thestatus of theteaching profession2003the status of the teaching profession 2003 3 30,000 25,000...
TRANSCRIPT
-
The StatusTeaching
Profession 2003Summary Report
of the
The Center for the Future of Teaching and LearningCalifornia State University, Office of the ChancellorPolicy Analysis for California EducationUniversity of California, Office of the PresidentWestEd
Research conducted by SRI International
-
This report was produced by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning in consultation with our co-sponsors— California State University, Office of the Chancellor; Policy Analysis for California Education; University ofCalifornia, Office of the President; and WestEd.
The report is based on research conducted by SRI International of Menlo Park, CA.
Funding for this initiative was generously provided by:• Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation• The James Irvine Foundation• Walter S. Johnson Foundation• Stuart Foundation•
Editorial and design by KSA-Plus Communications of Arlington,VA.
Promotion by Stone’s Throw Communications of Manhattan Beach, CA.
Copyright © 2003.All rights reserved.
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning133 Mission Street, Suite 220Santa Cruz, CA 95060www.cftl.org
-
1The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003
■ The state needs but does not yet have a systemof teacher development that ensures that allwho enter the classroom have the knowledgeand skills they need to get their students toreach the academic standards the state has set.
■ The existing distribution of teachers is hor-ribly unfair — the students who live in ourpoorest communities, the children most inneed of our best teachers, are assigned toteachers who are the least prepared to meettheir needs.
There is no shortage of complications andnuances associated with ensuring that every stu-dent is taught by a teacher who is prepared toteach, and whose working conditions are con-ducive to learning. But making the system fair isnot a question of nuance but rather of politicalwill and commitment.
Sacramento Bee columnist Peter Schrag has writ-ten powerfully about the question of fairness in hisnew book, Final Test:The Battle for Adequacy inAmerica’s Schools. He looks at several states includ-ing California, where he describes how the state’spoorest children are assigned underqualified teach-ers or face a steady flow of unqualified substitutes.He raises the question of whether California will
provide all of its students with schools and teachersadequate for them to meet the standards the statehas set for all its students.This is, he argues, theultimate test of a society.
We agree.
In the last several years, state policymakers haveattended seriously to making schools better, tostrengthening the teaching force.The publicschools would be far worse without their efforts,and they deserve credit. But their efforts tostrengthen teaching have largely been program-matic rather than systemic, more like fingers in thedike than taming the river.
The state and the federal government haveraised the stakes for students and schools, and thosestakes have gone up far faster than the incrementalimprovements in California schools. Just as thestate has put in place a connected system of stan-dards and accountability for students, it needs asimilarly systemic approach to enhancing the qual-ity and capacity of its teaching force.
We believe the response needs to be muchgreater than previous efforts to improve teachingand must involve the broader public moredeeply. If all of us in California are going to have
California has gone through political upheaval,and now new leadership is facing enormous fiscalproblems.There is a palpable public demand formore responsive government, and a cacophony ofvoices clamoring to be heard in a system wherethe rules of governing are in flux.
While this profound change has produced greatuncertainty, there is a continued consensus for bet-ter educating California’s children, all of them.Wewould argue that the issue demands the kind oflong-term investment of resources and leadershiptypically devoted to highways and water supplies.It requires a state response as intense and sustainedas California offers without hesitation when thereare wildfires or earthquakes or floods.
For the past several years, we have been issu-ing annual reports on California’s teaching force.Much of what was in those reports focused onwhat was a growing shortage of qualified teach-ers and how our most prepared teachers weredistributed unevenly across the state.The short-age has eased, but the maldistribution of under-prepared teachers still is very bad.This year, weare deliberately blunt to make sure we are clear.We hope readers take from this report at leasttwo points:
California’s Need: Renewed Commitment to Good TeachingThe creation and maintenance of a much stronger teaching force that actually
can ensure that all students succeed is what Californians repeatedly demand
and politicians routinely vow to deliver. But without significant changes in the
way teachers are prepared, nurtured and professionally sustained, California
students will get far less than the education they need to succeed.
