Loading ...
June 14th, 2011 |
guest blogger
Research Update: What Can We Learn From Other Countries’ Education Successes?
There is so much education research out there focused on the myriad details that it’s hard to keep track of it all. But the latest study that’s generating buzz—and standing out—in reform circles zooms out and examines education from a big picture, global perspective.
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform by Marc S. Tucker is a report that actually stems from the last two chapters of a book that will be published in September by Harvard Education Press. The project began when Education Secretary Arne Duncan asked the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to study the education strategies that other countries have used to outpace us.
American students are now ranked below those in almost 40 developed nations in terms of science, math and reading according to a study by the Programme for International Student Assessment, and this new report shows that the most popular tactics in the US—like smaller class sizes and charter schools—are not making the significant difference that has been hoped for.
The National Center on Education and Economy, a Washington DC think tank, picked up the work and focused on education systems in the highest performing countries—Finland, Singapore, Japan, China (Shanghai), and Canada (Ontario)—to see what we may learn from their successes.
Based on their findings, the team makes a series of practical recommendations to improve the education system in the United States. It’s a system that was developed in the industrial factory era, treating teachers like blue collar workers and students like commodities to be churned out most efficiently. What other countries have done differently is look outside their borders for ideas that work and continually adapt their education system to be aligned with new economies and societal shifts. The researchers conclude it’s long overdue for the US to make significant changes—based on what has been proven to work abroad—to bring our education system into the 21st Century.
Specific ideas include:
- Expanding national curriculum standards—not to prescribe day-to-day instruction, but to create a unified framework of development goals for each grade.
- Using smarter and less frequent testing, like other countries’ writing-based assessments only at key transitional points during a student’s education, not every year.
- Elevating the teaching profession to attract and retain quality educators.
This last point, in fact, is where the researchers spend most of their time. They make the case to move teaching education to more prestigious institutions and create more rigorous entrance requirements (for instance, in Finland, only one in 10 applicants is accepted to Masters-level teaching programs); require more intensive subject matter study in addition to pedagogy and post-graduate apprenticeships (think the process medical doctors go through); set up better compensation models on par with other “professional” level careers; and empower teachers to choose paths for continued development and career growth, design new instruction methods, and advocate for educational improvements.
The idea is that if the smartest, most qualified and dedicated people are becoming teachers—and are continually strengthened and motivated to do their best work—our students will rise to be the next generation of intelligent, successful workers and citizens.
It is an ambitious and complex proposal, and one that certainly shakes up the status quo. But as they conclude:
“The claim that this agenda has on our attention is simply that is has worked. It has worked in countries as different as Singapore and Finland, Japan and Canada. It is not a Republican agenda or a Democratic agenda. It is neither conservative nor liberal. While it requires major changes in the way we do things in the United States, it demands changes more or less equally of all parties. The changes it calls for are as dramatic as the changes made in government in the Progressive Era, but let the record show that the United States made those changes. It can make these, too, if it chooses to do so.”
You can read the full report here.
What do you think we can learn from and even implement from these other countries’ education systems?
Thank you for distributing this report. I was very encouraged to read it. As a student aspiring to become a teacher in the early 1980′s there were two experiences I had that discouraged me from this path. The first was a book that was required in my teacher education program: “Cultural literacy for freedom : an existential perspective on teaching” by C. A. Bowers. In class discussions based on this book, I began to understand exactly what Tucker’s report describes…our educational system is “broken”. I saw no way that an individual teacher could repair the system and feared that I would be “broken” it.
In spite of this, I continued with the program and went on to get my “Teaching Certificate”. As a student teacher my final project was a research paper on teacher stress and burnout. This was the final straw that dashed my hopes and ended my teaching career before it ever officially began. Through my research I found that over 75% of teachers wished they had gone into a different profession! They were isolated in their classrooms, bearing the brunt of the often competing priorities of parents, students, administration, other faculty members and staff with very little support. Raising the priority, value and support for teaching as a profession is long overdue.
I wonder if a similar research project has been performed on high performing schools in the U.S.? It strikes me that the US has a very different demographic and social reality than most of the other countries mentioned. We have massive social problems that make “readiness to learn” a big issue in many schools, no matter how good the teacher is. We have a high rate of violence, drug abuse and addiction, racial, cultural and economic diversity, and many other factors that complicate the goals of education. Perhaps other chapters of this report address these issues.
