1

Building a Skilled Teaching Force for Improved Student Learning:

An International Perspective

Susan Moore Johnson

Project on the Next Generation of Teachers

Harvard Graduate School of Education

This paper was prepared for the Aspen-OECD Bellagio Seminar, How Can Teacher Policies Improve Student Learning?

October 17-20, 2006 – Bellagio, Italy.

2

Introduction Teachers are the single most important school-level factor in students’ learning. However, the corollary to that well-documented finding is equally important: all teachers are not equal. A skilled and committed teacher can substantially enhance a student’s learning, while having a series of ineffective teachers can seriously retard that same student’s progress (McCaffrey et al. 2003). Therefore, staffing all classrooms with effective teachers should be the highest priority for educational policymakers and practitioners at this time when schools must educate all students to be productive citizens in a knowledge-based society. As the OECD concludes: “Improving the efficiency and equity of schooling depends, in large measure, on ensuring that competent people want to work as teachers, that their teaching is of high quality, and that all students have access to high quality teaching” (OECD, 2005, p. 7). However, recognizing the crucial role that teachers play in students’ learning does not lead easily to policies and practices that ensure each school and classroom will be staffed by an excellent teacher. Even in developed countries with well-established education systems, many teaching positions remain vacant for months at a time, leaving students to contend with a series of unprepared substitute teachers. Other classrooms are staffed with teachers who are ineffective for a variety of reasons—insufficient training, overwork, low morale, inadequate curriculum and resources. Rapid turnover of successful teachers imposes enormous costs, both financial and organizational, on the schools and those who teach and learn there. Given that the related problems of teacher supply, teacher quality, and teacher retention have only recently gained attention in many countries, systematic data and analysis remain scarce about the extent of the problems, their causes, and the effects of policies designed to address them. Thus, although the problems are known to be very important, analysts face many puzzles that cannot be understood without longitudinal data and intensive analysis. At this time, explanations are only beginning to emerge that might serve as a sound basis for policy. Evidence from an array of pilot projects, initiatives, and interventions undertaken by various school systems has not been assembled across countries or, in some cases, even within countries. The OECD’s analysis of policies and practices in 25 countries reported in Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers (OECD, 2005), reveals how prevalent the concern is across nations about the supply and quality of teachers. Cross-national comparisons of data and initiatives can provide great insight into these issues, revealing both common trends across settings as well as notable exceptions. Differences across countries—particularly when those countries appear to be similar in many respects—are very informative. By bringing together experts from a range of developed countries, this conference is designed to promote the exchange of detailed information about policy and practice and to

3

generate deeper insight into these pressing issues of the teaching workforce. As prior studies by the OECD and others have shown, ensuring that all students have effective teachers in an enormously complicated challenge that raises issues about the quantity, quality, and retention of teachers. Quantity Many countries do not have good longitudinal, or even current, data about staffing and, therefore, it is hard to know the true extent of vacancies. However, a number of countries report having similar problems filling positions. For example, in the Netherlands, “about one in seven regular new teaching positions in secondary schools were not filled when the 2000 school year started, more than twice the rate observed in 1997” (OECD, 2005, p. 46). An analysis of 2000 PISA data revealed that “in half of the OECD countries a majority of 15-year olds attend schools where principals believe that student learning is hindered by a teacher shortage or inadequacy” (OECD, 2005, p. 42). In most schools, a relatively small proportion of teaching positions remain vacant for long periods of time or are filled with unqualified teachers. Although few countries in the OECD study reported a general shortage of teachers, many cited problems finding teachers in particular subjects. England, for example, reported shortages in information technology, mathematics, sciences, and languages (OECD, 2005, p. 46), fields that also presented problems for school officials in many other countries. Analysis of 2001 ISUSS survey data revealed the greatest shortage to be in computer sciences, where 49% of principals reported having difficulty hiring qualified teachers. Other subjects that were said to present problems include mathematics (33%), technology (33%), foreign languages (32%) and sciences (30%) (p. 42). Notably, not all countries reported shortages. France, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Portugal and Spain reported having “a relatively large pool of qualified candidates for teaching positions” (OECD, 2005, p. 42). Among those participating in this conference, all countries except Japan, Canada (Ontario), Singapore, and Sweden reported experiencing general vacancies and all but Japan reported experiencing shortages in specific fields. Of great concern in many countries is the fact that shortages often are distributed unevenly across regions or schools and typically are experienced more frequently or severely by schools serving remote locations or disadvantaged students. Many countries have experienced a dramatic change in the demographic profile of students in recent decades, with an increasing proportion coming from minority or immigrant groups. Many students speak a language other than the official school language. With such demographic changes, there is an increasing need for teachers whose backgrounds are similar to those of their students for many believe that having well-matched role models among teachers positively affects students’ learning. However, in all Western counties, the teaching force is overwhelmingly white. The US and UK report emerging concerns about the

4

demographic mismatch between teachers and students. With a student population that is approximately half male, the preponderance of women teachers is an additional concern. The OECD reports that the proportion of female teachers “increased between 1996 and 2002 in about three-quarters of the 28 countries for primary education, and in all the countries for lower secondary education. In more than half the countries, over 80% of primary teachers are female” (2005, p. 54). With approaching retirements, the teaching workforce will become increasingly feminized in years to come because the male teachers in classrooms today tend to be more experienced as a group than the female teachers (OECD, 2005, p. 54). Australia, for example, reports that “some 80% of teachers under 30 [are] female, and close to half of all male teachers [are] in the over 45 year age bracket” (country report). Quality Teacher shortages—either overall, by subject area, or by demographic group—are closely linked with concerns about teacher quality as the authors of Teachers Matter explain:

The analysis shows that teacher quantity and teacher quality issues are clearly interlinked. School systems often respond to teacher shortages in the short term by some combination of lowering qualification requirements for entry to the profession; assigning teachers to teach in subject areas in which they are not fully qualified; increasing the number of classes that teachers are allocated; or increasing class sizes. Such responses, which ensure that classrooms are not left without a teacher and that a shortage is not readily evident, nevertheless raise concerns about the quality of teaching and learning. (OECD, p. 9)