-
2 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
a better life economically and culturally, then weneed schools that deliver a high-quality educationfor all California students.That will only happenif we have a teaching force up to the challenge.
This brief report is based on a much longerreport of substantial new research commissioned byThe Center for the Future of Teaching andLearning and conducted by SRI International.Thatlonger document — The Status of the TeachingProfession 2003: Research Findings and PolicyRecommendations — is available on our Web site atwww.cftl.org.
The new research is particularly timely in lightof the additional pressures being applied to schoolsto do considerably more with far fewer resources.The research takes a fresh look at the state’s teach-ing force, its size and distribution. It examines howteachers are prepared, how they are ushered intothe profession and the professional training theyreceive while in the classroom.The researchincludes extensive data analysis, a survey of educa-tors and a series of case studies that followed care-fully selected individual teachers throughout the2002–03 school year.
We issued similar comprehensive researchreports in 1999 and 2001, and less extensiveupdates in 2000 and 2002. Our consistent goal hasbeen to provide policymakers and opinion leaderswith the best and most reliable data on criticalissues regarding the state’s teaching force.
What follows is a brief summary of the newresearch and recommendations designed particularlyfor California’s opinion leaders and policymakers,including our new governor.
The Pipeline Was BeginningTo WorkThe number of public school teachers in Cali-fornia has grown quickly in the past decade as thestudent population swelled and the state cut theclass size in elementary schools. Last school year,there were nearly 310,000 teachers, up from221,000 10 years earlier.
And last year, there were about 37,300 teacherswho were “underprepared,” teachers who had notyet met California’s qualifications for even a prelim-inary teaching license.We contend that a basic cre-dential is only a starting point for becoming anaccomplished professional ready to help all of his or her students meetrigorous academicstandards.
The 37,300underprepared teach-ers represent about 12percent of the stateteaching force, aboutone in every eightteachers.This numberis down from the pre-vious school year,when the state had41,713 underpreparedteachers, and that isgood news.And it alsoappears from prelimi-nary data from thecurrent (2003–04)school year that thenumbers of teachers
on emergency licenses is down considerably. It canbe said that the flood waters are receding, but notwithout the caution that these waters are still wellabove flood stage, particularly in our poorestschools.
A mix of factors makes it difficult to predictwhether this number will continue to go downand how fast. It can be argued that the state’s trou-bled economy may make teaching more attractivefor a time. It can also be argued that new federalrequirements will make it more difficult for schooldistricts to hire underprepared teachers in thefuture.We also know that the growth in the num-ber of students has peaked, although it is importantto note that some districts will continue to expand.
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
21–24
2,954
33,474
Age Distribution of Teachers in California, 2002–03
025–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–90
42,052
31,222 30,546
33,985
42,773
39,890
16,654
3,521976
Cal
ifo
rnia
tea
cher
s
Source: CDE (2003), SRI analysis
Age
-
3The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003
30,000
25,000
20,000
1997–98
Number of First-Year Teachers by Credential Status,1997–98 to 2002–03
15,000
10,000
01998–99 1999–2000 2000–01
Fully credentialed first-year teachers
Underprepared first-year teachers
Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis
2001–02
26,012
5,000
Nu
mb
er o
f te
ach
ers
25,542
23,271
25,845
2002–03
21,418
16,206
45,000
40,000
35,000
1997–98
Number of Underprepared Teachers by Participation in Intern and Preintern
Programs,1997–98 to 2002–03
30,000
25,000
10,000
1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01
Intern program participants
All other noncredentialed
Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis
2001–02
34,487
20,000
35,440
40,58142,427
2002–03
41,713
37,311
15,000
0
5,000
Nu
mb
er o
f te
ach
ers
Preintern program participants
But, on the other hand, the demographics of theteaching force temper optimism about the supply ofteachers. More than a third of California’s teachersare age 50 or over and approaching or eligible forretirement.And, unfortunately, the state has no wayof measuring how many relatively young teachersquit teaching for other careers, or of predicting howthat attrition rate is likely to change.
