how america’s best teachers could close the gaps, raise the bar, and keep our nation great -...

8/3/2019 How Americas Best Teachers Could Close the Gaps, Raise the Bar, and Keep Our Nation Great - Public Impact

1/34

building an opportunity c ulture for americas teachers www.opportunityculture.

How Americas Best Teachers Could Close the Gaps,

Raise the Bar, and Keep Our Nation Great

bryan c. hassel and emily ayscue hassel

Opportunity at the Top
http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.publicimpact.com/http://www.opportunityculture.org/


2/34

About the Authors

BRYAN C. HASSEL is o-Director o Public m-pact. e consults nationall with leading publicagencies, nonprot organizations and oundations

working or dramatic improvements in K- educa-tion. e is a recognized expert on charter schools,

school turnarounds, education entrepreneurship,and human capital in education. Dr. assel re-ceived his doctorate in public polic rom arvardniversit and his masters degree in politics romOxord niversit, which he attended as a hodescholar. e earned his .. at the niversit oorth arolina at hapel ill, which he attendedas a orehead cholar.

EMILy AYSCUE HASSEL is o-Director o Public

mpact. he provides thought leadership and over-sight to Public mpacts work on human capital,organizational transormation, parental choice oschools, and emerging opportunities or dramaticchange in pre-K to grade education. he previ-ousl worked or the a Group, a leading humanresources consulting rm. s. assel received herlaw and masters in business administration degreesrom the niversit o orth arolina at hapelill.

About the SeriesThis report is part o the seriesBuilding anOpportunity Culture or Americas Teachers.To see all reports in this series, including anexecutive summar or this report, please visit

www.opportunitculture.org.

ade possible with the support o:

Acknowledgements

This report was made possible b the generous sup-port o the Joce Foundation. t is part o a serieso reports about uilding an Opportunit ul-ture or mericas Teachers. The authors wouldlike to acknowledge the assistance o numerous

Public mpact colleagues in the preparation othis report. Daniela Dole led the creation o themodel used to orecast the eects o changing ourteacher policies, with signicant support rom

Jacob osch. s. Dole and r. osch, alongwith Joe bleidinger, provided extensive researchassistance. Julie owal and uc teiner providedinvaluable comments on an earl dra, and Danarinson oversaw production and dissemination othe report. n addition, several external reviewers

provided helpul eedback and insights, though allerrors remain our own. Finall, we would like tothank haron ebschull arrett or careul edit-ing, and pril eidig-iggins or the design o thereport.

00 Public mpact, hapel ill,

Public mpact is a national education polic andmanagement consulting rm based in hapel ill,

. We are a team o researchers, thought leaders,tool-builders, and on-the-ground consultants whohelp education leaders and policmakers improvestudent learning in K- education. For more onPublic mpact and our research, please visit:

www.publicimpact.com.Public mpact encourages the ree use, repro-

duction, and distribution o this working paper ornoncommercial use. We require attribution or alluse. For more inormation and instructions on the

commercial use o our materials, please contact usat www.publicimpact.com.


3/34

w w w . o p p o r t u n i t y c u l t u r e . o r g o p p o r t u n i t y a t t h e t o p | 1

Thanks to two decades o research, everone now

understands the vital role teachers pla in studentlearning. These das, ew would debate that teachersdier widel in their eectiveness. Our schools haveamazingl powerul teachers, woeull inadequateteachers, and ever gradation in between. nd ew

would dispute now that these dierences have anenormous impact on how much students learn. nthe schoolhouse, nothing matters more. lthoughschools are tring to improve proessional develop-ment and mentoring o teachers alread on the job,

wide agreement has emerged that replacing ineec-tive teachers with high-potential teachers can di-rectl and immediatel improve student outcomes.

This consensus has generated two major responsesrom policmakers and education reormers. First,numerous eorts are underwa to improve the pipe-line o teachers entering the proession. We areencouraging more o our talented college seniors toconsider teaching, enticing mid-career proessionalsto change jobs, and retooling the was we prepareteaching candidates or the chal lenges o teaching.1

econd, we are becoming more serious aboutremoving the least eective teachers rom class-

rooms. purred b compelling research,2 the ederalace to the Top competition,3 and major philan-thropic initiatives, states and districts across thecountr are working to revamp teacher-evaluation

sstems to refect the perormance dierences ev-

erone knows are there. nd as measures improve,policmakers are beginning to consider was to usethe data, such as b dismissing or dening tenure toteachers who all short on the new ratings.

et in our zeal to bring in new sources o talentand relieve schools o their lowest perormers, werisk overlooking what is perhaps the most obvious,immediate source o improved teaching eectiveness:the great teachers we already have.

The top percent o .. teachers more than800,000 o them alread achieve a level o resultsthat could enable all o our children to meet andexceed standards, graduating rom high school reador college and careers.5 n two was, however, we areailing as a nation to capitalize on this extraordinarresource:

Our nation is squandering one o its most important resources

our best teachers and children are paing the price.{

The top percent o .. teachers more than 800,000 o them alreadachieve a level o results that could enableall o our children to meet and exceedstandards.

Opportunit at the Topow mericas est Teachers ould lose the Gaps,aise the ar, and eep Our ation Great

ran . assel and mil scue assel
http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/


4/34

2 | o p p o r t u n i t y a t t h e t o p w w w . o p p o r t u n i t y c u l t u r e . o r g

We lose ar too many o the best teachers: n-nuall, an estimated 8 percent o these high-fiersleave teaching, a loss o about 64,000 ver e-ective teachers every year. Thats times morethan Teach For merica brought into teaching in009.

