Running on Empty

We are unrepentant optimists. It is our nature.

But our natural optimism is tempered by the ugly reality of California’s fiscal decline. The state has demonstrated little capacity or will to invest in improving schools. Indeed, it is cutting educational infrastructure deep into the bone.

Yet we see hope in the application of a fresh set of California leaders to the troublesome issues faced by the state’s public schools, particularly the need to support and strengthen the teaching force.

We know those new leaders – Governor, state superintendent of public instruction, state school board members, and legislators – will be pushed by considerable urgency: Although academic achievement levels are on the rise, they are not going up fast enough.  Our students are performing poorly compared to the nation, and our nation is quickly sliding into mediocrity when compared to other industrialized countries. And we know that California voters desperately want better schools.

We are asking schools to do more – to teach more rigorous content and bring students to higher levels of academic achievement – while we provide them with fewer resources. Consider:

• We are spending less per student than we did a year ago, and spend less than most states despite being an expensive place to live and work.
• Our teaching force is contracting, with about 11,000 fewer teachers than two years ago.
• Teachers who remain in the classroom are facing larger student loads, additional duties, less time for instruction and planning, and, in many cases, less compensation.
• The fragile system for providing professional development to teachers is largely a relic of the past. The burden is now on the teachers themselves to learn the new skills necessary to ensure our students are ready for success beyond high school.

In addition to these facts, our new report – California’s Teaching Force 2010: Key Issues and Trends – captures other hard evidence of precipitous decline. We describe the teaching force as “running on empty,” and note that now the state even lacks the data needed to make good decisions about schools or how to expend scarce resources more wisely.

If we are serious about helping students succeed, we need to make sure their teachers are prepared and effective.

For over a decade the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has produced an annual report examining the state’s teaching force. We have relied upon solid research, thoughtful analysis and plain speaking. We’ve described who is teaching California’s children, their qualifications to teach, where they teach, and the professional support that they need but rarely get.

We’ve described the wide gap between California’s academic expectations for its children and the reality students face in their schools. We’ve detailed how the state’s poorest children routinely get the state’s least prepared and most inexperienced teachers. We’ve helped policy makers understand the chasm between the data the state collects and examines on teachers and students and what is actually needed to make smarter decisions.

Our new materials, like all of our reports, briefing papers, and other resources are available free on this website. I hope you will take a look for yourself.

Margaret Gaston
President

California’s Priority – Science for Students

Over the years, as we have commissioned research examining the status of teaching and learning, one of our frequently expressed concerns has been the unfortunate narrowing of California’s curriculum — the result of a host of circumstances from policy decisions to assessment practices. The long-standing emphasis on mathematics and literacy, critical subjects to be sure, has limited the time, resources and energy for other subjects, particularly science. The predictable result? Too few students are getting the breadth or depth of science education they need.

There is no shortage of hard evidence to support this conclusion. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science tests find California students rank near the bottom with 56% at the “below basic” level. And the United States is well down in the pack internationally on science with more measurements likely to reinforce that later this year. There is also data indicating many of California’s teachers don’t have the preparation or supports they need to teach science well. Further budget cuts in districts across the state are likely to lead to significant reductions in funds for science programs, including up-to-date materials and professional development for science teachers.

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning is part of a new, key effort – Strengthening Science Education in California – that is focused on expanding science literacy through a mix of research, dissemination, and work with the policy community, philanthropy, education support organizations and others. The partners include the University of California, Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science; SRI International; the public opinion research firm of Belden Russonello & Stewart; Stone’s Throw Communications; and Inverness Research Associates.

We started this initiative where we often start – by listening to the California public. We have just released a summary of recently conducted public opinion research, A Priority for California’s Future: Science for Students, that examines what Californians think about the importance of science teaching and learning. We found Californians believe that science education is highly important and should be a priority for their schools. In their view, the knowledge and understanding of science are key to keeping California and America at the forefront of technology and innovation, and essential to all students as they prepare to compete in a rapidly changing world. Across the spectrum, the public certainly senses the urgency of improving science education and sees the benefits inherent in scientific literacy to the state’s economy and to our young people becoming informed, engaged citizens.

Specifically, the research found that voters, parents and taxpayers believe that science education should be a higher priority in California’s schools, that it should be taught early and often, that schools should have the resources and equipment needed to teach science well, and that teachers should get the training and support they need to be effective in this area.

A Priority for California’s Future: Science for Students is the first in a series of reports examining the status of science education across the state. Our intent is to share the findings of this survey, as well as our subsequent research efforts, with educators, policymakers and the public in ways that stir debate and inform decision-making which results in higher levels of scientific literacy for all of California’s students. We urge consideration of the public’s interests in raising the level of scientific literacy as program, policy, and budget decisions are made that impact science education in California’s schools and classrooms. One thoughtful citizen put it this way:

“Placing more emphasis on science in K-12 opens the doors to understanding the physical universe, logic, critical thinking, and rational behavior as children mature and grow into adulthood and become citizens within our society.”

We agree.

Margaret Gaston
President

New Resource Lets You See for Yourself

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has provided a range of data on the California’s teacher workforce in its annual reports for over a decade. In doing so, our goal has been to bring information from numerous and disparate data sources together into one place to inform decision-making as part of our mission to ensure that every child has a fully prepared and effective teacher. We are pleased to note that the impact of these reports is reflected in a number of policies enacted by the Legislature over the years that are aimed at strengthening teaching.