Half of the countries in the OECD study (2005) reported “serious concerns about maintaining an adequate supply of good quality teachers” (p. 29), while other countries reported having little problem finding well-prepared teachers. For example, in 2001 Japan was highly selective, appointing as teachers only 11% of qualified examinees in primary education, 6% in lower secondary education, and 7% in upper secondary education (p. 60). There is also a general concern about the profession’s decreasing success in attracting high-achieving students to teaching. However, again, there are notable differences across countries. Although US officials express concern that teaching attracts weak candidates, in Ireland, access to teaching positions is very selective. Prospective teachers in primary education “tend to come from the top quartile of students in final school examination, and over 90% of entrants to the postgraduate course in secondary teacher education have advanced undergraduate degrees; high performance on the final school examination is required for those entering the undergraduate concurrent course in secondary teacher education”(p. 60).

5

In 2001 6 of 21 countries (including the US and Sweden) reported that over 10% of their teachers lacked full qualifications, while 12 (including Japan, England, Scotland, and Wales) reported having fewer than 4% of unqualified teachers. Most countries reported little change between 1995 and 2001, although there was an increase in the proportion of unqualified teachers in 5 countries. Clearly, the definition of “qualified” often shifts to meet immediate demands to staff the schools. This is currently apparent in the US as the definition of “highly qualified” teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act varies from state to state in response to supply. However, there is evidence that, whatever the prevailing definition in a nation, state, or locality, students living in disadvantaged or remote communities (who also are often members of minority groups) are more likely to be assigned teachers who fail to meet the prevailing standard (OECD, 2005, p.49). When there is a shortage, teachers who are qualified in one field often are assigned to teach in another, a problem that has been well-documented in the US (Ingersoll, 2002). Analysts conclude that students who are taught by under-qualified teachers pay a high price. Researchers have found a relationship between a “teacher shortage/inadequacy as perceived by principals” and lower student performance on the PISA tests (OECD, 2005, p.40). Notably, OECD analysts found this relationship to be stronger for countries where teacher shortages were said to be more severe, including Australia, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Retention Many countries included in the OECD study (2005) reported problems with teacher retention. Most had difficulty retaining early-career teachers, while some also cited problems with the unanticipated early retirements of veteran teachers. Only Italy, Japan, and Korea reported an attrition rate in 2001 of less than 3%. In 6 countries (Flemish Community in Belgium, England and Wales, Israel, Sweden, and the US), annual attrition was at least 6% (p. 173). Several countries included in this conference (US, UK, Switzerland, and Australia) have high, and in some cases increasing, levels of attrition among new teachers. In the US, 1/3 of new teachers leave the classroom within 3 years and nearly half leave within 5 years (Ingersoll& Smith, 2003). Because those are averages, attrition rates tend to be even higher in disadvantaged communities. Switzerland reports losing 20-40% of new teachers after two years. Ontario, Canada reports a loss of 1/3 of new teachers within the first 5 years, although retention has improved recently. In Australia, 33% of teachers said that they intended to leave teaching within 3 years, although only 7% of those expected to retire (Dempster et al., 2000, as cited in OECD, 2005, p. 176). Sweden, which does not experience a loss of early-career teachers, does report a recent increase in teachers leaving the profession before the age of retirement.

6

Little national or international evidence is available to document who leaves teaching, although smaller studies suggest that attrition rates are higher for secondary than primary teachers (OECD, 2005), male than female teachers (Dolton et al, 2003), teachers with stronger academic backgrounds (Murnane and Olson 1990; Dolton and van der Klaauw 1995; Dolton and van der Klaauw 1999; Stinebrickner 2001) and teachers of chemistry and physics (Murnane et al. 1988). If these findings can be generalized more broadly, they suggest that current shortages (e.g., high-achieving, male, mathematics and science teachers) will become more acute over time. The term “turnover” encompasses both “attrition” (teachers leaving the profession) and “migration” (teachers moving from school to school or system to system). In general, countries maintain far better data about attrition than migration. However, from the perspective of the school or school system, the distinction between attrition and migration matters little, for the loss of a teacher is disruptive, wherever she may go. Recently, school systems in the US have begun to calculate the dollar costs of turnover. Models drawn from the private sector typically calculate the expense as a percentage of salary earned. However, Boston officials recently examined the actual costs of recruiting, hiring, providing professional development, and processing the jobs terminations of new teachers who left, not accounting for the added value that accrues with teaching experience. They calculated replacement costs to be $10,547 for a first-year teacher, $18,617 for a second-year teacher, and $26,687 for a third-year teacher. Based on these figures, it cost the Boston Public Schools $3.3 million dollars in 2004-05 to replace the 194 early-career teachers who left (Birkeland & Curtis, 2006). Explanations of the Problem The challenge that many school systems face in recruiting and retaining a strong teaching force can be explained in a number of ways. It is variously attributed to changes in demography or society’s values; alterations in the labor market for teachers; low pay or low status relative to careers requiring comparable education; unsatisfactory working conditions; and the relatively flat structure of the teaching profession. As the following discussion suggests, many of these factors seem to be simultaneously at work. Nation-by-nation comparisons can illuminate both the role that each factor plays and how they interact in specific settings. Demographic Changes In many developed countries the aging and approaching retirement of the current teaching force contributes to a teacher shortage. The OECD reports: “On average, 25% of primary teachers and 30% of secondary teachers are over 50 years old, and in some countries more than 40% of the teachers are in this age group” (2005, p. 29). The countries attending this conference report similar

