not all of that $610 billion will find its way into private hands, and suddenly new money will be available for all sorts of private pet projects that was never available for even the basics like decent building conditions at real public schools.
LikeLike
According to the most recent statistics I have found, charter schools educate 5%.of students, private schools 10%, and public schools 85%, so I doubt that more than a smallish fraction goes to charters. I will poke around and see if I can come up with the actual numbers.
Almost all of the money now finds itself into private hands because the bulk goes to pay salaries. I would expect that to continue no matter how schools are organized.
LikeLike
@TE: The Gates Foundation is but one of many huge foundations putting their money ostensibly into education but truly into policysetting (lobbying) and technology and “reform.” That same money applied in targeted areas like wraparound services in lower-income schools could go a long long way toward ACTUALLY helping those students. Instead, the GF stands by their platform that poverty isn’t the problem the rest of us know it is – and the research is pretty clear, so the irony of GF’s “research-based” approach is only so much more fertilizer IMO – and pushes their own agenda reform, despite the fact that they’re not teachers, they never have been teachers, and they’re not listening to people who are teachers. They have their own agenda – and as far as I can make out, it’s profit, not education.
So yes, we *can* say that the GF’s financial impact on education overall might be a drop in the bucket, the same as Pearson thinks that because $1.7 BILLION is a small percentage of the total education budget it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans – but in the trenches, I think we all know better. And when it’s applied to politicians making policy instead of in classrooms, maybe more happens at the policy level, but is it anything GOOD? I’d rather see the money spent where it can HELP, not harm.
LikeLike
I can get behind most of this. I would have to look a
little closer but it’s definitely in line with my own experience
jtck
LikeLike
Nothing in here about making sure teachers know more about their subjects, as Randi Weingarten advocated recently in the WSJ. At present, teaching is not a true profession, like law or medecine, according to AFT president Weingarten, because teachers don’t have to take a “bar” exam to get licensed to do it. It is a craft, and a demanding craft, like lifesaving, but because it is a craft it tends to be dominated by craft mentality, which is not interested in true causes, but just in tricks and tips about ‘how to do it.’ Now there are many, many wonderful and honorable crafts people, but they are not true intellectuals, any more than craft work is art. Teaching SHOULD be a profession, but the main qualification these days for entry into the craft guild through the Ed schools is the ability to buy into the socialist world view, that the world can be perfected through innovation and change, and we know that only second and third rate intelligences can take that seriously without laughing. Most teachers are like evangelists who think everyone can be “saved” but who have difficulty explaining the relapses. The Salvation Army will never eliminate drunks, in fact it lives on them. The best symbol of the modern day teacher in America is Kurtz in Conrad’s HEART OF DARKNESS, and we know what happened to him. He succumbed to the barbarity which he was trying to uplift, and ended up letting himself be worshipped as a god, with human sacrifices offered to him. He gave up common sense and decency because he loved the power. And when he had to give up the power and come back down river to reality, he died. American teaching has not yet reached the point where it can look on what it has been doing for 90 years, selling socialism rather than excellence, and say with Kurtz “The Horror! The Horror!” but the time will come, perhaps when California goes bankrupt or Texas no longer teaches evolution, but it will come, it must come. Even socialists can deny reality only for so long, before it sinks its diamond fangs into the softer parts of our anatomy. As you keep looking for the next better and truer reform scheme, think on Chavez and be wise. Or smoke a little dope, and smile like Alfred E. Newman and say “What, me worry?” as the Salafists continue their advance against a moribund and decaying America. Never mind. All cultures are equal, except those that are more equal than others.
LikeLike
A blanket statement: ” At present, teaching is not a true profession, like law or medecine, according to AFT president Weingarten, because teachers don’t have to take a “bar” exam to get licensed to do it.”
Public school teachers must apply and take examinations for teaching certification, and those who teach specific subject areas in the middle and upper grades must have both a degree in said specific areas and must have passed certification area examinations. If teachers seek certification in multiple states, they are often required to take the exams in every state despite having passed other versions of similar exams already. This happened to me when I moved from PA to NJ.
LikeLike
Don’t feed the troll. Anyone who compares teachers to HEART OF DARKNESS is not someone to be dealt with rationally.
LikeLike
LG when you say teachers must “….have both a degree in said subject area….” I don’t believe that is true. Only 25% of high school math teachers have undergraduate degrees in mathematics, for example.
LikeLike
May I ask where this statistic comes from?
It certainly does not jibe with my experience, as the vast majority of the teachers I have encountered in my 20+ years of teaching in public High Schools have BS or BA in what we teach or something very related. (By related I mean Physics teacher with a BS in Engineering or a math teacher who majored in statistics, that sort of thing.) Perhaps your stat is only counting true “math” majors etc.?
LikeLike
I think your right that I misremembered the statistc, as the closest I could find was a USN&WR entry saying 25% of high school math teachers don’t hold math degrees. The link is here:http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications
Has your experience been in urban and metropolitan school districts? The issue of teacher preperation in STEM fields is more pressing in rural districts. Most of the school districts in my state enroll fewer than 500 students.
LikeLike
To TE, I think what we have here is one of those little
“invented Crisis” things. Certified teachers have to have a
significant number of college credit hours in any subject they are
licensed teach. So, perhaps someone majored in Biology, but they
took 2 years of college chemistry in order to do so. That person
would be considered qualified and be able to obtain a certification
to teach 10 grade chemistry (after they pass a subject
certification test). And, yet it seems they could be included in
the article as “not holding a degree” in the subject they teach.
The same with science education majors. Check out these
requirements: http://www.udel.edu/sse/cur_students/courses.html
Click to access sse.pdf
Would these people qualify as “not having a degree” in the subject
they teach despite having a large number of hours credit? To my
experience: a large urban metropolitan area where there is no
shortage of well qualified science and math graduates willing and
able to teach high school. (At least there was, before the
deformers made the job so awful.)And, as I said previously, the
vast majority of us teaching at the poor, urban, majority minority
school have (If I may say so) rather impressive degrees (well known
colleges, appropriate majors, good grades, etc.) I do understand
that in rural/remote areas there is probable a shortage of all
types of college graduates as many grads probably move to bigger
cities/towns in search of more diverse social and economic
opportunity. Separate, but related note: The whole “STEM shortage”,
we need to produce more science majors thing, in general is a
manufactured crisis:
http://www.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php?page=all&print=true
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/10/3135441/stem-degrees-may-not-mean-more.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576596630897409182.html?mod=WSJ_Careers_CareerJournal_5
LikeLike
I would not call it a crisis, more like a concern, especially in small districts.
LikeLike
Look at the districts that won in the latest round of RTTT–should we be surprised at how much (tax) money is going to charters or to districts in the most conservative-dominated states?
LikeLike