Now we are pleased to announce that data sets used in our latest annual report, The Status of the Teaching Profession 2009, are publicly available on this Web site. Complete with charts plus additional data points not found in the original report, this new Web-based resource is one-of-a-kind. We are especially thrilled to offer the ability for visitors to search for some of these data at the county level, allowing a unique glimpse into the dynamics affecting the state’s regional teacher labor force.

Examples of what visitors to this new resource may find include how many underprepared and out-of-field math teachers there are in Santa Clara county, what percentage of teachers in Ventura county have more than 20 years of experience and how intern teachers are distributed in Los Angeles county.

We hope that you find this new information source useful in your own work. We would appreciate receiving feedback on what you find interesting and how you plan to use it so that we can continue to improve this site. You can access our new data resource here: www.cftl.org/data

Margaret Gaston
President

Teaching is a tough job – and getting tougher

The effects of the state’s economic woes on its public education system have been devastating with class size on the rise, pink slips issued for more than 20,000 teachers, and enrollment caps hindering efforts to enroll every qualified college-bound student who applies.

The current condition of California’s public education system provides the backdrop for this year’s report on the status of the teacher workforce from the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Without question, there is much cause for concern, but those who work to address these issues should also recognize the fact that much has been accomplished on behalf of students and their families over the past decade that can provide the base upon which further improvements can be made.

California’s rigorous academic standards that frame grade-level expectations for every student are among the highest in the nation. The state has put into place a data system capable of tracking students’ progress through school, and is close to having a comparable system to analyze the makeup of its teaching force. In much the same ways they have called for previous steps to strengthen the public school system, Californians have reached a broad consensus that students graduating from high school must have the knowledge and skill necessary to succeed in college and the modern workforce.

As stated in this year’s summary report, the ultimate proof points of our public schools are successful high school graduates. Many high schools now are engaged in ambitious efforts to increase academic rigor, make instruction more relevant, and create learning environments that are more personal and supportive. The 3Rs of reforming high schools – rigor, relevance and relationships – set a high bar for teachers and principals alike and have implications for teacher preparation, professional development and support.

Few jobs are more difficult, more frustrating, and sometime more wildly rewarding than teaching high school. But today’s teachers often feel whipsawed among the competing priorities of high school reform and while many have the expertise they need to ensure their students succeed, even veteran teachers find it difficult to handle the complexities of the new programs.

Data from a new survey of high school principals from the Center’s latest report, The Status of the Teaching Profession 2009, finds that not all teachers are equally ready or able to make the shift from traditional teaching. The report also notes that teacher knowledge and skills differ substantially by school poverty level. Principals in affluent schools were more likely than those in less affluent schools to report that their teachers had the knowledge and skills needed to implement reform strategies.

Right now the state has a patchwork of policies for secondary education, but more ambitious high school reform efforts are largely an unsupported local endeavor. Further, there is a mismatch between the needs of teachers and the state’s system of teacher development and support that could help them better address the pedagogical challenges of the reforming high school.

Unfortunately, at a time when California should be strengthening workforce capacity, teacher development is threatened by additional budget cuts. The teacher pipeline has been weakened and the supply of future teachers may not be sufficiently robust to replace teachers likely to retire in the next few years. Nearly 100,000 teachers are age 50 or older – a harbinger of looming the retirement wave – but the number of candidates enrolling in teacher preparation programs has declined by one third in recent years, from over 77,000 in 2001-02 to under 52,000 in 2006-07. The production of teacher credentials mirrors that decline.

Despite the continuing economic crisis, policy makers still need to make wise investments in strengthening California’s education system. The pressure on students continues to mount as they reach for higher levels of achievement and acquire the broad range of skills necessary to thrive in the new economy. And no one is taking the pressure off of the teachers, who must help to provide the knowledge that will get them there. We hope that the continuing deliberations lead to a positive focus on how to continue to strengthen the state’s teacher force, a requirement for student success in high school and beyond.

Margaret Gaston
President

State must help school leaders develop

Now it’s official: There will be no rescue for California as the state’s budget worries continue to mount.  School districts across California continue to scramble in response to the news of even more severe budget cuts. Already more than 26,000 teachers have received pink slips, warning of potential job loss, with concern that more will follow. Across the state, in neighborhoods rich and poor, schools are reeling from what is now a certain loss of teachers.

Yet, for all the discussion, there has been little mention of the principals who will remain at our schools. And in the face of cutbacks to teaching staffs and other educational resources, they ultimately will continue to be responsible for the education of California's children. Faced with grim budget realities, these school leaders will be challenged to maintain the quality of instruction as never before.

Unfortunately, little is known about the capacity of principals and other school leaders to meet these challenges. While there are many fine principals across the state, California has underinvested in preparing them for employment and supporting them once they are assigned to a school.

In a recent policy brief published by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, "Strengthening California's System for Preparing and Supporting Principals: Lessons from Exemplary Programs," principals reported having less experience and less access to internships, mentoring and other learning opportunities than those in other states. California's principals also report that they spend less time on key instructional leadership functions and appear to be more discouraged about their jobs than principals elsewhere.

Long hours, increasing demands and low compensation are increasing retirements, resulting in turnover. Only 48 percent of California principals say they plan to stay in their jobs until retirement, compared with 67 percent nationally, and only 22 percent of California's secondary school principals plan to do so.