A year ago, we reported that slightly more thanhalf — 53 percent — of all first-year teachers in thestate were teaching without having obtained a basicteaching credential in 2001–02.The percentage offirst-year teachers who were underprepared declinedto 42 percent in 2002–03. And more of those under-
prepared teachers were enrolled in intern programsdesigned to help them get a teaching credential.
However, just as the pipeline for producing moreprepared teachers is showing signs of improvement,there are signs of trouble. Budget constraints at col-lege campuses, for example, are restricting the num-ber of slots for potential teachers.
The federal No Child Left Behind act generallyrequires new teachers to be “highly qualified”; andall teachers to be “highly qualified” by 2005.Todeal with this law, California has defined as “highlyqualified” all credentialed teachers and thoseunderprepared teachers who are enrolled in anintern program.
If California is to have a fully qualified andeffective teacher for every student, we see theneed to distinguish between those teachers whoare fully prepared and those who are underpre-pared. Fully prepared teachers have demonstratedknowledge of the subject matter or grade they aregoing to teach, have demonstrated that they pos-sess teaching skills and have had a substantialopportunity to practice their teaching skills underthe guidance of a veteran teacher.These threebasic elements make up the foundation for whatshould become a strong California system ofteacher development.
-
4
30%
25%
20%
15%
0–30% minority
Distribution of Underprepared Teachers by Percentageof Minority Students, 1997–98 to 2002–03
10%
5%
0%31–60% minority 61–90% minority 91–100% minority
4 4 4 45 5
87
87
8 8
1312
13
11
1413
23
25
27
20
26
23
Ave
rag
e p
erce
nt
of
facu
lty
wit
ho
ut
full
cred
enti
als 1997–98
1998–99
1999–2000
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis
30%
25%
20%
15%
0–25% free orreduced-price lunch
Distribution of Underprepared Teachers by StudentPoverty Level, 1997–98 to 2002–03
10%
5%
0%26–50% free or
reduced-price lunch51–75% free or
reduced-price lunch76–100% free or
reduced-price lunch
65
6 67
8 8 89
89 9
121213
11
1413
19
2122
17
22
19A
vera
ge
per
cen
t o
f fa
cult
y w
ith
ou
t fu
ll cr
eden
tial
s 1997–98
1998–99
1999–2000
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis
Support for the Credentialed
Terry is a first-year fourth-grade teacher in amagnet program. He graduated from a pri-vate university with an education degree andhas his initial teaching credential.
Terry has a mentor, a seasoned teacher at hisschool, with whom he meets every week.“She’s observed my class a couple of timesand lets me know what she’s noticed,” Terrysays. “It is nice to have someone here whoappreciates you because you’re in here aloneevery day.” He also has another mentorassigned to him through the state’s BeginningTeacher Support and Assessment Program.
Distribution:A Matter of EquityBut while the overall number of underpreparedteachers is going down, the bigger issue is whereCalifornia’s underprepared teachers are teachingand which students they serve.
Underprepared teachers are a statewide phe-nomenon, but not one that is universal. Indeed,about half of California schools in 2002–03 employfewer than one teacher in 20 who is underprepared.
Students who are poor or minority, studentswho are in special education or who are notnative speakers of English are still far more likelyto have an underprepared teacher. If these stu-dents are to become fully educated contributorsto the state’s economy and culture, then we needto make sure they have teachers who are able to
-
5The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003
25%
20%
15%
1998–99
Distribution of Underprepared Teachers by Percentageof English Language Learners, 1998–99 to 2002–03
10%
5%
0%1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02
5
8
12
20
Mea
n p
erce
nt
of
un
der
pre
par
ed f
acu
lty
in a
sch
oo
l
0 to less than 6% ELL
6% to less than 20% ELL
20% to less than 40% ELL
40% to 100% ELL
Source: CDE (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis
2002–03
7
9
14
21
7
9
13
21
7
9
13
19
7
8
11
16
Waiting Tables to Teaching English
Jose grew up speaking Spanish at home andlearning English in school. He earned a bache-lor’s degree in creative writing from a localpublic university. He moved from waitingtables to substitute teaching and then startedas a full-time middle school teacher in 2002–03,teaching English language learners.
