Obama's Blueprint for Schools of Education

The Obama administration's "Blueprint for Reform" was released a couple of weeks ago to much fanfare. It hasn't attracted much attention in the higher-education world because it's a plan to reauthorize the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But if you're in the teacher-preparation business or you work for a university-based school of education, a couple of provisions are worth noting.

First, on top of page 15, is a call for "state-level data systems that link information on teacher- and principal-preparation programs to the job placement, student growth, and retention outcomes of their graduates." Translation: the administration wants to keep track of where students go to work after they leave teacher-preparation programs. Then it wants to gauge how effective those former students are at teaching, by measuring how much their students' scores grow over the course of a year on standardized tests. Then it wants to evaluate teacher-preparation programs based on how effective their former students are in the classroom.

Second, on the bottom of page 16: "States and districts will be encouraged to use [federal] funds to take on additional innovative reforms, such as improving teacher salary schedules so as to eliminate incentives for teachers to obtain credentials that have been shown not to be linked with student performance."

"Credentials that have been shown not to be linked with student performance" is a polite way of saying "master's degrees in education." The administration is well aware of the large body of research finding that master's degrees have (with a few possible limited exceptions in secondary math) no statistical relationship with effectiveness in helping students learn. Yet school districts spend $8.6 billion per year in additional compensation for those credentials. Surely that money could be spent for better purposes, such as giving teachers additional compensation based on their effectiveness in helping students learn.

This comes on the heels of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's harsh critique of education schools last fall. All of which illustrates the rock-solid Washington, D.C., consensus that university-based schools of education have much room to improve. Those who thought the new administration would bring relief from those kinds of policies are likely to be disappointed.

E-mail

Comments

1. educationfrontlines - March 29, 2010 at 08:21 am

Refer back to the original analysis and extend the "few possible exceptions in math" to "science" and eliminate the word "possible." The degrees that don't matter are education masters degrees that do not add any depth of knowledge in the subject matter field...especially today, online degrees. That also includes masters-for-teacher-training (often MAT degrees) that leave states paying teachers masters level pay for bachelors' level content. A masters in additional science content is strongly related to better student performance, but tests are still a lousy metric. The excitement for science, the work ethic, honesty in research, etc. is what a masters provides for both advanced masters teachers and their students. "Blueprint" is NCLB with a vengeance.

John Richard Schrock

2. tribblek - March 29, 2010 at 09:42 am

-- educationfrontlines wrote: --
>
> "Blueprint" is NCLB with a vengeance.
>
This seems unconnected to your previous lucid statement, and seems to imply that you feel this Blueprint is an extreme version of NCLB. Can you clarify?

3. sherbygirl - March 29, 2010 at 09:52 am

This ties into another article on the Chronicle site today, talking about how to ensure retention with community college students. One of the ways outlined is for the community colleges to come in to the high schools and "foster college readiness." I asked it there, and I'll ask it here: if teachers who have graduated from college, sometimes with a Master's, can't ensure college readiness in their graduating students, then what are we doing? Curriculum, how we teach teachers, how we run our schools, it all should be fair game.

Dr. Lee Skallerup
collegereadywriting.blogspot.com

4. simon100 - March 29, 2010 at 11:05 am

As educationfrontlines notes, it seems that the for-profit industry has found a bit of a loophole that "helps" everyone - except the student.

5. educationfrontlines - March 29, 2010 at 12:23 pm

After taking a clean shot at the masters-in-education issue, I did fire a broadside with "Blueprint is NCLB with a vengeance."

I make a practice of never making a second entry but the request to clarify is legitimate. Blueprint's only claim to being less oppressive is that it removes the every-student-proficient-by-2014 "goal." All other provisions are more punitive in their effect. Education Week had to interview USDE for details, but the annual AYP testing regime continues. A burdensome individualized "growth model" is added. Recognizing that the curriculum was narrowed by teaching to only language and math tests, testing will be extended to science and social studies. Art, music, etc. that were barely holding on before will be pushed out of the school day at many schools. Adoption of the common core (national) curriculum, with national testing, will be coerced if any state wants to receive back its federal education dollars, since Blueprint proposes to manage all future education reform via Race-To-The-Top-style competitive grants. Schools in the bottom brackets have the choices of firing the principal, firing principal and half of staff, etc. Like NCLB, Blueprint loads all blame on teachers. But the best doctors lose patients and the best teachers lose students for much the same reasons. But we could destroy medicine, as we are destroyng K-12 education by loading all the blame ("accountability") on the professional. NCLB drove many good teachers from the field and deflected many aspiring college students away from teaching. Blueprint de-professionalizes teaching even further.

John Richard Schrock
www.educationfrontlines.net

6. marka - March 29, 2010 at 08:27 pm

With all due respect re NCLB ... it may have many defects, but its underlying thrust is valid, as is Obama's BFR. Its all about accountability, and the failure of all the legal, social, and educational reforms since WWII, to actually help the bulk of underprivileged folks get adequate educational preparation for life and work. One may quibble about the bureaucracy and 'teaching to the test,' but to be blunt, I'd rather have some students who at least pass said tests, rather than large numbers who not only can't pass any test, but can't perform well either in or outside the classroom. Despite all the talk, our educational system continues to fail far too many students, largely of color: we still have dropout rates from 20-30% or more in many communities.

I'm a firm believer in the value of a liberal arts education -- I got one (degrees in math & political science, and then law), but I'm dumbfounded that many educators think that the goal of 'education' is simply to make 'good citizens,' but not to prepare them for any other aspect of life, other than the life of the mind. Who else is supposed to do this preparation? And why should taxpayers subsidize educational institutions when their children aren't prepared for higher education, or from there, any meaningful work? Ask most parents & students, and for many getting a job is somewhere on the priority list, especially as graduation approaches ...

I was just talking this morning to an engineer, who was bemoaning the lack of 'raised in the USA' grads, and pointing to the increased influx of folks from other parts of the world who fill our engineering, science, math, computer, and other technological fields. No knock on them ... most are motivated and serious about their studies & work, and we should be glad to have their contributions. But why do we have to import them? Don't we have enough qualified graduates of our own education system? Listen to Bill Gates, et al, lobby for more visas. In a time of 10% unemployment, we don't have enough qualified citizens/legal residents to fill these hi tech jobs?

Hard to believe, until you talk to people like my spouse, who has taught anatomy & physiology, and her good friend, who teaches chemistry at the college level -- most students are simply unprepared for even basic science courses. This was shockingly true when I went for a brush-up course in statistics & probability (my math degree was rusty ... ) More than half the students had to drop out before the middle of the term, and even many of those who stayed were struggling ... and this was a required course for these science & technology majors! Yikes! And don't get me started on the poor communication skills for office staff (can't spell or structure grammatically, and can't be bothered to use spell/grammar check ... )

If the folks paying the bills -- taxpayers & parents, among others -- want certain measurable outcomes, what's the problem? I learned he who pays the piper calls the tune. And from where I sit, there are legitimate calls for accountability, and a look at what others have done to successfully graduate students who can actually pass tests, and have essential knowledge to perform meaningfully in the working world. There are other systems around the world that do this for math, science, and technology ... why don't we? (I have my own theories ... )

I still await the legitimate evidence-based, and replicable & scalable model, from educators here, about how they will reduce the drop-out rate, prepare students for the next level of education, and ultimately for meaningful work in our world. But I'm not holding my breath ...

More than enuf said ...