Nevertheless, there is much in this part of the report to be hopeful about if it is taken seriously and used as a model for revamping our failing educational system.
Thanks again,
Cindy
Thanks for your comments and sharing your experience, Cindy. You make a good point that the “broken” education system goes deeper than just the schools—it is the result of many social challenges, both at home and on the streets, that put students at a disadvantage to learn and achieve. There is much work to be done to improve all these factors.
But we also feel, similarly to the researchers of this report, that the biggest impact INSIDE schools comes from better teaching, and better teaching comes from teachers who are better supported. Our hope is that systematic changes to teacher preparation, comprehensive evaluation, compensation, and professional development stop the burnout that you discovered in your research and attract the best to the classroom. (Read more about this work in Oregon through our CLASS Project – http://www.educators4reform.org.)
It’s not an overnight solution or simply a bandaid, but longterm work that makes real, deep changes to the outdated model. Do read the whole report because it provides a fantastic historical context for our education reform issues and makes the case for moving the education system into the 21st Century with some very real and specific ideas that have been proven to work.
Thanks for sharing this report. It was immensely interesting, though the conclusions of the author didn’t match the information that was presented about the top performing countries. (Only China by the way can be seen as a country with anywhere near the diversity of America so one of the main problems in American education — student behavior particularly in lower socio-economic schools need not be addressed in the same way in the countries mentioned.)And the author also left out the idea that many U.S. schools, almost always higher socio-economic schools, are as good as any in the world.
But here is what I think made a lot of sense.
1) We need to dump the way we test, which creates a narrow test driven curriculum. Hence the idea that we are in any way going to hold teachers accountable based on testing should be totally discounted.
2) We need to create way greater autonomy for teachers.
3) We need to better organize our educational systems to make sense. One of the things we need to do is to create a much broader and deeper curriculum for ALL children. Along with this we need to focus on the problems within each school and have the people within each school address them instead of a general approach.
4) We need to work toward all children being successful in all areas, not just the ability to take tests.
5) We need to upgrade the educational system on the front end for teachers.
6) Inservices need to be teacher initiated, not administrative initiated.
7) The role of the principal needs to change from the boss to the supporter.
So, let’s take PPS and see what they could do tomorrow.
They could de-emphasize the testing instead of going the other way which their new strategic plan draft does. They could make sure all kids had access to a vibrant, comprehensive, and relevant curriculum instead of the test driven curriculum in their lower-economic schools.
The could make sure their offerings were truly equitable. The could shift the role of principal to supporter from the boss. They could shift the way they approach inservice to teacher initiated topics instead of administrative initiated topic. only the offering piece costs any money.
How should teachers be evaluated? There are continuous comments made (by teachers) that testing should not have any influence on measurement. And, there is continuous resistance for having teacher success measured by the administration. So, what is the best way to measure academic success from the viewpoint of teachers? How should schools, districts and states be compared from the viewpoint of teachers? It seems that there has always been a resistance for any kind of comparisons, is that a correct inference?
Nona, there are three aspects to a teacher’s job.
1) What they teach
2) How they teach it
3) Classroom management which particlulary includes discipline, parent relations, time use, and the aesthetics of their room and how it relates to instruction.
Since these are the three main parts of a teacher’s job these are the areas in which they should be evaluated. When I say evaluation I mean getting support they need, not determining their quality. I will explain that later.
So, you determine what a teacher is teaching by asking them and sitting down and going through their program and their basis for it.
You determine how they teach it by talking to them about how they teach things and observing what they do.
You determine their classroom management by talking to them about it and seeing what they do.
Note that none of the three things I talk about are particularly measurable. You can’t look at student results as a measure of a teacher’s quality. Each class is different. Each class is different in different ways. Each student is different and has different strengths and weaknesses, some of which can show measurable improvement, some cannot. It is all so hit and miss when you start measuring student outcomes. So, you have to limit the curriculum by narrowing it down in order to be able to measure it. And this isn’t good for anyone. That is why the testing is so destructive — it narrows what is taught plus centers the curriculum around the middle, hindering both students who are behind and those who need to be challenged.