Unfortunately, few are lining up to take their place.

This is a doubly tragic situation because research shows that effective school leaders are instrumental in creating a culture within schools that supports improvements in student learning and achievement. And school leadership is a key factor in the recruitment and retention of teachers. Conversely, weak school leadership can have a damaging effect. A recent study by Ken Futernick at California State University, Sacramento, finds that 42 percent of teachers who leave the field cite "an unsupportive principal" as a reason for leaving. And more than half (52 percent) cite poor administrative support from the school district.

Budget problems will hamstring the state's and school districts' ability to strengthen school leadership in the short term. However, California would be wise to develop a comprehensive strategy to address educational leadership with an eye toward building teaching excellence if students are to reach the high academic goals set for them.

The first step is to develop a better understanding of the status of the education leadership work force. Policy-makers must have sound, reliable information about the quality and utility of preparation for school leaders, what is needed to increase the knowledge and skill required to succeed in changing school climates and demographics, and what barriers to entering and staying in the profession stymie recruitment efforts.

California urgently needs to augment CALTIDES, the teacher work force data system that already exists, shaping it to learn more about school leaders. This information will serve as a base for effectively strengthening recruitment, preparation and professional development programs for principals that will enable them to meet the needs of the teachers and students they serve.

The challenge is daunting but not insurmountable. Targeting investments toward a system of leadership development, not the patchwork quilt of programs and opportunities that Linda Darling-Hammond has so aptly described as "random acts of professional development," is a good place to start. Further, exemplary practices and programs from other states offer important clues to what can be done to strengthen leadership and, importantly, the new federal stimulus legislation may offer California resources for addressing these needs.

California's schools will be greatly challenged by the current budget crisis, but at the same time there is little doubt of the need to transform schools in ways that ensure all students succeed. Every student deserves not only a fully prepared, effective teacher in every classroom but also a fully prepared, effective and supported principal in every school.

Adapted from an op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee, April 24, 2009

Margaret Gaston
President

Focus on Quality

Ten years ago this month the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning released its first report on the status of California’s teacher workforce.  What we found then was that 20% of the schools in the state were staffed by 20% or more underprepared teachers.  We defined an underprepared teacher as one who had not yet completed the requirements for even a preliminary teaching credential.  And while these numbers were disturbing, the statewide figure hid a set of conditions that were even more shocking: these teachers were unevenly distributed, serving almost exclusively in our lowest-performing schools, those with the highest numbers of poor, minority and English learning students.

As our new report reveals, policy makers—to their considerable credit—acted decisively to put into place an array of initiatives and programs that brought down the numbers of underprepared teachers from a high of more than 42,000 to less than 16,000, or about 5% of the workforce, today.  Without question, this reduction in the numbers of underprepared teachers who may not have the background or training to serve our students well is remarkable given the size of California’s workforce.

That’s the good news.

What remains disturbing, however, is the fact that poor children and children of color are still far more likely than their white, more advantaged peers to have the least prepared and experienced teachers.  And this maldistribution phenomenon hits hard in key subject areas that are currently grabbing headlines like math and science.  In California’s lowest achieving schools, 13% of teachers in both math and science are underprepared.  By comparison, only 4% of mathematics, and 3% of science teachers in high achieving schools are underprepared.

Right now, California, like other states across the country, is facing a financial crisis of huge proportion, yet the state constitution still calls for a free, public education for over six million students.  Keeping the state’s covenant with the public to educate all of its children must be honored. It is the fair and right thing to do.  And it is also the wise thing to do. There is little argument that an educated workforce is essential to a thriving economy.

In order to do this, California must keep its focus on teaching quality. This means building the strongest workforce we can muster and placing teachers where they are needed most.  To that end, we offer our reports—now available for download on this Web site—featuring four major concerns derived from the new SRI data:

• The students who live in our poorest communities or attend the lowest performing schools are by far the most likely to be taught by the least prepared teachers.

• The state does not have a coherent teacher development system that prepares, recruits, retains and sustains teachers.

• The state does not have a data system that allows policymakers to understand the numbers of teachers in our classrooms or how to improve the teaching force.

• The state’s budget process is irrational – the timing, the allocation of dollars and the lack of sufficient resources all contribute to a weaker teaching force than California needs.

In addition to these areas of concern where the state still has work to do, the report includes a set of recommendations for addressing them. 

Despite the considerable challenges Californians face in ensuring an excellent teacher for every student, we remain optimistic, as a future without teaching excellence is hard to contemplate.

Margaret Gaston
President

New Policy Does Not Add Up

Consider this algebra problem. Only half of California's eighth-grade students currently study algebra, but one-third of their teachers are unprepared to teach the subject. If all students are required to study algebra in the eighth grade, how many new math teachers will California need to recruit, train and hire to ensure that every student has a fully prepared and effective teacher?

The short answer is in the thousands. But the real answer is more complicated. And unless policy-makers do their homework, the state's new policy requiring every eighth-grader to take Algebra I is unlikely to improve student achievement and may exacerbate the inequities that already exist in California's public education system.

Three years ago, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning published a research brief warning that eighth-grade Algebra I students were in danger of failing to meet the standards that the state had set for them. Achievement rates in the subject were very low, and there were significant shortages of teachers with the knowledge and skill to help students master this difficult subject. The brief also pointed out that those teachers with the least preparation and experience were unfairly concentrated in schools with the lowest rates of achievement.