7

figures. The UK anticipates the retirement of 50% of teachers in 15 years; the US expects 50% of current teachers to retire between 2000 and 2010; Ontario, Canada projects a loss of 32% in 10 years; and Sweden expects significant retirements in the upper-secondary level in 10-15 years. Many of the teachers hired between 1955 and 1975 to meet the demands of post-war growth in student enrollments are retiring today. Also notable is the fact that a high proportion of this large cohort of teachers has remained in the classroom for an entire career. Their successful retention has brought with it both advantages and disadvantages. For, although schools have benefited over decades from having an increasingly skilled and experienced teaching force, they suddenly must deal with the impending loss of these teachers. Those who are about to retire—a high proportion of them being women and/or members of minority groups—entered teaching when other professions were not open to them. Teaching welcomed such well-educated individuals who would work at relatively low pay, sometimes called the “hidden subsidy” of public education. As the following discussion of the current labor market for teachers suggests, many countries can no longer depend on such a supply of teachers. Changes in the Labor Market There are notable differences among countries in the organization of school systems and, therefore, in the labor market for teachers. Teachers Matter (OECD, 2005) reports that there are two models of public sector employment in OECD countries: “career-based” and “position-based” systems (143). In career-based systems, such as France, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Spain, “public servants are generally expected to stay in the public service through their working life. Initial entry normally occurs at a young age, it is based on academic credentials and/or a civil service entry examination, the entry criteria are usually demanding, and there are generally more applicants than vacancies” (p.143). By contrast, position-based systems, such as Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK, “tend to focus on selecting the best-suited candidate for each position, whether by external recruitment or internal promotion. . . . Position-based systems generally allow more open access at a wide range of ages, and entry from other careers is relatively common, as is movement from the public service to other jobs” (OECD, p. 143). Larger societal patterns also influence the pool of prospective teachers and the likely tenure of current teachers. In many countries, teaching is less attractive today as a career that provides job security and upward social mobility. Whereas once workers selected a career for a lifetime, in many countries, there is considerable mobility from field to field among employees today. Also, Teaching Matters reports that the average age of new teachers has increased, suggesting that people are pursuing other careers before they enter teaching (OECD, p. 111). Until recently, many might have said that teaching in the US was a career-based system, since the highest proportion of entrants came directly out of

8

college with their teaching license and remained in the classroom with guarantees of employment throughout their working life. However, today between one-third and one-half of new recruits are entering teaching at mid-career—many with very little formal preparation—and surprisingly few new teachers intend to remain classroom teachers for more than a decade (Johnson et al., 2004). The Netherlands reports that about 3,000 of their current teachers started their career as “second career teachers” or “side entrants” (OECD, p. 111). Fundamental changes in the labor market for teachers are reported in Switzerland as well, where “throughout the country, teachers are no longer civil servants. In the last few years, in most cantons and at confederation level, the employment status of public workers has moved from that of civil servant to that of salaried employee,” with an “indefinite terminable contract” (p. 144). Thus some nations, such as Singapore, Japan, and Spain, have well-established career-based education systems and a predictable labor market that is grounded in broad social support for public service. However, others, where the labor market for teachers is much more dynamic and unpredictable, can no longer count on a steady supply of skilled applicants who intend to make teaching their lifelong career. Low pay and status There is considerable disagreement among analysts about whether teachers are adequately paid compared with comparably educated workers (Allegretto, Corcoran, and Mishel, 2004; Vedder, 2003). This dispute largely rests on how teachers’ time is counted and whether they are assumed to work beyond the hours they are required to be in school. However, from the perspective of recruiting and retaining teachers, the important question is whether teachers’ pay is competitive with what strong candidates might expect to earn in another field. OECD analysts report a relative decline in pay for teachers in 14 of 19 countries, noting that “the salary of a teacher with 15 years experience grew more slowly than GDP per capita between 1994 and 2002” ( p. 180). They observe: “the stronger are employment prospects outside teaching, the fewer qualified people who will stay long-term in teaching. In particular, those people with skills that are likely to command the best job prospects elsewhere are less likely to remain in teaching for very long” (p. 180). US economists have similarly found that pay affects teachers’ decisions to accept job offers in one school district or another (Ballou and Podgursky, 1995; Figlio, 2002). Research commissioned by the OECD (Dolton et al., 2003) suggested that “teacher resignation rates are likely to rise when teachers’ relative earnings fall—especially for male teachers and those with higher levels of qualifications” (p. 180). Even among individuals who are committed to teaching, pay may become a deciding factor in their career choices when their current salary does not enable them to live at a middle-class level, buy housing in the community where they teach, or afford the costs of higher education for their children. Some committed teachers leave for other fields of work because, in their view, they “cannot afford to teach” (Johnson, 1990).

9

Teachers Matter reports that the distinction between “career-based” and “position-based” systems is reflected in the structure of salary systems. Countries with career-based systems have relatively low starting salaries for classroom teachers, which climb steadily and reach a peak after about 30 years. In contrast, position-based systems have relatively high starting salaries, which climb rapidly, reaching a peak after about 10 years (OECD, p. 180). Both models assume a standard salary scale, compensating teachers with similar levels of experience at the same level. However, there is evidence that “some countries are moving away from uniform salary rises for all teachers towards more targeted increases” (OECD, 180). In some countries, pay is widely seen to reflect social status—the higher the pay the higher the status. Teaching, often regarded as “women’s work,” may not command higher pay because of its lower status, or conversely, may be regarded as lower-status because pay competes poorly with that offered in other fields. Teachers Matter, citing evidence from a number of countries, including Australia, Canada (Quebec), Japan, Switzerland, and England, concludes that “teachers seem to perceive that their job has lower status than wider public surveys would indicate” (p. 83). However, it is also possible that the public’s documented respect for teachers may not translate into high status unless pay levels also reflect that public regard. Notably, however, in Korea, where a primary teacher earns a relatively high income (2.7 times GDP per capita, OECD, 2005, p. 21), teachers still ranked their status as low or very low while parents ranked it as average or above. In some countries, such as Sweden and the US, teaching is often regarded as a less demanding “knowledge profession” than other fields such as law or medicine. Short or undemanding preparation programs and relatively simple requirements for becoming licensed often provide critics with evidence that teaching does not require specialized knowledge and, therefore, should not command high pay. Conditions of Work Many studies report that unsatisfactory working conditions dissuade prospective candidates from considering a teaching career and drive current teachers out of the classroom. Poor working conditions include such things as poor facilities and equipment, lack of curriculum, heavy workload, stressful requirements of accountability policies, abusive or neglectful school leaders, isolation from colleagues, disrespectful students, or inadequate professional development. When teachers have chosen their career despite opportunities to earn more money and respect in other fields, poor working conditions are especially troubling, for they make it difficult—sometimes impossible—to do the work that they have chosen to do, often at some personal expense. In response to such disappointments, many teachers leave, while those who stay are inevitably less effective than they could be. Teachers working in isolation are left to reflect on their practice without the insights, observations, and alternative models that