My ideas for teacher evaluations are much different than the norm. I think only a small number of teachers should be formally evaluated, those a district is seriously considering firing. The rest should be told they are not in danger and thus create an atmosphere where a principal, VP, or whatever can often visit classrooms and discuss what is going on with the teacher. That doesn’t happen now with the formal evaluations. That is why the bill in the legislature which would work to more formalize evaluations is such a bad bill. It goes the opposite of what needs to take place.
This type of approach builds teacher professionalism more than anything else. Professionals are autonomous and autonomy is a tremendous motivator, probably the most powerful of all once a basic living compensation is met. This type of approach also frees up teachers to collaborate and share because they are in charge of their own work and will be interested in improving in the areas which they determine they need.
A parent might want to know who the best teachers are. They can ask. When I go to a doctor’s clinic and I want a doctor I ask people who work there who the best doctors are — they know, and as long as I ask confidentially they will tell me. Teachers are the same way. Plus, if you spend much time in the school you get a great idea of who the best teachers are.
One other thing though. One teacher might be the best for one child and another teacher the best for another child. Just the way it is. In 43 years teaching I have know lots of teachers, but only five or six who were truly outstanding and only a handful which were truly terrible. Lots of times the subjects being taught by the teacher determines how good they are. A teacher can be, for instance, a great first grade teacher, but only a mediocre 6th grade teacher, or vice versa say. So it is not so simple and trying to really measure a teacher’s ability is kind of like trying to measure art. Is Picasso better than Remington? Is Bach better than Brahms? Tell me how you measure great art or great music. But we know it when we see it don’t we?????
Thank you Steve. I get the impression from your comments that you don’t believe there are benchmarks for the different grade levels, or that these benchmarks should be tested/evaluated. I feel that standardized testing is important to measure these benchmarks. There should be some connection for the student who transfers from Tennessee to Oregon, or Portland to Medford.
I agree with you that each teacher should have flexibility to teach to his/her strengths and the student’s strengths. I don’t agree that each teacher should be able to “wing it”, and maybe that is not what you are suggesting.
I do get the impression that you feel that there should not be a measurement of student success, or failures. Should different districts/states be evaluated, or compared?
You said, “You can’t look at student results as a measure of a teacher’s quality.” Should the positive or negative movement of student results be a measure of a teacher’s quality?
You seem to indicate from your comments that academic results do not matter, or that a student’s success, or failures are not reflected in teacher quality. I find that unusual and interesting.
You said, “So, you determine what a teacher is teaching by asking them and sitting down and going through their program and their basis for it.
You determine how they teach it by talking to them about how they teach things and observing what they do.
You determine their classroom management by talking to them about it and seeing what they do.
Note that none of the three things I talk about are particularly measurable. You can’t look at student results as a measure of a teacher’s quality.”
Kona,
No, I think there are very specific things that should be taught, and generally at a grade level. I just don’t think that generalized testing is the way to measure how you are doing. And, no, I think the school by school and state by state testing comparisons are the wrong way to go. They don’t show how a school is doing, except on the tests. Since that is about the only measurement we seem to be interested in teachers and schools work hard to make sure the tests are done well.
The problem is this is not correlated to good education. We have a tendancy to reinforce the use of testing in lower-socio economic areas, but every parent of a bright child doesn’t want him or her subjected to a “test driven curriculum”. So in America we are creating schools similar to the “separate but equal” system in the Old South, where black children were not seen as bright enough, or important enough, or whatever to need education equal to whites. We are doing the same thing in Portland with lower socio-economic children. We act on the idea that they need test driven curriculums not a vibrant, comprehensive, and relevant education. By using the tests to evaluate everything, including teachers, we reinforce giving poor kids a bad education. And since they don’t have powerful political groups who stand up for them that is what happens.