We ail to leverage their talent or studentsbenet: ven when great teachers sta, their im-

pact generall remains small over their careers.For example, onl 600 students will benet romthe instruction o an excellent elementar schoolteacher even i she stas on the job or 0 ears.7

We lack eective sstems to enable these teachersto reach more students b helping other teachersor b educating more students directl.

n this report, we show that even i we achieve our

boldest current goals or top-teacher recruitment anddismissal o low perormers, the great majorit ochildren will still lack access to eective instruction.Our stubborn achievement gaps will persist, andadvanced learners wil l continue to all short o their

potential. n contrast, we also show that b couplingthese goals with retaining more high-perormingteachers and extending their reach to more students,nearl all children could have great teachers ear aer

ear. ducation in merica would at last achieve its

promise.This outcome is well within our reach but onl

i we vastl expand the opportunities or top teachersto achieve success, impact, and rewards b buildingan opportunit culture in education.

Our Best Teachers: A National Treasure

What Having a Great Teacher Means or Students

O course having a great teacher makes a dierence,but how much o a dierence? n this section, webrief recount major research, which reveals that our

nations stubborn achievement gaps could be closedin a mere hal-decade i lagging children gained ac-cess to todas top teachers.

n one earl stud o teaching eectiveness, re-searchers in Tennessee ound that low-perorming stu-dents with the top 0 percent o teachers learned twoto our times as much as students with the bottom 0

percent. ince then, man other rigorous studies havereturned results showing that the best teachers consis-tentl produce sizable and signicant learning gains

ar in excess o their less-eective peers.s an illustration, consider 4th-grade mathemat-

ics. esearchers at the highl regarded research rmD analzed student results on six well-knownstandardized math tests. The determined howmuch the tpical student progresses between rdand 4th grade.1 We can think o this amount o

progress as a ears worth o learning or 4th grade.eparatel, researchers have compared the learningachieved b students assigned to dierent teachers

or 4th-grade math in two o the nations largestschool districts, ew ork it and os ngeles.n both studies, students assigned to the best

teachers (those in the top percent o all teachers,or the top quartile) learned ar more than thoseassigned to the worst (those in the bottom percent).11

ow much more? tudents with top-quartileteachers learned nearly twice as much as thosetaught by the bottom 25 percent o teachers. tu-

ven i we achieve our boldest currentgoals or top-teacher recruitment anddismissal o low perormers, the great

majorit o children will still lackaccess to eective instruction.

Good teachers do not generate the learningprogress needed or lagging students. Onlgreat teachers get the job done.


5/34


dents with top--percent instructors masteredone-third more material than a tpical student wouldlearn. tudents with bottom-quartile teachers, bcontrast, learned a third less than the tpical amount(see Figure ). Put another wa, students with thebest teachers learned about 6 months more materialthan their peers with bottom-tier instructors.12

nd thats just in one ear o instruction. mag-

ine the impact on a student o having great teachersear aer ear rather than ineective teachers. vertwo ears, the student could advance a wholeyear

beond peers relegated to classes with bottom-tierinstructors.

oreover, these studies examined the top per-cent o all teachers. omparing the ver best teachers sa the top 0 percent with the ver worst

would ield even more dramatic results. s econo-

mist Dan Goldhaber writes: ver good teacher asopposed to a ver bad one can make as much as aull

years dierence in learning growth or students.13s man commentators have noted, assigning low-

income and minorit students to great teachers couldwell eliminate the persistent achievement gaps we ob-serve between non-poor and poor students, and be-tween white students and black and atino students.n 4th-grade math, low-income students are, onaverage, about . ears behind their non-poor peers.

lack students lag their white peers b nearl twoears o learning.1 disadvantaged students couldswitch rom bottom--percent to top--percentteachers, the could make up these dierences in justthree to our ears (see Figure ). With teachers romthe top 0 percent, the could catch up even aster.Good teachers do not generate the learning progressneeded or lagging students. Onl great teachers getthe job done.

aving great teachers not onl enables disad-

vantaged children to catch up, but also enablesthese same children and their alread advancedpeers to continuing making learning progress

Caveats: Estimating the Value of a Great Teacher

The caveats about methods used to calculate the dierence a great teacher makes or students couldll pages, i not tomes. s a result, the numbers used here are intended to be illustrative rather thandenitive statements o the exact value o a top-quartile teacher. mong the caveats: researchers vigor-ousl debate the best methods or isolating the eects o teachers rom the eects o other variables;dierent studies ield dierent estimates o teacher eects; even within the same stud, eects usuall

dier b grade and subject; and teacher eects appear to ade over time (when not reinorced b simi-larl eective teachers). For the illustration here, we selected two well-known studies that examine thesame grade and subject with a large number o student and teacher observations. Other studies have

ielded results in the same general range, so these numbers provide good illustrations o the benetso having a top-quartile teacher.

Bottom 25% Typical Teacher Top 25%

1 yr

academicprogressmadebystudents

figure 1. Student Learning Achieved in a SingleAcademic Year, by Teachers Eectiveness

Source: Authors calculations based on comparing resultsreported in the Los Angeles study (Gordon, Kane and Staiger,2006) and the New York City study (Kane, Rocko and Staiger,2006) with the normal gains reported in Hill et al. (2007).See text endnote or ull details.