10

professional colleagues might provide. The school, then, becomes a collection of independent classrooms rather than a well-integrated educational organization. Countries participating in this conference cited a range of difficult working conditions that influenced their ability to attract and retain teachers. Canada (Ontario) and the US reported a lack of support for new teachers as they settle into their schools and learn how to do their jobs. The UK, US, Canada (Ontario), and Switzerland identified heavy workload as a problem. Switzerland reported that teachers were feeling stress as a result of rapid changes in reforms and the increasing demands for accountability. Sweden noted that school leaders, who had expanded responsibilities under a decentralized system, needed more assistance if they were to sufficiently support teachers. Similarly, Canada (Ontario) reported that increasing student achievement goals required parallel increases in support for schools and teachers so that they could respond effectively to these new demands. Canada (Ontario) also reported an inadequate program of evaluation and professional development. Many of these concerns, cited by individual countries, are likely shared by others. Structure of the Teaching Profession Analysts regularly remark about the flat structure of the career for classroom teachers. It is often said that teaching is the only profession where individuals do the same job on the first and last days of their career. Even in countries identified as having career-based systems with paths to different roles, higher positions are primarily designed for administrators rather than teachers. Position-based systems tend to offer individuals only entry-level positions for as long as they remain in teaching. Flat structures for teaching present problems both for the individual and for the school. Although some teachers locate the challenge of their work with their students’ learning and seek to develop and refine their pedagogical skills over the course of a career, others seek more varied experiences and influence that extends beyond the classroom. Teachers who expect more variation may come to see teaching as a stagnant career. Some move into administration, either by choice or because it is part of their country’s career-based system. However, many teachers want more differentiated roles that center on instruction and would allow them develop expertise in areas such as curriculum, professional development, or the analysis of assessment data. Thus, there are many ways to explain the difficulties that countries experience as they seek to attract, support, develop, and retain a strong and skilled teaching force. The diagnoses are complex because the factors discussed above—demographic changes, labor market forces, pay, status, working conditions, and the structure of the teaching profession—are present in various combinations. A sufficient and effective response requires each country to understand the interaction of various factors in their particular context. Then, taking into account

11

the positions of key stakeholders such as teachers unions, they must devise a set of policies that respond coherently to this array of challenges. Unfortunately, such deliberate and comprehensive analysis, planning, and policymaking are uncommon. The following sections of this paper consider strategies that some countries have undertaken to move ahead on three important goals identified by both research and those participating in this conference: attracting and supporting new teachers, improving schools as places to work and learn, and improving teachers’ career and pay structures. Attracting and Supporting New Teachers Once teaching was the chosen career for a predictably large number of people, and school systems could count on a steady, sufficient supply of new recruits. This was especially true for women and for men of color seeking upward social mobility. Research clearly shows that teachers choose their work primarily because of its intrinsic rewards (OECD, 2005, p. 68; Lortie, 1975; Johnson, 1990). However, because other careers today offer similar intrinsic rewards along with better pay and working conditions, the decision to teach is no longer certain. With increasing opportunities in a wide range of careers, schools in many countries have devised strategies to compete for talent. Promoting Teaching as a Career In an effort to counteract poor images of teaching in the media and low social status for teachers, several countries are deliberately promoting teaching as a rewarding career with many benefits. For example, Switzerland formed a national task force on “strengthening the teaching professions,” which includes a nationwide campaign to recruit teachers and improve teaching’s image. England has created the General Teaching Council to improve the image of teaching. Various school districts in the US are identifying and encouraging future teachers in high schools and community colleges. Some school systems also are working to attract teachers from racial and linguistic minority groups. Sweden, for example, is recruiting individuals with immigrant backgrounds to teacher education programs. Redesigning Pre-service Preparation A steady supply of prospective teachers in colleges and universities long allowed most school systems to be relatively unconcerned about the links between pre-service preparation, recruitment, and hiring. Over time, some pre-service preparation programs evolved with little regard for the kind of schools their graduates would enter or the students they would teach. Often programs required extensive coursework that was more theoretical than practical. Pre-service preparation had few links to school systems beyond practice teaching assignments, and once prospective teachers completed their training, it was up to them to find a position. However, in many countries, new teachers today do

12

not routinely choose teaching early or prepare for it systematically. Some reject a career in education because of the poor quality of required pre-service coursework. Others leave teaching in the first few years because they were inadequately prepared. Still others who might enter teaching at mid-career never do because they view the extensive course requirements as unwarranted. Efforts to better align pre-service preparation with teaching jobs are underway in a number of countries. There is increasing overlap and integration of pre-service training with routine school practice. More coursework is conducted in schools and is taught by practicing teachers. Prospective teachers spend more time observing current teachers and their students. Practice teaching placements last longer and sometimes are structured as full-year internships in which prospective teachers work side-by-side with experienced mentors. In Sweden, where officials are concerned that teachers suffer low status because pre-service preparation is not demanding enough, efforts are underway to increase the rigor of academic coursework, to focus on pedagogy that is scientifically-based, and to equip teachers with research skills that can be used to study their own practice. At the same time (and often in the same countries), shorter alternative routes have been created which allow prospective teachers to sidestep long pre-service programs and enter the classroom with minimal training. Such models discount the value of extensive preparation for teaching and assume that on-the-job training is not only adequate, but in some cases, preferred. Various states in the US offer an array of alternative routes that allow prospective teachers to have their own classrooms after only 5 to 7 weeks of pre-service courses and students teaching (Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske, 2005). Some of these programs, such as Teach for America, aim to attract recent liberal arts college graduates who lack pedagogical training, but are willing to commit to teach two years in disadvantaged schools. Other programs are designed for mid-career entrants who bring to their new positions academic training and work experience in the subject they will teach. Similarly, England and Wales have established new routes into teaching and Sweden has introduced an alternative certification program for professionals from other fields. Offering Incentives and Improving Initial Pay Recognizing that pay is an important factor in a candidate’s decision to teach, some countries and school systems have created incentives for entry, such as signing bonuses or increased pay at the initial steps of the salary scale. Such financial incentives, which are found primarily in position-based systems, are designed to recruit rather than retain new teachers. They are consistent with evidence that more novice teachers say they intend to stay for a short time and, therefore, are primarily interested in their short-term earning potential. The UK (England) has for many years used financial incentives to attract graduates into teaching, especially to teach certain secondary subjects. The “Gold en Hello” grants an additional 4,000 pounds for eligible graduates to teach certain subjects.