There are places in the education system that teachers should be allowed to “wing it”, but they are few and far between. You’ll notice, if you look again, that I very specifically call for more, not less, discussion and oversite, just in a more collegial and relaxed manner which treats the teacher as a capable professional and respects their opinions. What happens now is pretty much everything comes from the top and is built around measurement, not education. Now, if you go into West Sylvan I am willing to bet you will come away going, “wow, they have a lot of good stuff going on”, but if you go into George I am willing to bet you will come away with a totally different idea. Why should it be so different?? I contend both groups of kids need a good education, and I am sure you know as well as I do what that would entail and that it would include at least — a love of reading, good writing skills including spelling and grammar, an understanding of U.S. and world history, a broad understanding of science, a solid background in geography, good health habits including regular P.E., music and the arts, a chance to participate in sports or other activities where you are part of a team and work toward a goal, a solid background in technology, some U.S. government and citizenship training every year, consumerism and finance, solid math skills, both computational and thinking, some hands on CTE, and I am sure we could add some more but you get the idea. The testing takes from this, and what we do should enhance this. Using measurements to evaluate teachers buries this. Except of course in those schools such as Forest Park where the kids all pass the tests pretty much anyway. Do you think they use a test driven curriculum? Or how about Alameda? The parents would kill you if you built the curriculum around the testing instead of projects and literature and other interesting things.
One other comment. I don’t think there should be a measurement of students’ successes or failures in the manner in which we do it. I measured my kids all the time and almost every teacher I know does also. When we measure with generalized standardized tests we are not really measuring kids, we are measuring schools. The tests measure how kids do on the tests, not how well they are doing in school or any of the other myriad of things we should be teaching them. Sure, there is some measurement of math, and whether they can kind of write a five paragraph essay. Good things to measure. But every English teacher who is any good measures more than just a five paragraph essay. I had kids in the 6th grade write a composition a week and measured them every week. And the measurement was on a much broader scale. And in math I cared if they were ahead of what would be the typical benchmarks. I didn’t limit my students to what the state said they should know by 6th grade. But if you teach to a test driven curriculum you limit your kids in both these ways. Also, you spend huge amounts of time having kids work on reading skills and test taking skills, instead of having kids read and learn to love it. Also, if kids already know the skills the testing curriculum holds them back from using their skills in a broader manner in social studies, science etc. which makes them much better readers than you can make by reading skills only.
That is just the way it works. People out of the system don’t see it every day like people working within the system. I don’t know one older teacher who thinks the testing is the way to go. There are younger ones but it is all they have known sometimes.
Take care.
Steve, I do find your comments interesting. You seem to suggest that their should be no (or very limited) quantitative assessments in education, and certainly no quantitative comparisons. Is that a fair inference?
You said, “But every English teacher who is any good measures more than just a five paragraph essay”. I think everyone would agree with you that there is more to student evaluation than just the tests.
Quantitative testing is fine. High stakes, comparative, standardized testing is not. The way we do it now does more harm than good (particularly to poor kids) and the things we do which reinforce the testing increase the harm. Experienced teachers I have worked with understand this. The reform movement does not.
“there”, not “their”. I apologize. Wish we could edit our responses.
Thank you for posting this! I began pursuing my M.Ed. last year, and since then have immersing myself in the various efforts at educational reform in the United States. I have sometimes wondered whether the only reason that Americans do not adopt reforms that have worked so well in other countries is a stubborn, nationalistic belief that America has nothing to learn from other countries.
Before deciding to go into teaching high school, I pursued a career in academia and over time earned a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in history. So, my path to secondary education has been anything but typical. When I decided that I did not like working for a university and started attending school at night for teaching certification, I was struck by how many of my colleagues poured cold water on the idea that expertise in a subject area could actually be an important component of effective teaching. I would never pretend that it is a sufficient component — not even for effective college teaching, and certainly not for precollege teaching. But the idea that depth of knowledge in a subject area would not contribute to better teaching — all else being equal — seemed, and still seems, absurd to me.
In a similar way, the idea that the United States can hope to be competitive with other countries in the education of our youth, when these other countries are so much more selective in whom they permit to become teachers, to me seems self-evidently wrongheaded. Americans pride themselves in having the best physicians and hospitals in the world: and it is no coincidence that in America medical schools are highly selective, and that our physicians enjoy exceptionally high salaries and status. If we want a teaching profession that is staffed by some of our “best and brightest,” we need to provide the incentives that will attract such people to the job. As I recently heard Thomas L. Friedman say on the subject of incentives, “If you want to move the mouse, move the cheese.”