6/34


well above basic standards. n other words, greatteachers are the ke not onl to closing our nationsachievement gaps, but also to providing advancedlearning opportunities to ever child. s others havenoted, increasing educational achievement is criticalnot just or childrens prospects but or our nationaleconom.17

Our Unacknowledged Success:More Than 800,000 Great Teachers

n discussions o teacher qualit, we tend to empha-size the negative, such as the decline in the aptitudeo the average teacher over the decades,1 or ourunwillingness to let go o teachers who prove them-selves ineective.1

nd et even with these real challenges, our na-tions schools do manage to recruit a cadre o teacherseach ear who turn out to be excellent instructors.The top percent o teachers the ones achievingthe results proled in the previous section amountto more than 800,000 out o the national total o ap-

proximatel . million teachers.2

ake no mistake we need more o them. uti we pause or a moment, we realize that despiteall o public educations widel cited dsunctionalhuman resources policies and sstems, more than800,000 trul excellent teachers ones who closeachievement gaps and raise the bar or advancedlearners come to work ever da in our nations

public schools. bout . million children benetrom their instruction at an one time. o, what are

we doing as a nation to capitalize on this oen unac-knowledged success?

How We Squander the Treasure

t would be one thing i our public schools simplcould not attract high-caliber teachers to their ranks.ut as the previous section illustrates, public educa-tion does attract top-notch talent into teaching.

todays year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4ga p

2

1

0

-1

black-whiteachieveme

ntgap

in

years

No achievement gap ater

4 straight years o a top-25%

vs. bottom-25% teacher

teacher teacher teacher teacher

in top 25% in top 25% in top 25% in top 25%

figure 2. Eect o Having Great Teachers on the Black-White Achievement Gap15

Great teachers could close our nationsstubborn achievement gaps in a mere

hal-decade and provide advanced learningopportunities to ever child.

Note: This graphic illustrates the eects on black students o having a top-quartile teacher rather than a bottom-quartile teacheror our consecutive years. The distribution o teachers or white students remains the same as it is today.16


7/34


et as a nation, we receive ar less value rom thisaccomplishment than we should, or two reasons.First, we ail to retain enough o the best teachersrom ear to ear. econd, we ail to leverage theirtalent to benet more children. ut our ailure toretain and leverage great teachers begins with ourailure to identi them. s a chorus o voices has

pointed out, teacher evaluation sstems rarel dier-

entiate teachers based on perormance, giving almostever teacher a rating o satisactor or higher.21Outstanding teachers cannot be identied with thesesstems. s a result, districts and schools cannot relon current, ocial ratings to identi great teachers,leverage their talents, and retain them. oving pastthis barrier must be part o an solution.

Failing to Retain the Best

Teacher turnover receives a lot o attention in edu-

cation discussions.22 ccording to the nstitute orducational ciences () 00 stud o teacherattrition and mobilit, approximatel 8.4 percento public school teachers in 00-04 were out o the

proession in 004-0.23 umerous studies have ana-lzed teacher turnover, nding that somewhere inthe range o . to 9 percent o teachers leave the pro-ession each ear.2 an other teachers, o course,switch schools, but here we are concerned aboutindividuals who, rom the nations perspective, areleaving the classroom altogether.

Teacher turnover rates, however, are low relative tothe amount o churn and job-switching common inother proessions. The same stud, or example,estimated that .6 percent o private school teachersle the proession between 00-04 and 004-0, 6

percent higher than the leave rate in public schools.

n one careul analsis o evidence rom the urrentPopulation urve, Douglas arris and cott damscompared teachers rates o leaving the proession tothose o three other proessions: nursing, accounting,and social work. While the teacher departure rate(. percent) was higher than that or nurses (6. per-

cent), it ell below the rates or accountants (8.0 per-cent) and social workers (4.9 percent).25 n separateanalses, one can see that rates or the wider categoro business and proessional services are tpicalleven higher, with a 008 voluntar quit rate o 8

percent.2 n addition, perhaps a quarter to one-halo teachers who leave the proession return withinve ears, reducing the long-term attrition rate sig-

nicantl.27 ll in all, teaching is a relativel stableproession compared with man other jobs.

Losing 64,000 top-notch teachers per year. Thereal turnover crisis, it turns out, is not the overall rateo teacher attrition. nstead, it is our annual loss otens o thousands o the highest perormingteachers.

ven i higher-perorming teachers leave the proes-sion at a slightl lower rate than other teachers (seethe box on page 6Prior Research on Turnover Rates

or the Best Teachers), we can estimate that about 8percent o them depart each ear. With 800,000 top-quartile teachers in classrooms, that means an exoduso 64,000 top-notch teachers rom schools each ear.

To get a sense o the magnitude and signicanceo that outfow, consider:

s a result o this exodus, about million students

lose access to a top teacher the ollowing ear.ven though some o these students nd theirteacher replaced b another top-tier teacher, nearl0,000 children end up with less-eective teach-ers than the would have had i the top teacherstaed on or another ear.2

bout million students lose access to atop teacher each ear due to turnover.

Our ailure to retain and leveragegreat teachers begins with our

ailure to identi them.