Jose became a classroom teacher withoutany formal teacher training. He has no men-tor and is not eligible for the beginningteacher program because he does not have apreliminary teaching credential. Despite hislack of experience, the school made him chairof the English learners department.
After school, he goes to class three nights aweek, taking four classes. He’s not sure thatthe classes help much, and he finds themmostly theoretical at a time when he needspractical knowledge. It will take him 18months to earn his teaching credential.
He is frustrated that he has no time and theschool has no resources for instructionalmaterials. "My biggest frustration is not hav-ing the appropriate text," Jose says. "Thereare new state-adopted books but they won’tor can’t buy them."
take them there. If this were a military operation,it would be as if it were sending the rawest, least-trained recruits to face the most formidable battlewhile its most experienced troops were kept largelyout of the fray.
Although the numbers are getting somewhatbetter, the distribution of teachers still is unfair andunjust. Consider:
■ Students in schools with large minoritypopulations are five times as likely to faceunderprepared teachers as students inschools with low percentages of minoritystudents.
-
6 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
0–25% free orreduced-price lunch
70%
30%
61%
39%
58%
Distribution of Prepared and Underprepared NewTeachers by School Poverty Level
10%
0%
42%
51%49%
26–50% free orreduced-price lunch
51–75% free orreduced-price lunch
76–100% free orreduced-price lunch
First- and second-year teachers with full credentials
First- and second-year teachers without full credentials
Firs
t- a
nd
sec
on
d-y
ear
teac
her
s
Source: CDE (2003), SRI analysis
25%
20%
15%
0–30% minority
Underprepared Special Education Teachers by PercentMinority Student Population, 1998–99 to 2002–03
10%
5%
0%31–60% minority 61–90% minority 91–100% minority
45
6 6 67
9
111110 10
1314
1514
13
21
23 2322
Ave
rag
e p
erce
nt
un
der
pre
par
ed s
pec
ial e
du
cati
on
fac
ult
y
1998–99
1999–2000
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
Source: CDE (2003), SRI analysis
■ Students in high-poverty schools are nearlythree times as likely to face underpreparedteachers as students in low-poverty schools.
■ Students in the lowest-achieving schools,measured by the state’s Academic PerformanceIndex, are 4.5 times more likely to faceunderprepared teachers than students in thehighest-achieving schools.
■ Students in schools with the highest percent-age of students who are learning English aremore than twice as likely to face underpre-pared teachers as students in schools wherethere are few students learning English.
■ Special education students in schools withsubstantial minority populations are nearlyfour times as likely to face teachers who areunderprepared — let alone trained in specialeducation — as special education students inlow-minority schools.
Percentage of Teachers Who Are Underprepared, by Assignment
2001–02 2002–03
Elementary 12% 10%
All Secondary 10% 10%
Math 14% 15%
Physical Science 11% 13%
Life Science 10% 12%
English 8% 8%
Social Science 6% 6%
Special Education 18% 18%Source: CDE (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), SRI analysis
-
7
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
01994–95
Special Education Enrollment in California K–12 Public Schools
Source: CDE (2003)
1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
English Language Learners in California K–12 Public Schools
Source: CDE (2003)
1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03
0
Banking to Teaching Math
Sean took a teaching job in 1998, leaving a large bankwhere he trained tellers. He has been teaching for fiveyears without a teaching credential. He is still a preintern,still has not passed state subject competency tests. Heteaches middle school math and science and for threeyears — his second, third and fourth years of teaching —was chair of the math department. He majored in socialstudies at a public university.