13

Various state and local school systems in the US have offered signing bonuses, housing subsidies, and subsidies for education loans. Improved Selection and Hiring At the same time that financial incentives and expanded options for entry into teaching have become available, some school systems are paying greater attention to the location and process of selection and hiring, both in an effort to choose better teachers and to ensure that they are prepared for the settings where they work. Teaching Matters reports that in two-thirds of the countries in the OECD study, teachers are employed by the local or municipal authority, while seven countries (Australia, Austria, France, Greece, Israel, Italy and Korea) appoint teachers centrally (OECD, p. 144). In position-based career systems, hiring is increasingly decentralized. Teaching Matters reports that seven countries (Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland and Wales) hire teachers locally. In the US, approximately three-fourths of hiring is site-based (Johnson et al., 2004). Site-based hiring can increase the match between a candidate’s interests and qualifications and a school’s needs for teachers with particular knowledge or skills. “Information-rich” hiring processes, which provide both candidates and school-based educators with a clear understanding of what each can offer, can serve as a positive first step of teacher induction (Johnson et al., 2006), for there is evidence that new teachers who have a good preview of their school report greater satisfaction with teaching (Liu, 2004). Site-based hiring may also have benefits for students. The OCED reports “emerging evidence from international studies of student performance that countries in which schools have relatively high levels of responsibility for personnel selection and management tend to be associated with better students outcomes” (2005, p. 142). However, some policymakers express concern that site-based hiring might increase inequities among schools as the more successful attract and retain strong teachers while disadvantaged schools are left with those who are less effective. In Japan, which has a career-based system that attracts a surplus of candidates for teaching and where test scores long have determined entry, greater attention is being given to qualitative data in selecting candidates for teaching, including personal evaluations and interviews. Induction Increasing rates of attrition among new teachers have led many school systems to invest time and resources in their induction, thus protecting the investment made in recruitment and selection. In most countries, including the UK, Switzerland, Japan, Canada (Ontario), and the US, induction centers primarily on one-to-one mentoring by experienced teachers. For example, Japan has a comprehensive one-year induction program for all beginning teachers, which is

14

run by regional boards. Mentors receive specialized training in all areas of new teachers’ jobs and provide classroom observations and lesson critiques. Some mentoring programs carefully match mentors and novice teachers by subject, grade level, and school, and time is provided for peer observation and meetings. This approach, which research suggests is ideal, is often hard to fund and difficult to implement. Switzerland provides new teachers with 32 hours of “individual counseling,” which they can use to seek assistance from experienced teachers on any issue. Some research suggests that one-to-one mentoring should be embedded in routine collegial activities with experienced teachers (Kardos and Johnson, forthcoming). Japan’s practice of lesson study, which is widely known but not yet widely implemented outside Japan,, provides for such experiences. Several large US school districts have adopted Peer Assistance and Review (PAR), in which selected expert teachers both supervise and evaluate new teachers, eventually making recommendations about their re-employment. Some induction programs include elements in addition to mentoring, such as a reduced workload (90% assignment in the UK and 80% assignment for first-year teachers in Singapore), skill building courses (Switzerland and the US), and ongoing seminars for new teachers. Research by Smith & Ingersoll (2004?) has shown that teachers having larger “bundles” of induction components—for example, a mentor, a seminar, and common time to plan with other teachers--have higher rates of retention than those with only one component. Recognizing that becoming a competent teacher requires both supports and additional time, school systems in some countries such as the US and Switzerland delay offering full certification or a permanent license until teachers have demonstrated success in the early years of teaching Improving Schools as Places to Work and Learn Research suggests that the conditions of their work are more important to teachers than salary or status as they decide whether to continue teaching or remain in the schools where they currently work (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Having chosen to teach, they have generally resigned themselves—at least for a time—to earn less than they might in another career. However, when their workplace presents barriers to succeeding at the very work they are employed to do, teachers often find this concession untenable, and they leave teaching or transfer to another school where conditions make good teaching possible. The range of relevant working conditions is vast and meaningful changes often are costly. Thus policymakers intent on improving the school as a place where effective teaching is the norm and students thrive as learners often must make hard choices about where to invest limited resources. Several countries, including Sweden, with its Attractive Schools Project, and England, with a new National Agreement introduced comprehensive reforms not only to support new teachers, but also to improve the school as a workplace for all teachers. Other countries and school systems have introduced targeted