8/34


The outfow dwars the infow rom the impres-sive set o programs that has been extraordinarilsuccessul at bringing new talent into public edu-cation. Teach For merica (TF), or example,brought in 4,00 new teachers in all 009. inceits start in 990, TF has recruited about ,000

teachers or high-need schools.2 n a decade orecruiting, The ew Teacher Project has placed,000 new teachers.3 The Woodrow WilsonTeaching Fellowship will recruit and train 00math and science teachers over the next three

ears (see Figure ).31 nd despite these programsselectivit, not all o these recruits turn out to betop-quartile teachers.

n his presidential campaign, candidate arackObama called or a national eort to create an

arm o new teachers, with an annual goal orecruiting 0,000 people into the teaching ranks.s with other recruiting eorts, we would notexpect all 0,000 to all into the top ranks oeectiveness.32

Why we lose the best. The act that we lose soman excellent teachers each ear should come as nosurprise. Though public education has man sstems

designed to retain teachers in general, these sstemsare almost all non-selective. That is, as magnetsthe exert no more orce on top-notch teachers thanon their less-eective peers. s a recent report romThe ew Teacher Project put it, our policies treatteachers like interchangeable widgets rather thanacknowledging the striking dierences in eective-ness described above.3 pecicall:

Teachers Recruited Teachers Recruited Annual Numberby tntp, 2009 by tfa, 2009 o Top-Quartile

Teachers Lost

3,992 4,100

64,000

figure 3. Annual Outfow o Great Teachers ComparedWith Infow rom Successul Programs

Prior Research on Turnover Rates for the Best Teachers33

everal studies have compared turnover rates or teachers exhibiting dierent levels o eectiveness,based on their value added or contributions to student learning as measured b standardizedassessments. mong the ndings:

ore-eective teachers appear slightl more likel to sta in the proession rom one ear to the nextthan less-eective teachers. This nding especiall holds or teachers earl in their careers (the rst ew

ears).

vidence rom a stud o Florida teachers suggests that b the end o ve ears, however, higher-per-

orming teachers have attrition rates similar to those o their less-eective peers.chools var in how successull the retain their best teachers. Data rom Florida and ew ork show

that the best teachers are more likel to sta at their school i the school is high perorming. chools in

general, however, had no more success retaining their best teachers than their worst, according to the

Florida stud.

Source: Teach For America, http://www.teachoramerica.org/ ;Correspondence rom TNTP, March 2010; Authors calcula-tions described more ully in the text.
http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.teachforamerica.org/http://www.teachforamerica.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/


9/34


Compensation. Public educations teacher com-pensation sstem is built to retain. lmost allschool districts pa teachers on a salar schedulethat rewards teachers or accumulating experi-ence. n contrast to other proessions such as lawand medicine, in which top perormers can reach

the peak o the salar scale in about 0 ears,teachers must work to 0 ears beore reachingtop pa levels.35 s a result, teachers have a strongnancial incentive to remain in the proession.This incentive, however, exerts at least an equal

pull on eective and ineective teachers alike, be-cause pa is tpicall not linked in an signicant

wa to perormance. O the 00 largest schooldistricts, onl oer an pa or perormance. Othese , onl three emploing less than per-cent o the nations teachers oer perormanceawards in which the maximum potential awardexceeds 0 percent o an average teachers salar(see Figure 4). ationall, less than one penn outo ever dollar o teacher compensation is basedon perormance or on an actor, or that mat-ter, other than experience or advanced degrees.3

rguabl, the pull o this late-ears compensationis actuall stronger or lower perormers, becausehigher perormers can earn more outside o educa-tion. hingos and Wests stud o teachers leavingthe proession, or example, ound that higher-

perorming teachers earned signicantl more

outside o teaching than their less-eective peers.37Tenure. nother powerul sstem that arguabl

helps retain teachers is the job protection thatteachers enjo aer receiving tenure. Once ten-ured, public school teachers can be removed onlaer extensive due process. This job securit hasobvious value to teachers, who are thereore morelikel to remain in teaching rather than movinginto other, less secure occupations. et tenureexerts its pull without regard to perormancebecause, in contrast to the universit setting, theaward o tenure in K- education is not based on

perormance.3 Onl two states requireany evi-dence o eectiveness beore awarding tenure.3 anthing, tenure is arguabl disproportionatelattractive to less-eective teachers, who benetmore rom the job protections it aords.

figure 4. Maximum Perormance-Based Awards in Large Districts

$12,000

$11,000

$10,000

$9,000

$8,000$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0

20% of national average teacher salary

10% of national average teacher salary

less than 1% of u.s. teachers

Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, Teacher Rights, Rules, and Regulations Database. Retrieved May 28, 2009, romhttp://www.nctq.org/tr3/search.jsp
http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.nctq.org/tr3/search.jsphttp://www.nctq.org/tr3/search.jsphttp://www.opportunityculture.org/


10/34


Retirement Benets. ike the compensation ss-tem, teacher pension sstems are built to retain up to a point. enets tend to be back-loadedin several was, accruing mostl toward the end oteachers careers. ike emploees in other sectors

with traditional pension benets, teachers in theirrst ew ears oen accrue no retirement savingsuntil the vest. Then, pension wealth grows

slowl over most o a teachers career, with well-documented spikes when teachers reach their0s or earl 60s. uthors Podgursk and ostrellhave argued that these spikes pull teachers to re-main in the proession until these late ears. erthe spike, however, teachers are pushed to retire:as the value o the pensions begins to declineever ear, it becomes worth their while to retiresooner rather than later. n addition, teachersace strong incentives to continue teaching in the

same state, because o substantial penalties i the

switch to a dierent states pension sstem mid-career.1 What is important to note here, though,is that all o this pulling and pushing happens

without regard to a teachers eectiveness. Thedraw to sta and earn a maximum pension ap-

plies to all teachers, regardless o how much their

students learn. nd the enticement to leave theproession aer the spike occurs beckons eectiveand ineective teachers alike.