An African American who grew up in the suburbs, hechooses to teach in an urban setting. Most of his studentsare Latino. He loves children but does not hold high expec-tations for them, or believe he can get them to meet stateacademic standards.
As a new teacher, he had no mentor because hewas on an emergency permit during his first twoyears on the job. His teaching is well thought of, hesays, because his classes are orderly. "If you havea classroom that looks like they’re learning, thenyou’re considered a great teacher," Sean says. "I could be teaching them how to cook frogs, but if they’re sitting there, they’re not talking and theydo what you tell them to do, then you’re a goodteacher. I don’t think anyone who has visited myclassroom has actually taken a look at what I’mteaching, how I’m teaching it and if the kids aregetting it."
Nu
mb
er o
f st
ud
ents
Nu
mb
er o
f st
ud
ents
-
8 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
credential.We have found a number of school dis-tricts, for example, are telling uncredentialed teach-ers they risk losing their jobs if they do not get abasic teaching credential.
Over the past decade, higher education institu-tions have significantly increased the numbers ofprospective teachers they prepare to meet theincreased California demand. But many, often asubstantial majority, of the prospective teachers theyare preparing are indeed already teaching.
The reality is that these teachers, particularly inour poorest communities, are teaching full timeduring the day and taking courses at night and onweekends to prepare them to teach. By the timethey qualify to do traditional student teachingunder the supervision of a veteran teacher, thesenovices have already been running their own class-rooms, often for several years.
No matter how you cut it, California studentsmost in need of good teaching are still the leastlikely to see it.
And throughout California, students are morelikely to face underprepared teachers in particularsubjects.Although the numbers are improvingslightly, high school students are more likely to faceunderprepared teachers in math and science thanthey are in English or social studies, despite moredemand in today’s economy for deeper understand-ing of math and science.
One place where the numbers are not gettingbetter is special education. In 2002–03, 18 percent ofspecial education teachers did not have even a basiccredential, let alone training in teaching special needsstudents.That is up from 14 percent in 1999–2000.
For the past several years, we have reported onthe large number of California schools with per-
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
1997–98
1,293
325
264
Special Education Credential Production,1997–98 to 2001–02
Inte
rn a
nd
pre
limin
ary
cred
enti
al
Source: CTC (2003), SRI analysis
01998–98 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02
Interns
Out of State Prepared
Prelim In State
1,617
359
298
1,550
288
275
1,325
441
388
1,265
492
584
centages of underprepared teachers so high — above20 percent — and concluded that the schools havelittle or no capacity to improve their academic per-formance.These schools must spend a disproportion-ate amount of time recruiting and hiring new teach-ers.They also must train new teachers while they areteaching, and find it difficult to provide professionaldevelopment when at least one in five teachers inthe school lacks even basic training.The number ofthese schools with little hope has dropped fromabout 1,900 in 2000–01 to about 1,400 two yearslater. But these schools served 1.4 million students.
Preparing New TeachersThe requirements of the federal No Child LeftBehind act and the easing of California’s teachingshortage are applying additional incentives forprospective and underprepared teachers to obtain a
0% 90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%
Basic instructional techniques 41%37%
Perceived Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation
10%
Reinforced subject-matter knowledge
Needs of school population (e.g., ELLs)
Use of studentassessment data
Adequately
A lot
Source: SRI survey of California teachers (2003), SRI analysis
36%27%
40%20%
34%14%
21%17%Adapting instructionfor students with IEPs
-
9The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003
California’s intern program, where underpreparedteachers who have passed initial subject matter testsand are taking teaching courses, is particularly chal-lenging.Too often, these interns are forced to choosebetween preparing to teach their students andpreparing for their own university classes.
While underprepared teachers scramble to meetbasic credentialing requirements, state budget cutsare making it more difficult for them to find andpay for the courses they need.And the state haseliminated nearly all of the programs that providedfellowships or relieved teachers of paying back stu-dent loans if they teach in low-performing schools.