15

improvements to reduce the teacher’s workload, moderate the demands introduced by curricular reforms and accountability, improve evaluation, enrich professional development, support professional communities, and strengthen school leadership. Such changes rarely can be imposed unilaterally by government, since there are many stakeholders whose interests must be addressed. In Canada (Ontario), for example, officials deliberately worked to repair a frayed working relationship and build a partnership with the teachers union before beginning to develop new teacher policies. Peer Assistance and Review programs in various US districts are the joint creation of school and union officials. Workload and the Demands of Reforms in Curriculum and Accountability The demands on teachers’ time and energy have grown in recent decades. Survey research regularly reports teachers’ concern about their workload (the number of courses and students they teach) as well as the growing responsibilities and stress presented by reforms in curriculum and accountability. Sometimes a shortage of qualified teachers leads to larger classes for those teachers who are fully licensed. Various policies impose additional administrative responsibilities for teachers and require them to make significant changes in what and how they teach. For example, Switzerland found that the rapid succession of reforms and the administrative tasks associated with them eroded the image of teaching and led to high turnover. Significant reductions in teachers’ workload is one of the most costly options for policymakers, however, and research provides mixed findings about its benefits for students’ learning, even though such changes may be a priority for teachers. Canada (Ontario) and the US (California and Florida) have reduced class size in the primary grades to 20 students. Singapore is recruiting and assigning an additional 3,000 teachers, an initiative that will reduce the student-teacher ratio in all schools. In addition, school officials are hiring additional support staff to reduce teachers’ administrative workload. Through its 2001 negotiated National Agreement, the UK (England) has taken significant steps to reduce teachers’ working hours and their administrative burden by providing support staff to assume non-instructional duties. In response to new demands for accountability, various school systems have granted additional resources to underperforming schools. For example, Ontario’s Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat provides a daily curriculum and has created 100 “turnaround teams” to support failing schools. In several US districts, certain sets of schools are being given additional resources to reduce class size, provide coaching to teachers within their classrooms, and fund a longer instructional day and tutoring for failing schools. Teachers, who often are under considerable pressure to improve their students’ performance on standardized tests, often welcome such support, particularly when it is sustained over a number of years. However, when these initiatives are meant to control and prescribe teachers’

16

practice, rather than support it, or are brief and underfunded, such changes may simply exacerbate the stress that teachers already experience in their work. Evaluation, Professional Development, and Professional Communities Although many school systems now provide new teachers with supervision during their early years of teaching, some have come to recognize the importance of continuous development and have instituted programs to support teachers throughout their career. Some countries reported that they are establishing new systems for teacher evaluation, while others are refining an existing evaluation process. Professional development, long organized as a centralized program that provides identical content to large numbers of teachers, whatever their skills or experience, is increasingly focused on the school or the classroom, with its content being defined by the needs of small groups of teachers or individuals. In Switzerland, in-school professional development has become a growing part of school budgets and, as part of that country’s initiative, Strengthening the Teaching Profession, there is a move to coordinate this training across cantons. Sweden provides 104 hours per teacher for professional development, the content of which is decided by the school and individual teacher. The UK (England) has funded professional development for second- and third-year teachers and provided grants for fourth- and fifth-year teachers to meet performance objectives. In addition, expert teachers (called Advanced Skills Teachers) provide school-based professional development. In Canada (Ontario), professional development is embedded in school improvement and student achievement plans under the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy in an effort to ensure efficient use of resources and to provide coherence for teachers’ work. Also, teachers are eligible for sabbatical leaves and work-exchange programs. Teachers in Singapore who have 12 years of experience are eligible for professional development leaves at half pay for 12 months, while those with 6 years of experience can take 6 months of professional leave at half pay. Japan provides opportunities for teachers with 10 years of experience to participate in “Social Experience Training,” where they participate in other work settings, such as businesses or social welfare facilities, to improve their personal and social skills. Japan has also recently begun to introduce formal professional development for veteran teachers. Some systems are creating structured opportunities for teachers to take greater responsibility for their own growth through professional learning communities. Usually, such professional learning communities are school- or subject-based. Japan’s well-known practice of lesson study serves as a model for schools in many other countries, although it is not widely implemented. This practice of ongoing engagement by teachers in the design, implementation, testing, and improvement of lessons, not only provides professional development for teachers, but also serves as the basis for improvement in the school system.

17

Reformers in Switzerland have sought to make the school “a place in which a team of adults collaborate to prepare men and women for tomorrow—and continue to learn in their company.” Reformers in England reached beyond the school site in 2002 to create networked learning communities of schools so that best practices might be widely shared. School Leadership School heads or principals determine much about the working conditions of teachers. They can gather essential resources and broker services that teachers find valuable. They can promote school cultures that are orderly and support good teaching and learning. They can encourage productive collegial relations among teachers and engage them in important decisions about the school. They can serve as instructional leaders who effectively advise individuals and coordinate the school’s academic program. Teachers regularly report that school leaders can make the difference between success and failure. However, many teachers also report that their schools’ heads are preoccupied with bureaucratic demands, lack knowledge about curriculum and instruction, or exercise managerial authority in ways that compromise teachers’ use of good professional judgment. Some school systems have introduced reforms geared to improve school leaders’ skills and effectiveness, thus indirectly improving the workplace for teachers. England has developed the National College for School Leaders, a residential complex offering an ambitious program for middle managers in the educational system. Sweden has approached the need to improve school-site leadership in a more decentralized way, with the government and other organizations contributing to the development of the headmaster’s role and skills. Canada (Ontario) has included many supports for school leaders as part of their Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. Some countries, such as Sweden, require that school heads be prepared as educators (“have acquired an understanding of the theory and practice of education”), while others, such as Japan, allow schools to hire “as principals people who do not possess a teacher certificate nor have any experience in a teaching related profession, such as persons who worked for the private companies.” Increasing Pay and Professional Opportunities The flat career structure of teaching and the standardized salary scale may not significantly affect prospective candidates’ decisions to teach, for research repeatedly demonstrates that teachers choose to teach because they seek the intrinsic rewards of working with students. There is evidence, however, that teachers in the second stage of teaching—approximately years 4 through 15—who have achieved competence and confidence in the classroom look for ways to expand their influence with differentiated responsibilities and to be compensated for greater responsibility and effectiveness (Huberman, 1993; Donaldson, Johnson, et al. forthcoming, 2007). Uniform roles and pay systems