These three incentive sstems compensation,tenure, and pensions help education retain teach-ers. ut the do so in an undierentiated wa. Greatteachers generall earn no more than ineectiveteachers with the same level o experience and educa-tion. Great teachers obtain tenure, but so do almost

all other teachers, including the least eective. ndgreat teachers can receive generous retirement ben-ets, but at the same level as all other teachers whoretire at the same age and ears o service.

Other actors ma infuence retention as well,including inadequate school-level leadership and di-cult working conditions in some schools. crosssectors, these actors are most cited b average andless-eective proessionals as reasons or leaving their

jobs. n contrast, top perormers are most likel to

leave or lack o career advancement and pa oppor-

figure 5. States Grades on Retaining Eective Teachers rom the National Council on Teacher Quality

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

23

27

No State Earned an A

No State Earned a B

1

a

b

c

d

f

Todas pa, tenure, and beneits do no

more to retain top-notch teachers than

to retain their least eective peers.

Source: NCTQ State Policy Yearbook 2008, p. 7. Available: http://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/stpy_national.pd.
http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.opportunityculture.org/http://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/stpy_national.pdfhttp://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/stpy_national.pdfhttp://www.opportunityculture.org/


11/34


tunit.2 ut in education, tenure, pa, and benetsnot onl ail to ocus on high perormers, the enor-mous sums spent through these sstems on the leasteective teachers also are eectivel removed romthe pool that could reward and keep top teachers in

advanced instructional roles.s a result, these sstems do little to dispropor-tionatel retain the best teachers. n its 008 stud,the ational ouncil on Teacher Qualit graded thestates on their policies or retaining eective teach-ers. o state earned higher than a +. ore thanhal earned a D+ or lower (Figure ).3 s it an

wonder that 64,000 high-perorming teachers leavethe proession ever ear?

Failing to Leverage the Best

etaining more o the best teachers would be enor-mousl valuable to students. ut retention has itslimits. ttrition rates in public education are rela-tivel low alread. nd these rates will never go tozero: some high-perorming teachers will alwas havereasons, personal and proessional, to move on.

s a result, we also need to ocus our attention onthe 9 percent o high-perorming teachers who stain the classroom rom one ear to the next. Thoughthese teachers have a signicant positive impact onstudents, that impact is severel constrained b the

act that, b and large, each great teacher reachesonl a small number o students. s Public mpacthas argued in other work, extending the reacho the great teachers we alread have holds excep-tional promise as a strateg or improving studentlearning.

o, or the man great teachers who do sta, whatopportunities exist to leverage their talents, havingan impact on more students? Woeull ew. om-

pared with other proessions such as law, medicine,and engineering, which oer high perormers a troveo opportunities to advance in their careers while still

practicing their cras, great teachers enjo ew suchprospects to extend their reach.

we began identiing our best teachers, thosegreat teachers couldleverage their impact, contribut-ing to more students learning, in two was. First,


12/34


the could do so directl, bproviding instructionto a larger number o students. econd, the coulddo so indirectl, b helping other teachers be moreeective. ut our school sstems do neither.

Providing instruction to a larger number o stu-

dents. The most obvious wa to leverage the talents

o great teachers would simpl be to expose morestudents to their top-notch instruction. The have

alread proven the can teach successull. Wh notgive them the opportunit, with commensurate com-

pensation, to teach more kids? this idea conjures up images o rd-grade class-

rooms packed with students getting little indi-vidual attention, consider this: b reorganizing greatteachers time to reduce non-instructional tasks, wecould enable them to teach more students in person

andgive children more individual attention. usingthe rapidl improving bank o new technologies,

we could ree great teachers rom rote instructionto engage in much more one-on-one or small-groupinteraction than the do now with man morestudents.5

et such arrangements are exceedingl rare in.. public education. The norm o one teacher,one classroom prevails. Dan ortie wrote about theegg crate school in his classic stud o the meri-can teaching proession in 9: . . . throughout thelong, ormative decades o the modern school sstem,schools were organized around teacher separationrather than teacher interdependence. s arvardeducation scholar ichard lmore has written: Theorganization and culture o merican schools is, inmost important respects, the same as it was in thelate nineteenth and earl twentieth centuries. Teach-ers are still, or the most part, treated as solo practi-tioners operating in isolation rom one another. . . .7

ot onl does public education ail to oer thesereach-extending opportunities to great teachers,but our policies also oen activel work against ex-

panding the impact o educations best. mong theculprits:

Simplistic across-the-board class-size mandates:ccording to the ducation ommission o thetates, The majorit o states 6 currentlhave at least one polic via statute or regulation . . .that places a limit on the number o students thatma be in an one general-education classroom.Though smaller classes could help new teachersget their ooting, or help struggling teachers geton track, simplistic across-the-board class-sizemandates also have the eect o reducing the

number o children receiving each great teachersinstruction. lmost certainl, some great teach-ers could handle more students or example, 0to 0 percent more, or two to our more childrenin an average class without diluting learningresults.

Compensation systems that cannot ex up iteachers reach more students:ven i a school ordistrict wanted to extend its best teachers reach,it generall could not oer the teacher more pa

or educating more students. The vast majorit oteacher pa is tied up in automatic increases witheach ear o service (steps) and added unds orobtaining advanced degrees (lanes). dminis-trators have little fexibilit to oer teachers morethan this scale dictates, even i the teach morechildren.

Funding systems that allocate sta positions,rather than dollars: chools oen receive re-sources not in the orm o dollars, but in the ormo sta positions.5 This structure makes it di-cult or impossible or an innovative school leaderto hire ewer teachers and use the savings to bringin remote instruction delivered b star teachers or,as just noted, pa the remaining on-site teachersmore or their added responsibilit.

