SFER Harvard Policy Agenda

2

Preface We are Students for Education Reform

There exists, in the education reform world, a dichotomous battle between “The Union” and “The Corporate Ed Reformers”. We seek to exist outside of this battle. We believe that the futures of the children in this country are too important to engage in arguments with one another for the sake of being “right”. There is much that we can learn from one another, if we were only willing to listen. One will find that the policies we have chosen to support often cross these battle lines, and in some cases transcend the limits of the extant partisan policy proposals. Each stakeholder cares deeply about education, and each has different strengths and experiences to bring to the table. We have examined platforms and research from every stakeholder in the field and have ultimately decided to align our policies with empirically sound evidence instead of a politically charged agenda.

We recognize that education reform is a dilemma, with no simple solution. Rather, education reform tests our abilities to manage differing values and opinions in order to create the best future for the nation’s children. We hope that readers will find that we have stayed committed to supporting policies that manage these competing values as best we can, and have only advocated a partisan path when we think that the situation has absolutely called for it. The policies set forth in this document are meant to empower teachers, students, administrators, parents, and stakeholders to create a better future for our nation’s education system, a system that will be able to change and adapt to meet the needs of all students across this country, regardless of race, gender or zip code.

3

Facilitating Teaching as a Profession

SFER Harvard believes that making fundamental changes to the teaching profession will engender the national perception of prestige and professionalism that all teachers deserve. These changes include:

1.1 Training and Support Systems to Improve Teacher Quality The current assessment of teacher efficacy and quality shows that teachers are performing at various levels. SFER Harvard wants ensure that all teachers are given the opportunity to develop the high quality skills characteristic of “great teachers”. Advocating for policies which facilitate the improvement of teaching skills and relieving teachers who are unable to meet the high standards of effective teaching will shift the defining characteristics of the teaching profession. This can be accomplished with:

1.1.1 More Support Staff In most other professions, people are not left to do their job on their own. Lawyers have paralegals; doctors have nurses, etc. So why shouldn’t teachers have these much needed support teams as well? Teaching is arguably one of the most demanding professions. For precisely this reason, SFER supports policies which provide for additional in-class dedicated paraprofessionals and teaching specialists to help both teachers and the students that are falling behind. SFER also supports policies that provide after school programs to complement the instruction provided in the classroom1. 1.1.2 Efficacy of Professional Development The current professional development infrastructure, according to research, often has limited impact or value to those within the profession. This is a disservice to both teachers and students, and devalues the profession. SFER supports policies that create high quality and useful professional development programs, which are teacher-centered and tailored to the school, as a remedy to this problem. 1.1.3 Multiple Measures, Multiple Times, Multiple Years The present teacher evaluation systems inflate ratings and defeat the purpose of feedback and assessment. Teachers should be evaluated with a more comprehensive and growth-oriented evaluation system that employs multiple measures, multiple times over multiple years. These evaluations should be personalized, and provide specific tools with which teachers can improve2. We also believe that in a case in which a teacher is consistently rated poorly, these evaluations should play a key role in determining whether that teacher should be permitted to stay in the classroom. That being said, we do believe that having more frequent and informative evaluations will allow teachers ample opportunity to work on areas in which they are struggling and improve enough to begin achieving higher ratings before a school reaches that point. We also support tying the designation of “tenure” or “professional teaching status” to consistent high scores on these evaluations. 1.1.4 Flexible Certification Studies show that teachers that enter the profession through the traditional pathway perform at the same level independent of the pathway they took to obtain certification. During the first three years of teaching, which are the most crucial to long term success for all teachers, schools should provide extra support infrastructure for teachers with alternative certifications, so they may grow along the same trajectory as educators who received traditional certification3.