18

protect individual teachers from patronage or arbitrary treatment, but they also constrain individuals’ ambition and potential contribution to the school and students’ learning. Standardized roles tend to reinforce the egg-crate structure of schools and the isolated nature of teaching, thus limiting the potential of the schools to improve by drawing upon the expertise and specialized skills of master teachers. Past efforts to institute differentiated roles and performance-based pay have encountered considerable resistance among teachers, who were wary of their divisive effects, especially when decisions might be based on ill-informed or preferential judgments by administrators. However, countries report many recent initiatives to create both a staged career for teachers and pay systems that reward them for increased responsibilities and effectiveness. Many of these initiatives originate outside the educational system, but some programs have been advanced or endorsed by teachers and their unions. Differentiated Roles Policy demands for improved student performance and increased public accountability have led many school systems to explore ways to increase their instructional capacity. In response, some school systems in the US, UK, and Canada (Ontario) have created new positions for instructional coaches (especially in literacy and mathematics), who work directly with teachers of all experience levels to improve their performance. Entry by a large cohort of new teachers has led school systems to appoint mentors as part of the induction process. Initially many schools simply asked experienced teachers to serve as informal mentors, providing encouragement and advice to novice teachers. However, such arrangements typically did not include classroom observations or one-to-one assistance in planning or implementing curriculum (Kardos and Johnson, forthcoming). Increasingly, therefore, schools assign mentor teachers to formal roles and provide specialized training in how to observe, give constructive feedback, and model good teaching. In these roles, mentors are typically compensated with extra pay or released time from teaching. For example, mentors in Switzerland and Japan receive thorough training for their responsibilities in working with new teachers. Certain school systems in the US (Toledo OH, Cincinnati OH, Rochester NY) sponsor Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) programs, jointly administered by school officials and the teachers union, focus primarily on new teachers, but also address the needs of more experienced teachers judged to be unsatisfactory. A joint committee of teachers and administrators selects outstanding teachers to serve as consultants, provides them with training, and subsequently reviews their recommendations about whether to reappoint the teachers they supervise. In most instances, positions for coaches and mentors have been created without addressing teaching’s flat career structure. Although PAR programs differentiate

19

the responsibilities and pay for a small number of teachers, their positions are temporary; consulting teachers return to the classroom and lose their additional pay when their term is completed. Some school systems, however, have taken steps to reconfigure the career of teaching. In Singapore, which has one of the most developed programs, all educators begin as classroom teachers, who then may move on one of three career tracks. The Teaching Track, which includes roles for Senior Teacher, Master Teacher, and Master Teacher Level 2, is designed for those who want remain in the classroom and develop special skills in pedagogy. Others may pursue their career in the Senior Specialist Track, assuming roles in curricular design, co-curricular activities, guidance, assessment or research. Still others may choose to enter the Leadership Track and become Subject Head/Level Head, Head of Department, Vice-Principal and Principal. The school system has established an accreditation and selection process for each track as well as a pay scale that aligns roles across the three tracks. The system also allows for individuals to change tracks as they advance in their career. The UK created a career grade for Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs), which offered career advancement within classroom teaching. Selected on the basis of portfolios, observations, and interviews, ASTs spend 20% of their time providing professional development to other teachers and schools. In the US, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), established in 1987, developed standards and assessments to identify and reward “accomplished” teachers. From its inception, this initiative has had the joint support of teachers unions, policymakers, and school officials, although it is not formally affiliated with any school system. Currently, nearly 50,000 teachers have been certified by the NBPTS and various states and school systems offer additional compensation for their achievement. In some schools, Board-certified teachers are assigned to specialized roles, mentoring teachers or providing professional development. As yet, however, certification by the NBPTS has not led to a new, differentiated career structure. The NBPTS has provided a model for similar efforts by Australian educators to develop a set of professional standards for advanced teaching (Ingvarson & Kleinhenz, 2006). Differentiated Pay Various experiments with differentiated pay also are underway in many nations. Some are designed to increase teachers’ effort and improve their performance, while others are intended less to exact new behaviors than to recognize and reward current accomplishments. The distinction between these two approaches often is blurred as policymakers seek to simultaneously serve both purposes. However, teachers tend to be more accepting of the latter than the former. Performance-based or merit pay has long encountered problems because the standards and judgments for awards, often based on administrators’ assessments, were unclear or indefensible. When Japan and the US

20

experimented with performance-based pay, the policies provoked controversy from teachers unions. Two Swiss cantons, Zurich and St. Gallen, are currently experimenting with performance-base pay. In Canton Zurich, teachers are assessed every four years as part of an overall school quality project. Assessments are based on observations as well as the teacher’s pedagogical report and self-assessment. Only teachers whose results are outstanding receive salary increases of 1-3% for the four years following the assessment. In 1995 Sweden embarked on a pay program that fundamentally changed the pay structure for teachers. The policy replaced fixed pay scales with market-based individual contracts that are negotiated between individual teachers and the school system, usually the head of school. National pay agreements guarantee a minimum salary after one year of employment and individuals negotiate compensation beyond that. Subsequent salaries are determined once a year in local negations. Reportedly, a majority of teachers (60%) currently think that their salary should be set in agreement with the head teacher or immediate superior, compared to about one-third (36%) who held that view in 1999 (Presentation by Ove Johannson, Bellagio, October, 2006). Singapore also has added a performance-based component to their compensation system for teachers. In addition to providing additional pay for individuals who are appointed to the higher levels of the career pathways described above, all teachers are eligible to receive performance bonuses annually. Each school receives a sum of money to distribute among teachers. Based on assessments including multiple components, panels within each school rank all teachers and then award bonuses—as much as an additional 1 ½ months of pay—to those receiving the highest ratings. In response to the inequities that opponents cite in individualized performance-based pay, some systems such as the state of Kentucky in the US, have instituted school-based awards, which provide extra compensation for all teachers within a school that improves. This approach won the support of many teachers, but it did not address the interests of those seeking individual recognition or reward. Notably, Singapore once had school-site awards that were based on examination results. However, the school system eliminated this plan because of the unproductive competition that it generated. In 2004, the US school district of Denver, CO negotiated a performance-based pay plan with its teachers union. This program, called ProComp, awards individual teachers for a variety of activities and accomplishments, including meeting professional development goals, receiving outstanding evaluations, teaching in shortage fields, and improving in students’ test scores. Notably, the pay raises are cumulative and, over time, the pay plan will entirely replace the standardized salary scale.