Limits on teaching across state lines: Thoughmuch reach extension could take place within

The vast majorit o great teachersreach the same number o students as

their least eective peers.


13/34


schools or districts, districts could also importgreat teachers using interactive technolog thatenables remote teachers to instruct their children.Our state-b-state teacher licensure requirementsmake this dicult, however, and sometimesimpossible.51

onsequentl, the vast majorit o great teachersreach the same number o students as their least e-ective peers, ear-in and ear-out. s a nation, wethereb miss one tremendous opportunit to extendgreat teaching to more children using the teachers

we alread have.Helping other teachers to be more efective. We

could also leverage our best teachers indirectl, b en-listing them to help other teachers be more eective

b providing proessional development, mentoringand coaching, or supervision. n contrast to reachextension, public education is ull o eorts to engageteachers in this kind o work. et three dsunctionskeep us rom tapping the talent o great teachers tohelp others.

First, our proessional development systems arerarely designed to place the best teachers in the po-

sition o helping other teachers get better. nstead,the selection o individuals to lead proessional de-

velopment sessions or to serve as mentors or coachesgenerall ollows a process o sel-selection. Districtsand other proessional development providers do notgenerall screen their acult to ensure the comeonl rom the ranks o teachers who achieve greatresults with their own students. n part, the orgothis kind o screening because, as noted above, thesimpl have no ormal mechanism to identi theirbest teachers. s a result, the corps o people engagedin teaching other teachers is much wider than justeducations best.

econd,proessional development is rarely de-signed and implemented in ways that are likely

to have a strong impact on teacher practice and,through that, student learning. To illustrate thisshortall, consider three large-scale surves o teach-ers about their proessional development experiences:one administered in 999, one in 00, and one more

recentl in 009. n varing was, these surves re-veal a PD sstem that does not appear up to the jobo improving teacher practice. nstead, the illustratethat the PD sstem tpicall ails to:

Provide the kind o sustained, job-embedded devel-opment that research suggests would be most helpul.n the .. Department o ducations 999 studo the large-scale isenhower PD program ormath and science teachers, 9 percent o teachersin district programs received their developmentthrough workshops, institutes, college courses,and conerences rather than more embedded, on-the-job learning.52

Be o sucient duration to stick. n the isenhowerstud, the median duration o district-sponsoredPD reported b teachers was just hours,53 ar

below the duration that other research has sug-gested tpies proessional development that re-sults in improved teaching eectiveness.5

Match the development each teacher receives to hisor her specic needs or improvement. ccording toThe ew Teacher Projects 009 surve or TheWidget Eect, percent o teachers surveedsaid their most recent evaluation did not identian development areas. . . . This is true even ornovice teachers who are most in need o actionable

eedback as the learn their cra onl 4 per-cent o teachers in their rst three ears had andevelopment areas identied.55

Third, those who lead proessional developmentare rarely accountable or student outcomes. ven

when proessional development is embedded inplanning sessions at schools and personalized to closestudent and teacher gaps, it is a rare school that mea-

There is signicant opportunit at thetop, both to serve more children withour nations great teachers and to provideachievement opportunities that would

attract and keep more teachers.


14/34


sures the eects on students and connects it back tothe participating sta.

The proessional development sstem could be acritical tool or education to leverage the power o itsbest teachers. nstead, schools et again miss an op-

portunit to make the most o this valuable resource.

The Projected Payoff of Major Strategies

not retaining and leveraging the great teacherswe alread have, our nation is missing an enormousopportunit to close achievement gaps, raise the baror our most capable and motivated learners, andkeep our nations promise as the land o opportunit.n short, there is signicant opportunit at the top,both to serve more children with our nations greatteachers and to provide achievement opportunities

that would attract and keep more teachers like them.To illustrate the magnitude o this opportunity,

we developed a model o the teaching orce and

how it changes over time, based on current data andtrends.5 n this section, we use this model in threesteps.

First, we demonstrate that our most ambitiouscurrent strategies or recruiting and dismissal, iachieved in ull over ve ears, would give onl about

40 percent o the nations students access to a top-ranked teacher at an given time. Then, we illustratethat i our nation ocused ar more on leveraging andretaining the top teachers we alread have or thenext ve ears, more than hal o all students couldhave a great teacher at an one time. Finall, we ex-

plore the pao o combining all o these powerulstrategies, enabling nearl nine in ten students toenjo a top-tier teacher aer ve ears.

figure 6. The Status Quo: The Current Distribution oTeacher Eectiveness

percentofallte

achers

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Least EectiveTeachers

Most EectiveTeachers


15/34


The Payoff of Recruitment and Dismissal

Starting point: the current range o teacher e-

ectiveness. eore exploring the pao o dierent

strategies, it helps to have a picture in mind o thecurrent state o teacher eectiveness. Then as we peerinto possible utures, we can see how well each im-

proves on the status quo.One wa to picture the state o teacher eective-

ness is to view the proportion o classes taught bteachers at dierent levels o eectiveness. First, weshow this range on a bell curve, or normal curve(Figure 6). ot all distributions o human peror-mance at work all into such a neat pattern. ut in

act this approximatel describes the current teach-ing orce in measured grades and subjects (readingand math in grades through 8), so we also appl itto teachers in other subjects and grades. ote thatamong teachers at the top, some in act achieve ex-traordinar progress above even their eective peers.

econd, we divide this range into our quartiles.57The picture in Figure shows the percentage oteachers who all into todas our quartiles, per-

cent each.We can think about our goals or improvingteacher eectiveness as increasing the size o the topgroup. This group represents great teachers, who weknow rom research produce ar higher levels o stu-dent learning than their peers. s we examine pos-sible utures, we can ask: what proportion o teachers

will be as eective as todas top percent? Thehigher the proportion o teachers we have in that topgroup, the better. nd ultimatel, as we demonstratelater in this paper, we can also show the proportionochildren taught b this top group.