Since that time, California has made little progress toward strengthening the capacity of the work force to teach algebra effectively. At best, results for students have been mixed, and in some cases, math achievement is a little worse. In 2004, California's eighth-grade students ranked 43rd on the National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics test. California slipped to 47th in 2007.

More students are taking algebra today, but 62 percent of eighth-grade students failed to attain proficient scores on the California Standardized Test in algebra in 2007. One quarter of 10th-graders failed to pass the math section of California's High School Exit Exam this year.

Part of the problem is the lack of preparation for those who teach math. The percentage of underprepared teachers or those working “out of field” but assigned to teach Algebra I in middle school fell to 32 percent in 2007 from about 40 percent in 2004. But a closer look tells the real story. The number of middle school math teachers without a single subject-matter credential in mathematics – a minimum qualification for teaching Algebra I at the ninth-grade level – actually grew from 950 in 2004 to 1,031 in 2007. And the number of middle school students enrolled in Algebra 1 classes with an underprepared or out-of-field teacher rose from 73,000 in 2004 to 74,000 in 2007.

Perhaps most troubling, those teachers who are least prepared to teach Algebra I remain concentrated in schools with students who arguably need the most help in mastering the subject. In 2007, more than one-third (34 percent) of underprepared and novice teachers were located in schools with the lowest pass rates on the mathematics portion of California High School Exit Exam.

Few would dispute the wisdom of establishing high academic standards in mathematics, but the new state policy requiring all eighth-grade students to take and pass Algebra I does not add up: In order to reach this objective, California must have more algebra teachers. If the lack of progress in securing math teachers in the last three years is any indication, the challenge is tremendous. And it is a challenge made more difficult by increasing enrollments in middle school, the existing shortage of teachers with math backgrounds and the projected retirement of tens of thousands of teachers over the next decade – not to mention the state's budget crisis.

To fulfill the promise of a high quality public education for every child, policy-makers must come up with a workable plan – and dedicate the necessary resources – to prepare and place an adequate number of fully prepared eighth-grade algebra teachers. In addition, California must create opportunities for those teachers already assigned to teach Algebra I, but who lack a background in mathematics to deepen their knowledge and improve their teaching skill.

And perhaps most important, policy-makers must make things right for California's tens of thousands of disadvantaged students by ensuring that schools with the highest concentrations of poor, minority and English-learning children get the first crack at recruiting and placing fully prepared and effective teachers. If such a plan is thoughtfully composed and effectively executed, Californians are more likely to see the gains in student achievement for which the eighth-grade Algebra I policy is intended.

Margaret Gaston
President

Changing Systems to Give California’s Foster Children the Opportunity To Succeed

In a recent message to California’s citizens, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell observed that “closing the achievement gap helps improve the lives and futures of all California students, not just those furthest behind.  It also promotes the skilled workforce that the state needs to compete and thrive in the global economy.” 

We agree.  For over a decade, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has been looking closely at the ways in which schooling – and especially teaching – for economically disadvantaged children of color can be improved to yield just the kind of outcome Superintendent O’Connell advocates.   

Within this group of children, to which the Center has paid so much attention, there is a hidden cohort: those in the foster care system.  Of the half million American children who are placed in the foster care system, at least 74,000 live in California.  

The public’s relationship to these children is unique because as they are removed from their homes for reasons of maltreatment or neglect, the state steps into the role of in loco parentis.  In effect, during the time these children are in foster care we, as California citizens, become their parents.  And our success rate with those in our care is abysmal: half of the children in foster care have been held back at least one grade, 25-52% are placed in special education (compared to 10-12% of the general student population), 46% do not complete high school, and fewer than 3% go on to a four-year college.

In a new report, Ready to Succeed, released by the California Education Collaborative for Children in Foster Care (a collaboration between the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning and Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.,), the authors note that "Year after year, we accept educational outcomes that few parents would tolerate for their own children."  The report’s authors go on to say that "The educational neglect this dismal record represents is particularly tragic because educational success could, for many foster children, improve not only their transitions to self-sufficiency and adulthood, but their overall well-being during and after their school years…The case for devoting attention and resources to closing their educational achievement gap is both morally and practically compelling.”

In focusing on the connections among the foster care, social services and education systems, Ready to Succeed captures what the Collaborative has identified as the most significant barriers to educational success:

• Children entering foster care often have already experienced significant emotional or physical trauma or maltreatment that harms their ability to function in a classroom setting and interferes with their ability to learn.  Most children entering the foster care system are already a year behind their peers in school.
• Frequent changes in foster care placements often mean transferring to a new school, leading to a bewildering array of teachers, administrators, classmates and routines. The problem is magnified because school records typically do not follow students in a timely manner and when records do arrive, they are often incomplete.
• Too often, there is no single person with an interest in a foster child’s educational outcomes, nor the authority and accountability to provide guidance when necessary.
• Child welfare advocates, educators and other service providers do not and sometimes cannot share information about foster children for whom they are responsible, making it more difficult to coordinate a child’s education and education-related interventions.

