Join the conversation

I couldn't agree more, Claus, on a couple of counts. First, indeed, this needn't be a pissing match between teacher development and teacher preparation, or induction and TFA. All elements of the human capital pipeline need to work in tandem, and we need to embrace approaches that have been shown to have an impact and, in the absence of definitive data, even those that appear to hold promise. Further, if I am correct, TFA has made improvements to its model since the time the Mathematica study was conducted. I merely offered the example because it also was a RCT, conducted by the same firm (Mathematica), and involved teachers.

Second, I wholeheartedly agree that the teacher effectiveness conversation in some quarters completely misses (discredits?) the role of teacher development -- through high-quality approaches to induction and professional development. If the various sides could come together and work more in partnership, embracing a broad vision of human capital development (recruitment, compensation, induction, professional development, tenure, licensure, leadership opportunities, etc.), we could really have something. A few of the best Race to the Top states have done exactly this. Illinois and Ohio come immediately to mind.

@Liam, I appreciate the way you cut to the chase: this is not another "who wins?" comparison or clash of the organizational titans. Way, way too much of the discourse on recruiting/preparing teachers has become a kind of contest, and "retaining" (which used to regularly accompany "recruiting") gets less and less lip service. If we're only going to keep teachers around for 2-5 years, why invest in them? Another example of our results-now, short-term approach to the institutional pillars of American life.

I wish we could start talking more about "teaching" and less about "teachers." While it's absolutely true that recruiting the most promising candidates is critical, our focus on people (and their pedigrees) has watered down what we should be bent on: instructional excellence.

Thanks for a great piece, Claus.

Thanks, Liam and Nancy. I agree that we have to get past the either/or arguments that emerge from less than subtle press accounts of school reform. Nurture and nature each have a role. We should find and hire great people, but we should do more to cultivate greatness in the people we've hired.

From time to time, I briefly consider using the symposia and workshops I attend yearly to keep my knowledge fresh for professional development as well. After all, they should be related. But why is it that attempting to certify professional development for licensure is a Sisyphean task in most cases?

I should be able to do it with a brief description of the subject, presenter, and duration. Here's one: The Long Reach of Early ChildhoodPoverty: Link to presenters, date, time, abstract: http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2010/webprogram/Session1375.html

Do you think that's good enough? No way. I have to photocopy the entire program - it's only about 80 pages or so - to prove the meeting is in fact a bona fide event. Then I have to provide a concise outline of the benefits provided and an example lesson plan.

Lesson plan? Huh? At any rate I can't be trusted to make professional development decisions on my own. That decision is in the hands of someone who doesn't really understand what I teach my students, but is bound and determined to make sure I understand the value of using differentiated instruction in the non-gifted classroom. What? Differentiated instruction? Is he serious? How about paying me double what I get now to do that - and while we're at it, I can ride a unicycle and balance a ball on my nose.

Bob Calder