4

1.2 Modifying the Teacher Pipeline 1.2.1 Restructuring Teacher Training4

SFER Harvard supports rigorous teacher training that focuses on creating the best teachers, many of who do not believe their training adequately prepared them for the classroom. To ensure that teachers are adequately prepared, we propose the creation of a “residency” program that requires those seeking certification to spend two years in the classroom getting continuous feedback on their teaching methods before they can become certified teachers. We also believe that we should focus on training individuals to fill different needs within a school. This means training more support staff. By providing multiple pathways into the classroom in varying capacities, we will be able to reduce the number of teachers needed, thus creating a more competitive field that will demand a deep commitment to becoming the best candidate for a teaching position. This can be accomplished by increasing the presence of in-class support staff, which will help relieve the administrative burden placed on teachers and will enrich the classroom experience of the students.

1.2.2 Expanding the Career Ladder The impact teachers can have on students extends far beyond the classroom to the local, state, and federal levels of government. Dedicated and experienced teachers should be able to move up the ranks, into positions outside of the school, and become policymakers who can draw from their experiences in the classroom during the policy making process.

1.2.3 Attracting Teachers Raising wages has been the focus of many programs to attract teachers, and these programs can be successful; however, the importance of non-monetary incentives should not be neglected5. These types of incentives, such as a clearly defined career ladder that delineates a specific trajectory, paid sabbaticals, tuition reimbursement and more will retain teachers who are driven to improve, succeed, and challenge themselves in the profession.

1.2.4 Creating Pathways out of the Classroom as well as into the Classroom What we have talked about in the previous policy points are ways of creating pathways into the classroom, and improving the teachers that get there. However, we

5

understand that there is likely to be a small percentage of people who enter the teaching profession and find that they are not well suited for the job for any number of reasons. Rather than allowing these people, who undoubtedly care about the future of their students, to leave education all together, we should facilitate the creation of alternative pathways through the proposed career ladder. This will allow those who are better suited to other positions to continue making a positive impact on the educational outcomes of students.

1.3 Building Networks and Communities of Teachers 1.3.1 Fostering Collaborative Culture

Most other professions facilitate the development of networks in which people can discuss and collaborate on their work. By creating these networks within the teaching profession, we believe that teachers will be able to challenge each other to improve as well as support each other through challenges and help one another overcome obstacles.

1.3.2 Online Communities Resource sharing within online communities is one method that SFER Harvard believes will foster collegiality and development. One possibility for implementing this policy could be an online database of lesson plans that teachers can download and use for the Common Core curriculum; these plans would be approved through a rigorous evaluation process to ensure that they meet the Common Core State Standards.

1.4 Providing Teachers with Non-Monetary Recognition; and 1.4.1 Merit-Based Promotion

A promotion should be contingent upon a teacher’s demonstrated excellence in their position instead of their seniority5.

1.4.2 Fluid Recognition Structure We understand that life does not involve a straight direction; there are ebbs and flows and we believe that the career ladder and recognition structure should reflect that. People being recognized for their performance should be given the opportunity to take on and be relieved of added responsibility based on the trajectory of their life and the amount of time they are able to commit to these responsibilities. They should not in any way be penalized for having to step down from any position or responsibilities at any time for personal reasons.

1.4.3 Specialization Teachers designated as outstanding in their field should be given the opportunity to become “specialists”, a position similar to that of a consultant, but operating within a specific school. Responsibilities would include assisting teachers with lesson planning, subject area instruction assistance, and one-on-one work with students on specific topics1.

1.5 Encouraging Innovation in the Classroom 1.5.1 Technology An important part of elevating the teaching profession is ability to

adapt and use all of the resources available to teachers. This means using technology to innovate the way students are taught6.

1.5.2 Bottom Up Innovation7

Teachers who are in the classroom every day are in the best positions to determine what will work for students. Incentivizing teachers to develop and implement innovative and scalable pedagogical strategies will benefit students in the most immediate and effective way possible. Teacher-led innovation, not decrees from policy makers, is what will best serve our nation’s students5.