We believe Ready to Succeed puts forward a compelling case for moving the status of foster care children into view, making public their educational status as well as the state’s progress toward ensuring that they have the opportunities due them to succeed in school.  We urge the policy community to focus on the aspects of the lives of children in foster care that most undermine educational outcomes and for which there is remedy within our control.  First among these is the disruption in their education that is caused by constant changes in placements.  Beyond stabilizing school placement, there are other elements within the public school system that can be addressed, including early and ongoing assessments of students’ strengths and challenges; interventions (both in the classroom and out of school) that are backed by reliable research to support their efficacy with at-risk students in the general population; and teacher and student supports that lead to improved educational outcomes.

As noted in the full report, many individuals and organizations participated in the meetings and background work that culminated in the report's publication.  We are especially grateful to WestEd for their literature review leading to the recommendations developed through this process, and to the team at Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc., for lending to this effort their expertise in foster care, child welfare, and the courts.

Margaret Gaston
President

Broadening the Conversation Beyond Teacher Qualifications to Quality Teaching

The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has long focused on building a strong teacher workforce in California, reporting on the status of teaching and, along with other important data, the number and distribution of underprepared teachers in the state. Great progress has been made in reducing the numbers of these underprepared teachers to the point where about 95% of the state’s classrooms now are staffed by fully prepared teachers.

With this relative lull in demand, state and local policy-makers are in a perfect position to take the next step in strengthening its public schools: The creation of a broader, coherent and consistent teacher development system that ensures every professional has the opportunity to gain the knowledge and skill necessary to be effective in the classroom.  

This teacher development system should be based on common agreement of what good teaching looks like over the span of a career. It should also include a set of reliable measures of teachers’ knowledge and skills that not only serve as the bridge between its major components – preparation, induction, professional development and accomplished teaching – but provide the foundation for high-quality professional learning, relate well to the stages of a career, and reflect individual experience and context.

The basic elements of such a system are already in place. Now it is up to members of the policy community to embrace its full construction as a priority. We urge them to complete this work by using as a guide the definition of high quality teaching recently developed by a distinguished panel of education and policy experts brought together by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning to explore the issue of teaching quality in California.  The panel’s work, based on research conducted by SRI International, represents a professional consensus regarding the dimensions of teaching quality and the issues that need to be addressed in California to ensure student success in school:

High-quality teaching occurs when teachers come to the classroom with a rich toolkit of knowledge and skills that they utilize following a set of effective practices, and which lead, over time, to student learning. High quality teaching occurs in a supportive environment where teachers work as part of a professional community within a workplace that fosters continuous learning on the part of children and adults.

When held up to what the policy and education leadership communities have already done, this definition can be used effectively as an overarching framework for accelerating the development of CALTIDES, the California Longitudinal Teacher Integrated Data Education System; for encouraging the broader use of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession; and for better utilizing assessments already in place at each level of the teacher development system to strengthen practice. 

Along with its definition of teaching quality, the panel also offers an admonition: “[t]eaching and our expectations for it must be challenging but not impossible, sustainable but not heroic.”  Teachers need the support of strong leaders, time and opportunity to work together in a professional community on curriculum, instruction and school improvement efforts – and have time to plan lessons, assess student work and think about practice. Quality teaching also requires adequate facilities, equipment, supplies, and students who are willing and ready to learn.

The system we have in mind will take time to develop. It must be flexible, dynamic and responsive to California’s changing demographics and student needs – a system that “learns.”  We invite you to read more about strengthening the teacher development system by using this Web site to view a new policy brief entitled Teaching Quality in California: A New Perspective to Guide Policy.

Funding for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.  We would like to express our thanks to Marshall Smith and Kristi Kimball for their guidance and support, and to the panel members for the gift of their time and benefit of their experience.

Margaret Gaston
President

California Two-Step is No Plan for School Reform

One step forward, one step back. Or maybe even two steps back.  That seems to best describe California’s approach to education reform.  And unfortunately, it is the students and their teachers who suffer the most from this dance.

Last December the Center for the Future Teaching and Learning reported that California had strengthened it teaching workforce by reducing the number of underprepared teachers – those assigned to classrooms before qualifying for preliminary credential - by more than 25,000 since 2001-02.  Perhaps even more impressive, all types of schools, including those serving the state’s lowest income students had reduced the number of underprepared teachers.  California seemed to be on right track toward building a teacher development system with the capacity to produce an adequate supply of teachers and deliver them to schools where they were needed to most.

Now those gains appear to be at considerable risk.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed $4.8 billion in budget cuts to education. Facing their own budget crunch, local school districts have begun planning to lay off teachers and other employees.  State law requires that school districts must send preliminary “pink slip” notices of potential layoff by March 15.  These threats of teacher layoffs are not only harmful to the morale of local school personnel, they also greatly complicate the challenge school districts face in retaining veteran staff and planning for the hiring and assignment of new teachers to meet student needs. 

We have only to look back as far as the state’s last budget downturn to reason that the “pink slip factor” is likely to threaten the progress the state has made in strengthening its teaching workforce. In 2003, the education community was facing expected budget cuts of $5.4 billion and by the March 15 deadline over 20,000 teachers statewide had received layoff notices. By June, all but 3,000 of the layoff notices had been rescinded. The downstream effect of this awkward process may have done more than affect moral and complicate school district planning.  The layoff message may also have harmed the state’s capacity to recruit and prepare teachers. The number of enrollees in teacher preparation programs during the 2002-03 school year was 74,203. The next year, that number dropped to 67,595 and the following year (2004-05) it was 64,753, a loss of about 10,000 teacher candidates in two years.  Similarly, the numbers of teaching credentials awarded dropped from 27,000 in 2004 to 22,400 in 2006. 

