Teacher Fellows Blog

I learned a new application for an old word in a recent article in Education Week (Vol. 31, No. 27).  The word is “churn”.  While the traditional definition is “to stir or agitate violently”, in this article, it refers to the practice of moving teachers around and compares this churn to a hurricane.

Urban school districts suffer the most from this type of disaster.  New teachers often leave the teaching profession within the first five years or they at least leave the urban schools for suburban institutions.  This creates a stir in the school or the entire district as educators move in and move out and others move in to take their place.  This interferes with relationship building between staff members and with their students.  This instability creates obstacles in developing trust and understanding.

A more complicated problem is that teachers not only leave urban schools, but often , those schools will move teachers around within the building (and sometimes between from one school to another) treating them as objects or widgets, merely filling a scheduling or staffing hole.  Teachers are not given the opportunity to develop expertise in a grade level or subject as they are moved about by the hurricane.  The article states, “For every two teachers who left the district or the profession during our study, another three were moved from subject to subject, grade to grade, or school to school.”  In addition to personal mastery, educators who are blown about are not able to form stable professional learning communities in which to grow in their abilities.

Educators, researchers, and policymakers have learned to accept churn as “background noise.”  The constant movement has become a fact of educator’s lives.  Further research showed that of controlled studies attempting to measure the effects of new interventions churn was ignored as a possible reason for failing to find effects from the interventions.

Churn is apparent even in the world of administrators where principals are switched about in efforts to turn around struggling schools.  As a result, teachers are constantly adjusting to new leadership styles.

What does this mean for teachers?

• Less knowledge. When teachers are moved from grade to grade, they need to learn new curriculum materials and new educational standards.  Looking at the National Common Core State Standards, it is obvious that a teacher would find differences and variance in the standards.  
  
• Weak relationships. Teachers in schools with a high-level of churn, fail to make lasting relationships with co-workers.  In fact, they may feel less inclined to even attempt the effort of connecting with colleagues if they feel that the coworker will only disappear at the end of the year. 
  
• High turnover. Teachers who feel like widgets will leave the profession http://widgeteffect.org/  Teachers who feel valued for their contribution to the education of children, stay.
  

What does this mean for students?

We have to remember that students ultimately suffer due to churn.  Students cannot build relationships when teachers are moving to other buildings.  Without a degree of staff stability, students encounter a new school climate every year of their education.

What does this mean for policymakers?

Teacher turnover has been talked about for many years.  Teachers leave the profession for a variety of reasons, but the fact remains that teacher turnover has related economic costs.  It takes money to train teachers and to provide them with materials to meet educational demands.  It takes money to recruit qualified individuals.

Turnover has educational costs.  If students are consistently taught by less experienced teachers, they will experience less effective teaching on the whole.  If students are taught by teachers who are always new to the curriculum, they will not benefit from a teacher’s deep understanding of a subject matter or grade level.

Turnover has personal costs.  Educators and administrators are never able to develop confidence in an area, a building, or a subject area if they are constantly tossed around by the winds of change.

Churn needs to be recognized and addressed.  It cannot be a necessary evil involved in education.  The root causes of churn need to be examined.  How arbitrary is churn?  What are the reasons that are given when teachers and administrators are moved or choose to move?  How can we convince teachers to stay?  How can we convince administrators to let teachers stay in one place long enough to develop a level of expertise?

Final Thoughts:

Educators leave the profession of teaching for a variety of reasons.  Although teachers may seek higher paying jobs, more often teachers site the reasons for leaving as “environments that lack essential professional supports including:

1. support from school leadership,
   
   
2. organizational structures and workforce conditions that convey respect and value for them, and
   
   
3. induction and mentoring programs for new and experienced teachers.”
   
   

When teachers feel valued and respected, they will stay – through thick and thin.  When teachers are treated like warm bodies to fill a classroom based on scheduling needs, they feel undervalued and unable to fulfill their role as a mentor for the future.

Some people think that anyone can teach.  That is a widget mentality and teachers are not widgets. 

Dru Davison and I were invited to represent Hope Street Group to interview Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan about teacher evaluation.  What an honor it was!