Five years ago,the California leg-islature passed a lawto set higher stan-dards for newteachers, to requirethem to pass acomprehensive per-formance assess-ment in addition togoing through aformal inductionprogram. But thestate’s budget situa-tion has forced thedeferral of thismore rigorousassessment system.Although the statehas set high stan-dards for both stu-dents and teachers,the system of help-ing new and veteranteachers reach theseexpectations is onlife support.
Although universities in California haveincreased the production of teachers, there hasbeen little growth in the preparation of teachersof special education, a field where there is a sig-nificant shortage. It is likely that the state willcontinue to offer emergency teaching permits tounderprepared teachers of special education forsome time to come.
InductionTeaching, like many professions, is difficult to enterwithout guidance. California developed one of themost robust induction programs in the nation tousher new teachers into the classroom, providingthem with mentors and support. But the $86-million-a-year Beginning Teacher Support andAssessment program was designed for a time whenalmost all new teachers completed their prepara-tions and had a credential before they startedteaching, not for today’s reality.
For those new teachers who start with a creden-tial, this program provides assistance that many newteachers see as valuable. However, the many whoare underprepared — the majority of whom serveCalifornia’s neediest students — are not eligible.Some may work in a school where a mentor is pro-vided, but at many of the schools where theseunderprepared teachers work, there is a decidedshortage of accomplished teachers to serve as men-tors, reducing the likelihood that new teachers willget the help they need.And, consistent with the restof the research, we found that the least preparedteachers were getting the least support.
0% 90%70%60%50%40% 80%30%20%
Helped understanding ofschool/district processes
58%
43%
Contributions of Induction Support Activities to Teaching
10%
Improved classroommanagement
Increased effectiveness at promoting student learning
Increased knowledge ofinstructional techniques
Source: SRI survey of California teachers (2003), SRI analysis
57%
53%
52%
44%Increased skills to meetdiverse students’ instructional needs
Increased knowledge ofassessment techniques
Deepened grasp of subject matter
Improved ability to adaptinstruction for studentsIEPs
34%
31%
100%
Percent of teachers with five or fewer years of experience
-
Our new research found that most new teachersdo not meet often or regularly with their mentorand most of the conversations between new teacherand mentor are about meeting the paperwork needsof the schools rather than the instructional needs of
10 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
students. For example, only about a third of newteachers reported monthly talks with mentorsabout the needs of students, and only about one infive were invited into their mentor’s classrooms toobserve veteran teaching.
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
2000–01
222
State Allocations for Certain Professional Development Programs, 2000–01 to 2003–04
$02001–02 2003–03 2003–04
210.9
Mill
ion
s o
f d
olla
rs
Source: CDE (2003), UCOP (2003)
61.7
147.5
California Professional DevelopmentInstitute (CPDI)
Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)California Subject Matter Project (CSMP)
Total
AB 466: Mathematics and Reading ProfessionalDevelopment Program
0% 90%70%60%50%40% 80%30%20%
Increased effectiveness atpromoting student learning
Teacher Reports on the Contribution of Professional Development
10%
Increased knowledge ofinstruction techniques
Deepened subject-matterknowledge
Improved ability to use curriculum framework
Improved ability to identifyinstructional goals
Source: SRI survey of California teachers (2003), SRI analysis
Improved ability to usedata to plan instruction
Increased knowledge ofassessment techniques
Improved effectiveness in using textbooks andmaterials
Improved skills to meetstudents’ instructionalneeds
7%
100%
Improved classroom management
Increased confidence withparent interaction
Increased ability to adaptinstruction for studentswith IEPs
22%
7% 22%
8% 32%
13% 36%
16% 37%
16% 41%
17% 33%
17% 43%
18% 37%
18% 44%
22% 42%
22% 45%
Somewhat
A lot
From our case studies, we found confirmationof what we have seen previously — the rookieteachers were routinely thrown into the most chal-lenging classrooms, including those with high con-centrations of learners of English and special edu-cation students.Again, the students who need thebest teachers get those who are the least prepared.