Considering that California will need to replace about one-third of its teaching workforce over the next ten years due to retirement alone, this is not a small issue.  And if a weaker teacher pipeline is the result of this year’s budget problems, low achieving schools in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods are likely to find it even harder to hire fully prepared teachers from a shrinking pool of available candidates.  This isn’t to say that “pink slipping” has been the sole factor responsible for the downturn in teacher production and availability, but no doubt the practice sends a negative message to current and prospective members of the workforce, one the state can ill afford as it looks to replace over 100,000 retiring teachers.

There has got to be a better way. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning is fully cognizant of the scope of California’s budget deficit and sympathetic to the pressures facing the state and local school districts.  But if California’s policy community is serious about improving the quality of our public education system, it must guard the significant progress made in ensuring that all students have a fully prepared and effective teacher to help them learn.

Margaret Gaston
President

Building a System for Teaching Quality

The volume on education reform is set on high. Policymakers are faced with handfuls of new research and commission reports and scores of policy proposals for improving California’s schools.

The governor and Legislature will wrestle with competing ideas and interests at a time when they are unlikely to have additional resources to offer. Through this difficult time we hope they stay focused, as they have been, on teachers and teaching.

Quality teaching has never been more important. The stakes have never been so high. California is struggling to keep pace with a global economy that increasingly rewards knowledge and skills.

By our own standards, fewer than half of our students are proficient in mathematics or literacy. Tens of thousands of high school seniors do not get a diploma each year because they can’t pass the state’s graduation exam. Tens of thousands more drop out before graduating. And far too many of those who do graduate show up at college requiring remedial courses.

Sound research and common sense has put to rest the question of whether good teaching matters: it does. Research consistently shows that the single biggest factor in our schools that can help students learn is the quality of teachers they have.

For the past decade, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning has issued annual reports on the status of California’s teaching profession. These reports have mostly been dominated by two issues:

First, California’s policy and education communities have been working hard simply to find enough qualified teachers to staff our schools.

Second, the distribution of teachers has been unfair: California’s poorest students routinely get teachers who are the least prepared, least experienced, least qualified.

We have just issued a new report on the status of California’s teaching profession based on fresh research by SRI International.  In this report, The Status of the Teaching Profession 2007, we have broadened our look at the profession to include teaching quality. We have done so because we believe that in the relative lull between the high demand for qualified teachers in the 1990s and the increasing demand sure to come with the baby boom retirement wave, the opportunity arises to turn the attention of the education and policy communities in this direction.

The new report contains some good news — we have far fewer teachers who lack a basic teaching credential.  And some uncomfortable news — students in our poorest communities are still far more likely to face our least prepared teachers.

But beyond providing enough teachers for every classroom and distributing our least prepared teachers equitably, California faces another challenge: the state does not have a teacher development system to recruit, prepare, hire and mentor new teachers, or provide necessary support to veteran teachers.   

We must transform the components of our fragmented teacher development continuum — preparation, induction and professional development — into a system that is capable of supporting and assisting teachers to be the best they can be. It must be flexible, dynamic and responsive to changing demographics and student needs — a system that “learns” and adapts to needed changes. At the heart of such a system is sound, reliable data used wisely to inform policy and strengthen teaching.

To help us think further about what such a system should yield — high quality teaching — we convened a group made up of respected practitioners, policymakers and researchers who reached the consensus that

Fortunately, California has in place the components of a teacher development system that, if refined and linked by assessments to inform preparation and strengthen practice at each stage of a teacher’s career, hold promise for strengthening teaching quality.  

See for yourself. Take a look at our new research report.

Margaret Gaston
President

The Welcome Sign is Out

In a recent article in the April 2007 edition of the AARP Bulletin, author Elizabeth Pope (“Labor Pains”) was right on target when she noted that states across the U.S. are facing a collision of circumstance where the baby boom retirement wave is smacking into increasing demand for jobs in nearly every sector. But hidden in Pope’s accurate assessment of a serious problem lies reason for hope. The notion that “Government officials believe it’s in the country’s best interest to keep older people employed” is a positive signal that within this segment of the population there are important contributions to be made and a sign that, at least in the public schools sector, opportunities abound.

California has not cornered the market on aging and, like most states, the baby boom retirement wave is expected to have a profound effect on our public school system where we stand to lose over 98,000 teachers --- 32% of the workforce --- over the next ten years. 

Even before the retirement wave begins to affect the market in a serious way, job seekers will find that California lacks a sufficient number of teachers in all disciplines, and we estimate that we will need over 33,000 science and math teachers within the next ten years.  So great is this demand, the state welcomes those who are still in the process of obtaining the required preliminary teaching credential.  The numbers of “underprepared” math and science teachers (those assigned, full-time, to a classroom while working toward a credential) are inching up toward half of all first- and second-year teachers, a signal of high demand and short supply.

Underprepared First- and Second-Year Mathematics and Science Teachers, 2005-06

Shifts in demographics also reveal additional job opportunities in public education in certain regions of the state. As the cost of housing rises along the coast, families are moving inland, filling schools where teaching jobs are at a premium.  In California’s Central Valley, for example, high enrollment growth has only exacerbated the need for teachers.  Those who are prepared to work successfully with English learning students are in especially high demand.