6

Responsible Leadership

2.1 Differentiated School Leadership It is unrealistic to think that one person will be able to fulfill all of the responsibilities designated to a principal without sacrificing quality. Therefore, we support differentiated leadership roles that allow great teachers and leaders to assume responsibilities that facilitate improved overall school functioning.

2.1.1 Leaders in Curriculum Design Outstanding teachers in cooperation with an “Academic Headmaster,” “Principal” or other designee should be tasked with developing and modifying the school curriculum5. Being appointed to join this team should be regarded as a prestigious professional designation, as it is a job reserved for those who have proven excellence in their subject area.

2.1.2 Operational Leadership The role of the Principal would be replaced with a Chief Operations Officer. Designed for those who are organized and adept at managing large networks but are seeking a pathway out of the classroom, the COO’s sole responsibility is managing the day to day operations of the school. 2.1.3 Leaders in Evaluation This position should continue to be filled by the “Academic Headmaster” or “Principal” with potential for input from lead department teachers. People performing evaluations should be well-versed in the curriculum and the subject being taught in order to accurately assess the quality of teaching and provide specific, informative feedback. Potentially, lead teachers could look at content quality while a “Principal” assesses other characteristics of the lesson, such as teaching strategies and classroom control.

7

2.2 Open Communication Between Stakeholders 2.2.1 Creating a Positive Atmosphere for Collaboration8

There are many different stakeholders in education and education reform, including parents, students, teachers, administrators, and advocates from outside of these groups. We believe a key goal of these stakeholders should be creating an environment where people can work together to develop initiatives that are truly best for students. The negative commentary between various parties has created an atmosphere where everyone wants to be the “winner,” but this is ultimately at the expense of making children the “losers.” There is much to be gained from working together and capitalizing on each other’s strengths in various fields. This is a key part of being a responsible leader in education and in education reform. 2.2.2 Education Councils In order to give each stakeholder a voice in the decision making process, SFER Harvard encourages the formation of Education Councils. The composition of these councils will vary based on the location and level of decision making. However, each council should include parents, students, teachers, and administrators at all levels, and large scale decisions should also include stakeholders from the non-profit sector of education, including, but not limited to, charter school leaders, research groups, and advocacy organizations.

2.3 Effective Federal Initiatives that Improve Educational Outcomes 2.3.1 Innovative Reforms9

We support federal initiatives that support proven reforms for all children (or at least do not support reforms that have been proven unsuccessful) and that allow for adaptation based on the school, demographics, etc. We also support the funding of new, innovative reforms and the encouragement of districts to implement new ideas. We believe that reforms supported by the federal government should be funded by the federal government. 2.3.2 Less Punitive Reforms We believe that reward is a better motivator than punishment and that struggling districts should not lose more money due to an inability to meet the unrealistic standards of an underfunded mandate. Currently, many schools lack adequate funding, and we believe that providing money as an incentive is more likely to spark changes than threatening punishment for under-achievement.

“There is much to be gained from working together and capitalizing on each other’s strengths in various fields. This is a key part of being a responsible leader in education and in education reform.”

8

3.1 Making College Accessible to All Students 3.1.1 Increased Support for Public Colleges/Universities and Community Colleges We acknowledge that a four-year degree at a private university is not the right option for every students. Therefore, we need to ensure that every potential pathway a student may take after graduating from high school is a high quality pathway. This means strengthening the degree programs at public colleges and community colleges so that these schools provide students with the ability to find fulfilling jobs and earn a decent wage by today’s standards. We also believe that these options need to be made affordable, so that no student feels unable to attend college based on the burden of student loans.

3.1.2 National Service Program for Student Loan Forgiveness One potential way of making college accessible and affordable to all students is creating a national service program that offers loan forgiveness. Students who vow to serve the country in various capacities for a set amount of time should have their student loans forgiven according to their service. Some professions, such as joining the military (ROTC) or becoming a primary care physician in a high need area, already offer loan forgiveness. We feel that there are many other ways a person can serve his/her country, so suitable jobs should also provide the benefit of loan forgiveness.