-
11The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003
0% 90%70%60%50%40% 80%30%20%
Certified to teach ELL students
47%
24%
Support for Teaching English Language Learner Students
10%
Adequate training related to second-language acquisition
Access to a language development specialist
Access to resources for ESL instruction
Source: SRI survey of California teachers (2003), SRI analysis
40%
30%
29%
A teacher’s aide whospeaks one or more of the languages spoken bymy ELL students
I speak one or more of thelanguages spoken by my ELL students
Access to resources in theappropriate non-English language(s)
16%
11%
100%
Percent of teachers reporting support
Professional DevelopmentTwo years ago, our report noted that too much ofthe professional development — training — forteachers seemed insufficiently focused and teach-ers did not place a great deal of value on it.Wealso noted the increased attention policymakers
were giving professional development and sug-gested the future may be more promising.
Indeed, our new survey of teachers finds themreporting receiving more of the kinds of profes-sional development that educational researchfinds most effective.Within the curriculum areas
Bethany is in her second year teaching seventh andeighth graders with mild to moderate learning dis-abilities — special education. She is an internteacher, teaching without a credential while takingthe courses required to earn the certificate sheneeds.
She earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology froma public university and began substitute teaching inher last year of college. She believes she was notprepared to be a teacher when she started teach-ing. "I wish I knew what to do," she says. "I don’tknow everything. I didn’t know what the kids werecapable of learning. I didn’t know what type ofwork I should be giving to the kids. I wish I wouldhave had more structure. I didn’t even knowwhere to start asking questions so it was prettymind boggling at first, for a few months actually."
Wrestling with Special Education
where training is offered, they now are morelikely to say professional development hasbecome more focused on subject matter, that it builds on their experience and promotes col-laboration, and that it is more likely to be fol-lowed up.
-
12 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
But, just as these improvements are noted andthe stakes increased on schools and teachers, thestate has had to dramatically scale back its invest-ment in professional development.And, as the statemakes cuts, local school districts also have had tocut professional development dollars. Particularly incombination, these budget reductions threaten theprogress of the past two years.
There are many venues for professional devel-opment beyond those provided by the state, includ-ing training provided by districts, schools and pri-vate companies.The state has been increasinglyfocused on teacher proficiency in two core subjects— literacy and mathematics.This focus has beenparticularly useful for the newest teachers but seenas less useful for more experienced teachers and forthose who teach other subjects required for highschool graduation and admission to the state’s col-leges and universities.
Special education teachers, for example, havebeen particularly left out.They have been givenvery little guidance on how to get students with
special needs to meet the state’s academic standards,even though special education students are expectedto meet those standards.
And regular classroom teachers have been givenvery little training in how to help the special edu-cation students or English learners in their classes,even though nearly nine in 10 teachers report hav-ing special education students or English learnersin their classes.
Recommendations There is a simple truth for California: If we are goingto get all of our students to achieve much more, weneed to invest in a teaching force that has the knowl-edge, skills and support to meet their needs.
Our full research report includes detailed rec-ommendations that are designed to meet the goalswe have been pursuing for several years (see boxabove).We urge our education leadership and policycommunities to continue to strengthen the teacherworkforce as a first step in restoring excellence toCalifornia’s public education system.
GoalsFor a number of years, we have asked policymakers to focus on five clear goals that we believe areambitious but absolutely necessary for our children:
■ Every student will have a fully prepared and effective teacher.
■ Every district will be able to attract and retain fully qualified, effective teachers.
■ Every teacher will work in a safe, clean facility conducive to learning; have adequate materials with which to teach; and have the guidance and support of a capable leader.
■ Every pathway into teaching will provide high-quality preparation and be based upon California'sstandards for what students and teachers should know and be able to do.
■ Every teacher will receive high-quality support as he or she begins teaching, as well as the continuing professional development to ensure that he or she stays current in his or her field.