More good news for job seekers: California’s policy community has been thinking ahead about the ways in which the state can attract and keep more fully qualified and effective teachers.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Jack Scott, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, worked hard to pass legislation (SB 1209, Scott) that eliminates bureaucratic barriers to teaching, streamlines the credentialing process, and gives novice teachers the support they need to help their students reach high academic standards. 

The legislation also gives districts and their bargaining units latitude in designing compensation and incentive packages that can be shaped to the particular needs of the schools and the communities they serve.  Reimbursement costs for training in high-need areas such as special education, signing bonuses, and other ways to make teaching more attractive, especially to those who have been in the job market for some time at a higher salary range, are now under discussion.

So those seeking employment who come to California where teachers are needed are likely to find the welcome sign out.  But remember, it isn’t just about filling a slot in the job market—it’s about giving a child the gift of a good education.  Is there any better way to avoid those “labor pains?”

Margaret Gaston
President

Persistence Pays:
Having a Sustained Impact on Policy

In late 2005, we offered California’s policymakers a pointed and blunt appeal to put aside partisan difference and demonstrate the political will necessary to build a stronger teaching force for our 6.3 million students.

In 2006, they did.

To their considerable credit, policymakers came through with leadership, legislative changes and additional resources. In particular, they focused their efforts on delivering more well prepared teachers to our neediest students – those in the state’s lowest achieving schools – who are mostly poor and who speak little or no English.

As you will see in this year’s report – California’s Teaching Force: Key Issues and Trends 2006 – we applaud their efforts and believe they will make a significant difference. But we also know California has a long way to go to build the kind of teaching force that can ensure all of our students learn what they need to succeed in the 21st century.

The stakes have increasingly been raised for students who will matriculate – with or without skills – into a global economy that rewards knowledge. Our students are learning more – achievement is up – but the pace is far too slow; the number of “program improvement” schools on the state’s watch list is now 2,215 and growing. California students must now pass a graduation test to earn a high school diploma; last year, nearly 40,000 students failed that test.

We believe that California students will only meet the high standards required of them if we provide them with teachers who are well prepared and highly effective.

The good news is that the number of underprepared teachers – teachers who don’t have a basic teaching credential -- has gone down significantly over the past few years. But we must also note warning signs on the horizon: about 100,000 veteran teachers will retire in the next decade, the production of new teachers has declined in recent years and the number of students going into teaching programs has declined considerably. We continue to face significant shortages of teachers of special education, of mathematics and of science.

The new laws signed in 2006 should make it easier for California school districts to hire and retain quality teachers, but it is the thoughtful implementation of the legislation that ultimately will determine success.

In Sacramento, the Governor and key members of the Senate and the Assembly are determined to keep working on this issue in 2007. In Washington, D.C., Congress will start the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. California’s Rep. George Miller, the author of the law’s provision requiring “highly qualified teachers,” now chairs the congressional committee dealing with educational issues and is determined to make improvements. We will continue to provide such leaders with our best understanding of California’s teaching force, including a fresh look at teacher quality that goes beyond the threshold of a credential.

It is hard to predict exactly what will happen, but I’m sure 2007 will see continued interest by policymakers in improving the teaching profession. I am also sure that the persistence of policymakers in investing public resources in teachers will pay long-term dividends for California.

Margaret Gaston
President

A New Beginning:
Omnibus Teacher Quality Legislation is a High Priority for California’s Leadership

Responding to Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata’s call for action to expand the ranks of excellent teachers in California, on January 25 the Senate Education Committee held an informational hearing on “Teacher Supply and Quality.”  The primary purpose of this hearing was to review the findings and policy recommendations of the Center’s newly released report, The Status of the Teaching Profession 2005, and to formulate a comprehensive legislative response to the serious problems facing the state, including the maldistribution of underprepared teachers in the state and the impending shortage of fully qualified teachers that will result from the aging of our teacher workforce.

At the request of Senator Jack Scott, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, Patrick Shields of SRI International, and Linda Bond and I on behalf of the Center, provided testimony on these two over-arching issues and urged policy-makers to consider, as a top priority, legislation to address the following conditions:

• Within 7 to 10 years, the state can expect 100,000 teachers, or about one-third of the workforce, to retire.
• The maldistribution of underprepared teachers is persistent.  Students in low API-ranked schools are five times more likely than their peers attending high-ranking API schools to have an underprepared teacher.
• Eighty-five percent of the participants in intern preparation programs are placed in high-minority schools, while only three percent of interns teach in low-minority schools.
• There is a severe shortage of teachers willing to take challenging teaching assignments: 49 percent of all first year special education teachers are underprepared, and 22 percent of underprepared special education teachers are placed at high-minority schools.
• There is an existing shortage of fully qualified middle and high school teachers: approximately 20 percent of English, math, social science, and life science, and 30 percent of all physical science teachers are either underprepared or teaching out-of-field.

