no substitute

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/257206.html

WASHINGTON – A year is a long time in a child’s education, the time it can take to learn cursive writing or beginning algebra. It’s also how much time kids can spend with substitute teachers from kindergarten through high school – time that’s all but lost for learning.

Despite pressure on schools to increase instructional time and meet performance goals, the vacuum created by teacher absenteeism has been all but ignored – even though new research suggests it can have an adverse effect in the classroom.

The problem isn’t just with teachers home for a day or two with the flu. Schools’ use of substitutes to plug full-time vacancies – the teachers that kids are supposed to have all year – is up dramatically.

Duke University economist Charles Clotfelter, among a handful of researchers who have closely studied the issue, says the image of spitballs flying past a daily substitute often reflects reality. “Many times substitutes don’t have the plan in front of them,” Clotfelter said. “They don’t have all the behavioral expectations that the regular teachers have established, so it’s basically a holding pattern.”

Clotfelter’s examination of North Carolina schools is part of emerging research suggesting that teacher absences lead to lower student test scores, even when substitutes fill in. And test scores have gained heightened importance, because the 2002 education law penalizes schools if too few students meet testing benchmarks. The goal is to get all kids reading and doing math at their grade levels by 2014.

Raegen Miller, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Washington, is examining the impact of teacher absences on fourth-grade test scores in a large, urban school district that he chooses not to identify. His findings show that 10 teacher absences within a year cause a significant loss in math achievement. When the regular teacher is gone for two weeks, it can set students back at least that amount of time.

“Teachers often have to re-teach material, restore order and rebuild relationships after absences,” said Miller, who is conducting the research with Harvard University education professors.

Nationwide, the number of schools reporting that they used substitutes to fill regular teaching vacancies doubled between 1994 and 2004, according to Education Department data. The latest data showed more than a fifth of public schools use subs in this way.

Miller found big differences in teacher absence rates among schools in the same district. He said the “professional culture” of a school and the relationship between teachers and administrators affect absenteeism.

MORE ONLINE

To find the Education Department’s data on substitute teachers, go to http://nces.ed.gov. Click on the “Surveys and Programs” tab at the top of the page. Click on “Elementary/Secondary,” then scroll down to “Schools and Staffing Survey.”

photo of Governor Gregoire signing National Board bonus into law

I got my box in the mail, just a pit stop in the Paperwork 500 otherwise known as National Board certification. I'll be certifyin' with the best of them next year, videotaping myself and writing endless self-assessments, taking tests that prove my literary and pedagogical mettle. (If the TRP can do it, so can I.)

It's nice to know that the sense of satisfaction and pride I'll have once it's all done isn't all I have to work toward. Now that Governor Christine Gregoire has signed SSHB 2262 into law, I'll also receive a $5,000 annual bonus. That'll help with a house payment.

The folks in the photo, as identified by Jim Meadows of the WEA, who sent it along:

Rep. Ross Hunter
Sen. Rodney Tom
Lucinda Young, WEA Lobbyist
Jim Meadows, WEA
Governor Gregoire
Terese Emry, OSPI
Laura Koch, Seattle NBCT, and kids

teach to the test / teacher for the test

Do I want my performance tied to students' test scores? You bet I do.

If it encourages "teaching to the test," so be it. At last, I will have an objective, unbiased way to prove that I am a superior teacher. And trust me, I'll lord it over you.

speaking of things that don't add up

Elizabeth Hovde's well-meaning editorial in The Columbian showcases some of the misunderstandings that plague efforts to improve education. A few clarifications and corrections are in order. First, though, the good part:

Entry pay for teachers is fine. Their pay beats a lot of industries' entry-level wages. But the pay scale tops out way too early and not high enough. Experienced, effective teachers should be rewarded.

Amen to that. Teachers' highest salary possibilities should equal administrators' entry points, at least.

Teachers must pay hundreds of dollars to the union each year. Mandatory union dues or fees should be banned.

Remember those teacher salaries? They're bargained for by the union. Non-union teachers could be paid less, if such a thing were possible for districts.

There are good and bad teachers, just as there are good and bad lawyers, retail clerks and accountants. The process for granting a raise should more closely resemble the process found in the private sector.

Administrators and peers would evaluate teachers based on their abilities and be paid accordingly. Right now, there is no incentive to be innovative or even qualified in one's teaching job.

First, I agree that automatic pay raises and no incentive for improvement are a dangerous mix. But in the absence of objective criteria, "performance" becomes an excuse for kiss-assery. (Later on, Hovde warns against linking salaries to test scores or grades, for good reason--but suggests no alternative measurement.)

Also, Hovde is wrong in claiming there is no incentive for qualification. Teacher pay is tied to coursework in several ways: "staff development" pay, different pay scales for teachers with advanced degrees, and bonuses for National Board Certification. I'm seeking the latter next year, because I want to improve my skills--and the annual bonus helps defray the cost of the assessment.

There isn't an easy way to reform the educational pay structure in a way that promotes excellence, instead of rewarding mediocrity. My plan: boost salaries significantly, attracting a larger pool of candidates. Simultaneously, require certification as rigorous as the National Board program, winnowing out the chaff. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.

highly qualified

It's an aha moment for a teacher...

...our practice insures that they get hardly any practice at all, and no help from us, in mastering it.... [Y]ou’d think we’d look to maximize the number of opportunities we give our students to confront the task. Instead, we avoid them like the plague.

...at a law school.

with the proper motivation

Gregoire, flush with a 1.9 billion surplus, proposes dumping $197 million on extra math and science funding. The plan:

• Reduce class size. The state already is working to reduce elementary school class size via a citizen-approved initiative. Gregoire's new plan would send districts money to hire more middle and high school math and science teachers, with the goal of having one teacher per 25 students. Cost: $90 million.

• Recruit 750 more math and science teachers, including faculty who are teaching other subjects and didn't major in math and science in college. Additional college and teacher training would be available.

• Offer math and science scholarships to college students who agree to teach in those areas. Cost is $14 million.

• Pay annual bonuses of $5,000 to nationally certified teachers who teach in a "challenging" school and another $5,000 if they teach math or science. Currently, 900 teachers have this extra certification.

• Expand the alternative path to certification for non-teachers in the private sector who are experts in math and science, or paraprofessionals.

The professional development proposals total $62 million.

• Provide hands-on science learning for 1,000 K-8 classrooms, using the Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) program. Cost is $12 million.

• Provide extra help to students who are struggling with the WASLs. Gregoire proposes $12 million.

• Standardize math curricula across the state.

I have a better solution. We teachers are always grousing about parental involvement, and wondering why folks can't be more accountable. Want to see test scores go up? Promise parents a $1000 tax break when their lovable lump passes the WASL, at an overall cost of $82 million per annum. In two years, math scores will rise like rent on Boardwalk.


[cross-posted here]