21

Recent developments with so-called value-added assessments, based on complex analyses of students’ performance on standardized tests, make it possible to identify the contributions made by individual teachers to students’ learning. Some proponents of performance-based pay in the US currently recommend that a significant portion of teachers’ pay be based on such analyses, although the comparative data and technical requirements required have generated caution among analysts. Further, critics point out that standardized assessments exclude valuable components of educational programs and often are not available in every subject. Conclusion With rising expectations that all students will succeed, it has become more important than ever to have a skilled and committed teacher in each classroom. As this review suggests, however, school systems encounter many challenges in meeting this ambitious goal. This conference provides participants with the opportunity to consider how colleagues working in school systems that are situated in different social and political contexts have understood the challenge and have acted on it. By learning more about the range of approaches and outcomes in other settings, participants can gain greater insight into their own country’s experience and options. Initially, conference participants will likely have many questions about how another school system is organized or how a particular initiative works. Beyond such important information, however, are broader questions that warrant discussion. Such questions might include the following: • Many school systems have chosen to address teacher staffing by starting

with a particular aspect of the problem—attracting, preparing, or supporting teachers, improving the school as a place for teaching and learning, redesigning pay or roles. Is there a comparative advantage to starting at one place rather than another or does that decision depend entirely on the context?

• Certain school systems, such as Singapore and Japan, are far more

centralized than others, such as Sweden or the U.S. What opportunities and constraints does each form of organization present as a school system seeks to address issues of teacher staffing?

• Can the distinction between career-based and position-based systems, which is presented in Teaching Matters, help us better understand current social and policy changes that are underway in various countries? If so, what implications does this have for selecting and implementing different policies?

22

• Recognizing that every school system has limited resources, how do different countries approach the tradeoffs that they must make? For example, by drawing on various experiences, can we compare the costs and benefits of investing in reduced class size vs. providing more non-instructional time for teachers?

• How have participants and countries dealt with the competing interests of

different stakeholders in defining problems and designing solutions? What roles have unions, universities, or business organizations played and how has their participation affected the process and outcomes?

• In developing any particular policy—for example a new approach to pay—

how was the policy developed, what stakeholders were involved, what entry point was used, what was the pace of change, what problems of implementation were encountered, and what refinements were made? How much was planned ahead and how much simply evolved? Did countries that introduced similar initiatives use different strategies of implementation leading to different outcomes, or were their approaches and experiences much the same?

• How do various responses and initiatives interact? That is, how does an

approach to one, such as improving the context of teachers’ work, influence what is or can be done on another, such as public efforts to raise the status of teaching? Several countries have linked leadership and school improvement initiatives to those designed to improve teacher supply and quality. Are there advantages or disadvantages to dealing with these changes together or separately?

• Many of the choices made by education policymakers are shaped by the realities of their social and political context, ranging from the labor market for teachers to the level of resources that are available for education. Based on countries’ experiences with teacher policy, how fixed are the features of that context? Can some elements of context be changed by the policies, themselves?

• Ultimately, investments in teacher policy are intended to improve students’

experiences and performance. How do various countries assess the impact of their policies on both the immediate goals of staffing and the long-term goal of increasing student learning?

There are, of course, many other important questions to be raised and discussed at this conference. The goal is to promote informative discussions that allow all participants to discover new, promising approaches and to reflect on their experiences in new ways.

23

References Allegretto, S., Corcoran, S., & Mishel, L. (2004) How does teacher pay compare?

Methodological Challenges and Answers. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1995). Recruiting smarter teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 30(2), 326-338.

Birkeland, S. E., & Curtis, R. (2006). Ensuring the support and development of new teachers in the Boston Public Schools: A proposal to improve teacher quality and retention. Boston, MA: Boston Public Schools.

Dolton, P., & von der Klaauw, W. (1995). Leaving Teaching in the UK: A Duration Analysis. The Economic Journal, 105(429), 431-444.

Dolton, P., & von der Klaauw, W. (1999). The turnover of teachers: A competing risks explanation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3) 543-552.

Dolton, P., Tremayne, A., & Chung, T. (2003), The economic cycle and teacher supply, paper commissioned for the "Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers" Activity, Directorate for Education, OECD: Paris. Available from www.oecd.org/edu/teacher policy.

Donaldson, M.L., Johnson, S.M. et al. (forthcoming, 2007) Angling for access, bartering for change: How second-stage teachers experience different roles in schools. Teachers College Record.

Figlio, D. N. (2002). Can public schools buy better-qualified teachers? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(4), 686-699.

Huberman, M. (1993) The lives of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2002). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Ingvarson, L. & Kleinhenz, E. (August 2006). Standards for advanced teaching: A review of national and international developments. Melbourne: Teaching Australia. Available at www.teachingaustralia.edu.au.

Johnson, S.M. (1990) Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, S.M. & Birkeland, S.E.(2003) Pursuing a "sense of success:" New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal 40(3), 581-617.

24

Johnson, S.M., & The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, S.M., Birkeland, S.E., & Peske, H.G. A difficult balance: incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs. Cambridge, MA: Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kardos, S. M., & Johnson, S. M. (forthcoming). On Their Own and Presumed Expert: New Teachers' Experiences with Their Colleagues. Teachers College Record.

Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Liu, E., & Johnson, S. M. (forthcoming). New Teachers' Experiences of Hiring: Late, Rushed, and Information-Poor. Educational Administration Quarterly.

Liu, E (2005). Hiring, job satisfaction, and the fit between new teachers and their schools. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, at Montreal, Canada.

McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Murnane, R., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1991). Who will teach?: Policies that matter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing, and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD.

Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 681-714.

Stinebrickner, T. R. (2001). Compensation policies and teacher decisions. International Economic Review, 42(3), 751-779.

Vedder, R. (2003). Comparable Worth. Education Next. Summer, 14-19.