As a result of the concern about these issues, comprehensive omnibus teacher quality legislation (SB 1209, Scott) has been introduced.  This bill addresses:

1. Removing barriers to teaching;
2. Strengthening the pipeline leading to fully prepared teachers for every student in every school;
3. Providing intensive training, support, and supervision to all novice teachers while addressing equity in the distribution of teachers;
4. Transforming schools into places where teachers will want to serve by addressing hiring delays, working conditions, compensation, professional development and school leadership;
5. Targeting new professional growth programs to areas of substantial need;
6. Strengthening teacher retention, particularly in high-need schools; and
7. Consolidating, streamlining and improving state data on the teacher workforce.

In the weeks to come we will keep our readers posted on the progress of these bills through the Legislation section of our Web site. We are eager to see real gain in support for a truly well-prepared and effective teacher workforce as the window of opportunity is narrow.  The time to act is now.

Margaret Gaston
President

Flunking Science
STAR Scores Highlight a Need to Focus on Science Instruction

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is right to claim steady progress in student achievement, as demonstrated by the recent results of the 2005 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program.  But encouraging as these new test results are in English Language Arts and Math, they also serve as a sober reminder of how far we have to go – especially when it comes to science. 

The results of the science exam show that only 28 percent of all fifth graders scored at or above the proficient level. The numbers are worse for African American and Latino students, with only 14 percent of Latino and 16 percent of African American fifth graders achieving proficient scores.  The numbers are similarly grim at the high school level, where fewer than one-third of all students performed at a proficient level in biology, chemistry or physics.  Only 16 percent of Latino and 14 percent of African American eleventh graders scored at the proficient or advanced levels on the biology/life sciences test.

How can student performance in science be so poor while English language arts and math scores improve?  A series of state and federal actions, including the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, have focused local districts so intensively on reading and math that there is little time for other subjects, including science. Science achievement is not a priority. 

The problem is made worse by the shortage of life and physical science teachers, particularly in schools with large percentages of low income and minority children. In 2004, more than 30 percent of physical science and 20 percent life science high school teachers—more than 1,500 science teachers—were not prepared to teach the subject. And more than half of the underprepared science teachers were assigned to schools with the lowest scores on California’s Academic Performance Index (API), which predominately serve the state’s high-poverty and minority students.

This existing shortage, coupled with deep cuts in programs to recruit and train qualified science teachers, seriously compromises the state’s ability to ensure a fully prepared teacher for every classroom.  Since the beginning of the decade, the budget for the state’s main program for teacher professional development in science, the California Science Project, has been reduced from $11.5 million in 2002, to $1.8 million in 2004.  Meanwhile the California’s budget for teacher recruitment centers has virtually been eliminated.

Margaret Gaston
President

Preventing the Perfect Storm

There was a bit of pleasure in presenting our annual look at California’s teaching force. After all, we found a substantial decline in the number of unprepared teachers, particularly in schools serving our poorest communities.

But there was also considerable trepidation in unveiling a set of projections that point to a ‘perfect storm’ on California’s horizon. It feels a bit like seeing in advance the four hurricanes that were to hit Florida last summer. The good news is that we have early warning and the capacity to avoid the eye of the storms, at least we will if the Governor and the Legislature keep the promise made in the Williams v. California settlement to provide every child the basic tenets of a good education.

We are at an awkward time in California. The state and school districts have endured repeated budget cuts while demands on student and school performance have increased. But although budgets and expectations often fluctuate, there is one constant that research has repeatedly proven – the single most important thing schools can do to help students achieve is provide them a quality teacher.

So, here comes the storm:

• A substantial portion of California’s teaching force is eligible for retirement. In the next decade, the state will see one third – 100,000 – of its veteran teachers retire. This will come on top of normal attrition of teachers who leave the profession earlier.

• The boom of children for whom the state created class-size reduction in the 1990s is moving out of elementary school and into middle school and high school, where class sizes are growing. At the same time, the state is increasing the requirements – demanding that all students pass the California graduation exam before getting a diploma and pushing algebra down to the 8th grade.

• In our secondary schools, far too many teachers either don’t yet have a credential or are teaching key subjects in which they have no preparation – one third of physical science teachers, one fifth of math and English teachers. Forty percent of 8th grade algebra teachers are not prepared to teach the subject despite the importance of the course.

• Students who live in poor communities or of color are far more likely to face teachers who don’t have the preparation to help them meet California’s academic expectations. Students in predominantly minority schools are still five times more likely to face such teachers than students in mostly white schools.

• The state has largely dismantled the pipeline it designed to put more qualified teachers in the classroom. State budget cuts have played havoc with programs to recruit and prepare new teachers as well as training for veterans teaching out of their field. For example, state teacher recruitment centers have been eliminated, as have summer institutes to help math teachers.

Our projections show that California has a narrow window in which to act before the storms strike. We learned a great deal during the rampant teacher shortages of the late 1990s. We know what to do.

The storms won’t be averted by rhetoric, but rather will require investment at a time when resources are in limited supply. If we delay, the problems will get worse and the repair costs will grow.

Among the immediate and relatively low-cost steps the Governor and Legislature could take:

• Restore the function of a few teacher recruitment centers, targeting those that provide qualified teachers to the schools most in need of them.

• Plan and deliver extensive institutes in mathematics and science this coming summer for those teachers who need it most.

• Dramatically expand preparation of teachers in mathematics, science and special education and couple that training with incentives --- like the Governor’s Teaching Fellowship Award --- that attract and place these teachers where they are needed the most.

The warning bell is ringing. The question is whether California will heed it.

Margaret Gaston
President & Executive Director

Margaret Gaston
President