Educational excellence and opportunity shouldnot be beyond reach of any child.With this inmind, we offer a summary of our major recom-mendations to strengthen teaching here, and pro-vide greater detail in the full report.With theserecommendations we keep in mind the fact that anew governor has just taken office and the statefaces a continuing budget crisis. But these recom-mendations also reflect pressing and immediateneeds in our schools, including the development ofteachers who deal with key areas — those whoteach special education, who teach learners ofEnglish, and who teach mathematics and science.
Preparing and Licensing Teachers■ The California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing should eliminate emergencypermits for special education teachers bySeptember 1, 2005.
■ The California Commission on TeacherCredentialing should use remaining preinternfunding to accelerate the progress of currentspecial education emergency permit holders.
■The governor and the Legislature should givehigh priority to the formal review of thequality and effectiveness of the teacher internprogram.
■ The California Commission on TeacherCredentialing and the State Board ofEducation should collaborate to align stan-dards for teacher development programs, per-formance assessments and accountabilitymeasures to ensure that programs for noviceteachers reflect the components of the state’sstudent academic achievement system.
-
13The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003
About This DocumentThis summary report and the full reporton which it is based are available fordownload on our Web site at www.cftl.org.For information on purchasing printcopies from the Center, please call 831-427-3628. Discounts are available for bulkorders of single publications.
The Center is pleased to have otherorganizations or individuals share its mate-rials with their constituents.To requestpermission to excerpt part of this publica-tion, either in print or electronically, pleasewrite or fax:
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
133 Mission Street, Suite 220Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Fax: 831-427-1612 E-mail: [email protected]
Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Teachers
■ The governor should include in his budgetfunds for the chancellor of the CaliforniaState University and the president of theUniversity of California to implementregional campus programs for preparing anadequate supply of teacher candidates forhigh-need geographic areas and teachingfields, including special education, Englishlanguage learning, mathematics and science.
■ The Legislative Budget Committees shouldevaluate existing statutory incentives forteacher recruitment and restore funding toefforts found to be the most effective.
Building Teachers’ Skill andKnowledge
■ The governor and the state superintendent ofpublic instruction should target a portion ofthe Mathematics and Reading ProfessionalDevelopment Program on training for specialeducation teachers to assist them in integrat-ing student academic standards and adoptedmaterials into their curricula.
■ The state superintendent of public instructionshould make high-quality, focused professionaldevelopment to help classroom teachers adaptcurriculum and instruction to accommodatestudents with special needs in the areas ofreading and mathematics a priority for theReading Implementation Centers in 2004.
Including All Curriculum AreasRequired for Graduation inTeacher Development
■ The state superintendent of public instruc-tion should develop and implement a teacherprofessional development cycle that addressesall subject matter content required for highschool graduation and college and universityadmission.
■ The governor should restore funding for theCalifornia Subject Matter Projects to reflectthe state’s professional development priorityareas.
Working toward BetterManagement of the State’sResources
■ The state superintendent of public instructionshould conduct a thorough review of theeducation code provisions related to teacherprofessional development to eliminate thoserequirements that are redundant or ineffective,and consolidate the remaining programs intoa professional development block grant.
■ The governor and the Legislature shouldestablish a state-level, independent organiza-tional structure to oversee and strengthen thestate’s teacher data collection and reportingsystem.
In addition, we urge the governor and the Legis-lature to give priority over the next two years to thedevelopment of a more comprehensive and coherentsystem of teacher development for the state:
■ Convene a working group to develop andrecommend to the governor and theLegislature specific steps needed to build onthe existing framework of teacher prepara-
tion, induction and professional developmentto establish a cohesive, accountability-basedsystem of teacher development.
■ The working group should give highest pri-ority to ensuring that the state’s programs forteacher preparation, induction and professionaldevelopment focus on a coordinated, consis-tent approach to providing the curriculumcontent knowledge and pedagogical skillsneeded to help all students, including specialeducation and English language learning stu-dents, meet the state’s academic standards.
-
133 Mission Street, Suite 220Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-427-3628www.cftl.org