3.2 Equal Opportunity for All Students 3.2.1 High Standards for All Students5

Studies show that some teachers hold white students and minority students to different standards. We believe high standards are crucial to student success, and by holding minority students to lower standards we are hindering their ability to achieve. For this reason, we support programs that enforce the implementation of high standards for all students regardless of race or gender. We also acknowledge that some students have been exposed to a lifetime of indoctrination with lower standards, and we support programs that seek to rectify the racial and gender disparities that lower standards have

Post-Secondary Education for All

“High standards are crucial to student success, and by holding minority students to lower standards we are hindering their ability to achieve”

9

created. More specifically, we oppose the way society has caused students to internalize low standards and argue that teachers should educate all students about the ways in which stereotypes linked to race or gender have been disproven, so every student can feel empowered to succeed.

3.2.2 Standardized Testing Reform10

The standardized testing system used today has many flaws and in many ways is not an accurate measure of student success. Testing achievement should predict future success, but current results do not support this concept. For example, many charter schools that boast high standardized test scores have incredibly low college graduation rates. To counter this trend, if tests are going to be effective, they need to adequately assess the skills and concepts that will make students successful during post-secondary education and beyond. This may mean implementing the use of multiple lower-stakes tests throughout the year, requiring evaluation of portfolios, developing more critical test questions, or applying any number of changes that would improve the quality of testing in the United States. Additionally, if we are going to hold teachers accountable for student test scores, then we need to ensure that we are testing the most important skills. Teachers should not feel as though they are not obligated to teach their students important skills due to their absence from a test.

3.2.3 Enforcing the Teaching of Soft Skills11

Teaching of “soft skills,” meaning grit and character, should be enforced. School should involve more than just learning testable skills. Rather, school should include learning about how to be a good person and how to make society a better place. If we want schools to teach these skills, then we need to create programs that encourage them to do so.

3.2.4 Early Education for All Research shows that kids who start behind, stay behind. There is great disparity in the amount of intellectual stimulation students have received by the time they reach kindergarten. Admittedly, it is impossible for schools to eradicate all of these disparities through classroom teaching; however, by providing all students with early education (beginning with full-day kindergarten, and expanding to include pre-school), educators will be better able to give disadvantaged students a chance to succeed12.

3.2.5 Meeting the Needs of All Students Every student enters school in the morning with different needs. Some enter ready to sit down at their desks and learn. Others enter hungry, neglected, and in need of basic health care. If we expect all students to be able to learn, then we need to meet all students’ needs before we seat them at desks and tell them to listen. Schools need to provide the necessary wrap-around services to ensure that each student is able to focus on learning13. 3.2.6 Creating a Safe Environment Students need to feel safe at school in order to learn. We support programs that implement zero-tolerance bullying policies. Students absolutely should not be afraid to walk down the hallway for fear of being physically or verbally assaulted. This is far too common in schools and needs to come to an end.

3.2.7 Equal Access to High Quality Schools 3.2.7.1 Efficient Spending that Maximizes Choice while Minimizing Cost Students and parents should be given a choice regarding program enrollment. Every child learns differently, needs different types of support and flexibility, and has different interests. For this reason, there should be multiple options for every student14. Nonetheless, we support the availability of these options within a single school. For example, we support having various “tracks” geared towards specific academic areas, such as those found at magnet schools, or “tracks” geared toward different teaching and learning styles. And these programs should be available within one school, rather than within separate charter school programs because spreading resources across many schools is not economically efficient. By