Recruiting more high perormers. To begin, con-sider what would happen i we were wildl successulat one o the nations current priorities: recruitingmore talented people into teaching. urrentl, schooldistricts recruiting and hiring sstems are widel

figure 7. Todays Teachers Divided into Four Equal-Sized Eectiveness Groups

TodaysBottom

25%

TodaysTop25%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Least Eective

TeachersMost Eective

Teachers

percentofclassestaugh

t


16/34


thought to be broken. The tend to reproduce the

picture in Figures 6 and , bringing in teachers withthe usual range o eectiveness.The ational enter or ducation tatistics

predicts that public schools will hire an average o9,000 teachers each ear between 00 and 08.5bout 8,000 ( percent) o those will ultimatelall into the top eectiveness group.5 What i wecould enhance our recruiting so that 40 percent oour incoming teachers were headed or the top levelo eectiveness and then keep up that pace or ve

ears? Figure 8 shows where we would be at the endo ve ears o this enhanced recruiting.

etter recruiting would ield benets or kids.The percentage o teachers in the best group wouldgo rom percent to 0 percent. t an one time,about million students would be in classes taughtb great teachers, compared with million i we

continued our current recruiting practices creating

a large, direct increase in learning results or manchildren.1ut two acts should give us pause. First, even

afer a hal-decade o outstanding recruitment,

a very large number o students still would not

be assigned to teachers in the top group. ome million students would lack access to a great teacherin a given period o the da. Full 46 percent ostudents at an one time would still be in classestaught b teachers rom the bottom two eectivenessgroups below average in todas schools. One inve would still be in a class taught b a teacher romthe least eective group.

econd, raising the percentage o great recruitsrom 25 to 40 percent annually would be a breath-

taking achievement, requiring the attraction o atleast an additional 0,000 ver talented new entrants

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Least Eective


Teachers*


t

Ater 5 years o enhanced recruiting Status quo

figure 8. Teacher Eectiveness Groups Ater 5 Years o Enhanced Recruiting

*Teachers who produce learning progress in the same range as the top 25 percent o teachers today.


17/34


ever ear. Teach For mericas entire annual classis just over 4,000, with a similar number enteringthrough The ew Teacher Projects eorts. nd notall o these new recruits all into todas top quartileo classroom eectiveness. nother prominent na-tional initiative, the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fel-

lowship, plans to work in three states to attract andtrain 00 high-potential math and science teachersin three ears. ven i that program expanded to all0 states, and even i all o its recruits proved them-selves as eective as teachers in todas top quartile, it

would ield onl about ,900 top-ranked new teach-ers per ear.

Just to be clear: better, bolder recruiting eortsjust like these are crucial, because each new greatteacher rom among these recruits either replaces

one o the departing great teachers or grows theranks o great teachers. The point is that even i wemet todas most ambitious targets or recruitinggreat teachers, we would still all ar short o a greatteacher or ever student about 0 percent short.ore than two-thirds o mericas classes wouldstill be taught b teachers who do not generate prog-ress adequate to close achievement gaps and makeadvanced students internationall competitive. We

would be stuck in the same realit as toda, with

parents in good schools jockeing or the one ortwo great teachers in each grade or subject and with

students in high-povert schools even less likel toencounter the great teachers the so desperatel need.

Dismissing low perormers. nother strateg thatholds promise or improving teacher eectiveness isto dismiss more o the least eective teachers.2 Theational enter or ducation tatistics estimates

that the average district dismisses or reuses to renewthe contract or about . percent o its teaching orce

each ear based on perormance.3What i we were much more successul at dismiss-ing teachers who are the least eective at instruction?pecicall, what i districts tripledthe current per-centageandocused dismissals with perect accuracon the lowest perorming teachers, so that the leasteective 6. percent o teachers le the proessionannuall? ow would that change the teaching orceover ve ears relative to the status quos policies?Figure 9 shows the results.

With that polic, students would benet enor-mousl. er ve ears, onl percent o kids wouldhave teachers in the bottom eectiveness group,compared with percent under todas policies.s teachers le, the would be replaced b teachersacross the whole range o eectiveness includingb teachers in the top group. s a result, the propor-tion o teachers in the top tier would rise, rom

percent in the status quo to percent aer ears.ut even this highl aggressive, hal-decade eort

to remove the worst perormers would leave almost0 percent o our nations children without a greatteacher. Fewer students would suer rom having the

worst teachers, but ar too ew would gain access tothe best.

Combined recruiting and dismissal. we pur-sued both o these aggressive policies simultaneousl

ven i we met todas most ambitioustargets or recruiting great teachers, morethan two-thirds o mericas classes woul

still be taught b teachers who do notgenerate progress adequate to close achievment gaps and make advanced studentsinternationall competitive.

highl aggressive, hal-decade eort toremove the worst perormers would

leave almost 0 percent o our nationschildren without a great teacher.