It was a whirlwind tour and in a matter of hours, we had met with Secretary Duncan, his chief of staff Joanne Weiss, and the Department’s Teacher Ambassador Fellows. I am still in a dream state about it.  We first met with Joann Weiss and Sec. Arne Duncan where we spent an hour talking with them about the federal role in education. They talked to us about their experiences, answered our questions, and to our delight, listened to what we as teachers had to say about what we are seeing in our schools. We discussed the importance of including professional development as a vital component of a teacher’s evaluation and supporting the Arts as part of a well-rounded education.  It was an experience that is truly memorable and inspirational.

To finish up our meeting at the Department, we met with the Washington DC Teacher Ambassador Fellows and learned what their daily work encompasses. Each fellow is assigned to work with a specific person and section within USDOE, such as communications, reading, technology, etc.  The Teacher Ambassador Fellows are currently recruiting next year. This is where one can apply: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/applicant.html

Since my return to the real world, I have been able to speak to numerous people in my school district about the discussions we held.  The most valuable part of this whole experience has been the ability to see firsthand that our policymakers care about what teachers have to say. They not only care about our input but they want our ideas and they want us involved in the implementation of new policies. Teachers as well as the administrators in Delaware have been so grateful to hear that their issues are being heard and that the federal government supports teachers in doing what they do best, helping their students achieve.  I’m grateful that teacher voices are counted as important and essential in the policy process because as the professionals we are, we should have a place at that table.

Innovation, autonomy, and flexibility are just some of the buzz words resonating through our nation’s education reform efforts to provide more local control to schools and teachers.  Because the contexts of school communities and students’ lives matter, it is critical to offer avenues through which teachers and school leaders can effectively tailor their schools to the specific needs and strengths of their families.

The White House has been recognizing and celebrating Champions of Change working on the front lines to help students “Win the Future.”  Our national government is offering flexibility and incentivizing effective reforms through initiatives such as Race to the Top and the recent NCLB waivers.  A few states and districts are encouraging school leaders to implement innovations that will improve student achievement. Colorado, where I am currently working at my second innovation school, thanks to the Innovation Schools Act of 2008, is just one example.

Academic achievement data has continued to reveal a gap for many generations, clearly indicating that what has been done in the past is not working for all students.  It is obvious that we must begin to do things differently and do so beyond a few successful pockets.  However, before swarms of well-intentioned educators unleash the innovations that our historically failing system needs, let me offer these points of reflection from a practitioner’s perspective,

“What are the questions to consider before designing and implementing an innovation at the school and classroom level?”

1. To what end are we designing and implementing this reform?
   
2. If the answer to the first question is, “improved academic achievement as measured by growth on standardized tests,” of what longer term, desired outcome are we hoping improved academic achievement is an indicator? 
   
3. What rich body of research proves that this idea has a significant chance to achieve the longer-term, intended outcome?
   
4. What are the unintended consequences of this proposed program?  Is it possible that while it may increase test scores, it could also be a detriment towards our larger purpose and vision for educating youth?
   
5. Before we design and implement this reform, have all stakeholders (students, teachers, families, etc.) agreed on what the problem is that we are trying to address with this innovation? Do most stakeholders agree on what the root-causes are of this problem?
   

  6.  What are the resources we need to implement this reform with integrity through the depth of its intention and across the breadth of its scale with fidelity?  (qualified staff, funding, facility, etc.)

Now that we have vetted our plan with these questions, “How can district, state, and federal policies support the design and implementation of these thoroughly vetted innovations?”

1. Ensure that school leaders, while being held highly accountable, have full capacity to manage all available resources (including financial ones) in order to focus the application of them towards the reform’s intended outcome.
   
2. Ensure full transparency about what resources are available.
   
3. Encourage directors of centralized systems to be as flexible as possible when asked by school leaders to provide services that lie outside of the typical way their resource has been used in the past.
   

If reform leaders use the first six questions to carefully vet their plans and policymakers support those that survive this rigorous vetting process in the three ways listed above, we would see a dramatic increase in both the effectiveness and sustainability of those ideas currently waiting in the innovation bullpen.