10

spreading students across multiple smaller schools, we are taking money out of classrooms and putting it into overhead costs, which detracts from the learning experience of all students. In order to keep as much money in the classroom as possible, we support developing new models of choice within a single large school. 3.2.7.2 A New Model for the Charter Lottery System The aforementioned idea of consolidating choice into one building is a long-term goal. In the meantime, much should be done to change the nature of charter schools in this country. We acknowledge the fact that charter schools tend to enroll children who have invested parents that entered them into the school’s lottery, while leaving traditional public schools with the majority of students that are special education, English Language Learners, or that generally take more time and resources to educate. If the charter schools are public schools, then they should have the same chance of enrolling the same students (demographically) as the traditional public schools. Therefore, we propose an “opt-out” rather than an “opt-in” lottery system, where all students are automatically entered into the lottery, unless they or their parents decide to opt-out. This will actually put these charter models to the test and elucidate which, if any, techniques are truly scalable and useful for all students. This system will also encourage all parents to be more invested in the education system. 3.2.7.3 Higher Charter Accountability If we are going to enter all students into lotteries for charter schools, then we need to hold charter schools accountable for providing students with better educational outcomes than the traditional public schools. Research shows that, as a whole, charters have actually provided minority students with lower educational outcomes than traditional public schools, and this is unacceptable. Charter schools are most often closed due to monetary reasons and not academic reasons, even though so many are performing at the same level or worse than traditional public schools15. This is a disservice to children. Charter schools are supposed to provide better learning opportunities than traditional public schools, so if they are not performing to meet these standards, then they should be shut down. We stand as strong advocates for more stringent charter accountability. 3.2.7.4 Adequately Weighted Funding Formulas16

In order to provide students with a great education, schools need adequate funds. We support the revision of funding formulas so that they provide funding that accounts for demographics of high need students. For instance, schools should receive more money for students who are ELL or SPED. We also think that funding formulas should account for a high population of students in poverty, so that schools will have the resources to provide adequate wrap-around services. In addition, we believe that it is important to ensure that the funds appropriated for the purpose of meeting the needs of these students are actually used to support programs that improve their educational outcomes.

“We need to hold charter schools accountable for providing students with better educational outcomes than the traditional public schools. Research shows that, as a whole, charters have actually provided minority students with lower educational outcomes than traditional public schools, and this is unacceptable.”

11

Works Cited 1 Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2006). CSRQ Center Report on Elementary School Comprehensive School Reform Models. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.

2 The New Teacher Project. (2010). Teacher Evaluation 2.0. New York: TNTP.

3 Kane, T. J. (2007). Photo Finish. 60-67.

4 Berry, B. Urban Teacher Residency Models and Institutes of Higher Education: Implications for Teacher Preperation. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Evaluation.

5 Scholastic. (2012). Primary Sources 2012: America's teachers on the teaching profession. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Scholastic.

6 Dede, C. (2011). Reconceptualizing technology integration to meet the challenges of educational transformation. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction , 5 (1), 4-16.

7 Elmore, R. (2004). Doing the right thing, knowing the right thing to do: The problem of failing schools and performance-based accountability. In R. Elmore, School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance (pp. 227-259). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

8 McCormick, D. (1982). Barn Raising: Collaborative group process in seminars. Exchange: The organizational behavior teaching journal , 7 (4), 16-20.

9 Carter, P. (2009). Equity and Empathy: Toward racial and educational achievement in the Obama era. Harvard Educational Review , 79 (2), 287-297.

10 NEA. (2011). Beyond Two Test Scores:Multiple Measures of Student Learning and School Accountability. Washingtion, D.C.: Center for Great Public Schools.

11 Tough, P. (2012). How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiousity and the Hidden Power of Character. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

12 RAND Corporation. (2005). Proven Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

13 Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review , 50, 370-396.

14 Bloom, H. (2010). Transforming the high school experience: How New York City's new small schools are boosting student achievement and graduation rates. New York: MDRC.

15 Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple Choice: Charter school sperformance in 16 states. Palo Alto: Stanford University.

16 Petko, M. (2005). Weighted Student Funding Formula. Washington, D.C.: NEA.

“We recognize that education reform is a dilemma, with no simple solution. Rather, education reform tests our abilities to manage differing values and opinions in order to create the best future for the nation’s children.”

SFER Harvard Harvard University Cambrdige, MA 02138

www.sferharvard.wordpress.com

@SFERHarvard