18/34

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Least EectiveTeachers

Most EectiveTeachers*

percentofclassestaught

Ater 5 years o dismissing the bottom 6.3% o teachers Status quo

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Least Eective


Teachers*

per

centofclassestaught

Ater 5 years o enhanced recruiting and dismissing the bottom 6.3% o teachersStatus quo

figure 9. Teacher Eectiveness Groups Ater 5 Years o Dismissing Low Perormers 64

figure 10. Teacher Eectiveness Groups Ater 5 Years o Enhanced Recruitment andDismissal




19/34


dramaticall expanding our recruitment o toptalentandtripling our dismissal rates or low per-ormers o course we would make even more prog-

ress, as illustrated in Figure 0.nder this scenario, ull 40 percent o teach-ers would be as eective as todas top quartile. ta given time, million students would enjo top-notch teaching, versus million under the statusquos policies. et this new world would still leave theother 60 percent, nearl million students, withouta great teacher at an one time.

The Payoff of Retaining and Leveragingthe Great Teachers We Already Have

ecruitment strategies look outside o education ornew sources o talent. Dismissal strategies look insideschools, but with an ee to identiing and removingchronicall ineective teachers. ere, we considerthe pao o a dierent set o strategies, approachesthat ocus on retaining and enhancing the impact othe great teachers who alread fow into our schools.

Retaining the best teachers. One o those strate-gies is to increase the portion o high-perormingteachers who sta in the classroom rom one ear to

the next. Focusing turnover prevention tactics ontop-perorming teachers would make an immediatedierence or large numbers o children.

Turnover never drops to zero, and as noted above,turnover rates among teachers are alread low com-

pared with other proessions. We lose about 8 percento our top teachers ever ear. People leave jobs orall kinds o reasons, proessional and personal. nd

ounger workers are more likel to switch jobs thantheir more senior counterparts, suggesting that gener-ational changes ma drive teacher turnover rates up.5

ut what i we could cut the turnover rate amongtop teachers in hal, and keep up that pace o retentionor ve ears? Figure shows what would happen.

er ve ears, 8 percent o kids would have ateacher rom this group, compared with todas

percent. bout . million more kids would have oneo these great teachers or one or more subjects.

figure 11. Teacher Eectiveness Groups Ater 5 Years o Enhanced High-Perormer Retention

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Least EectiveTeachers

Most EectiveTeachers*

percentofclassestaught

Ater 5 years o enhanced high-perormer retention Status quo



20/34


Leveraging the best teachers. etaining more othe best teachers would produce great benets, but

we need to do better. Our largest opportunit is toextend the reach o the best teachers so that morestudents benet rom their instruction. s we de-tailed in the report3X or All: Extending the Reach

o Educations Best, our nation could boost the im-pact o great teachers in several was. We expect thateducation innovators will devise man more meth-ods, but here are some examples o reach extensionin three modes:

In-Person Reach Extension:changing instruc-tional roles and how schools are organized toleverage limited talent while keeping the best in-structors close to the classroom. Great teachers arestill phsicall present to interact with children

and other sta in schools. xamples include:

. Great teachers using ar more o the workda orinstruction to reach more children, b eliminat-ing non-instructional tasks that other adultscould do;7

. Great teachers with managerial skills leadingmultiple classrooms, with direct oversight oother teachers who then use their methods and

work to their standards;

. Voluntar shis o small numbers o children e.g., two to our per class to top teachersclassrooms (ideall drawn rom the classroomso the least eective teachers).

These examples o in-person reach extension couldincrease the number o students with access to topteachers b 0 to 0 percent without diluting in-

person instruction time.

Remote Reach Extension: using technology toenable great teachers to engage directly though

not in person with students, bringing greatteaching even to places where great teachers are in

short suppl. urrent technolog allows both real-time and asnchronous interaction between greatteachers and students. xamples include:

.Pods o teaching specialists working together indesirable living locations and accessing childrenin schools anwhere that lack sucient localtalent.

. chool providers ocusing great teachers timeon student work review, personalized eed-back, and diagnostics o next-step instructionalneeds all high-value roles that tpical teachersare pressed to do as well via email andinternet.

. chool providers having top teachers use all otheir work time to interact online with ar morestudents than possible when giving repeated live

lectures; this is possible i videos or computersare used to deliver routine lecture content thatall students need.

emote each xtension could double or triple thenumber o children reached b top teachers, and itcould do so where n-Person each xtension is noteasible.

Boundless Reach Extension: using video o greatteachers and sofware based on their insights

and practices to deliver great teaching even whengreat teachers cannot interact directl with stu-dents. xamples include:

. Video recordings o teachers who are bothmasters o content and engaging perormers.

. mart soware designed b great instructorsto ascertain and respond instantl to eachchilds level o skill and knowledge.

t is boundless because the number o children

who can be served b an individual instructor isunlimited. t is bounded ver little b the time andnot at all b the location o each instructor whocontributes intellectual and perormance capital.The onl limits on time are the time it takes or eachgreat teacher to participate in the design and produc-tion o video or online content. The precise ormula

each extension alone could double the numbero children receiving top-tier instruction.


21/34


or combining technolog with other instructionalelements to achieve the level o learning progress thattop teachers achieve is still unknown. nd et, in-novators in other countries that outperorm the ..on comparable exams are moving orward aggres-sivel, reaching children nationwide with outstand-

ing, charismatic instructors who are revered andpaid like rock stars.

ot ever great teacher will be equall eec-

tive with ever child need or ever reach extensionmethod. mplementing assessment methods that iden-ti which teachers do best with which child learningneeds and reach extension methods and then creat-ing the opportunities or those teachers to reach thechildren the can best help are essential tasks.

What i, using a combination o these tech-niques each chosen careully to match the cir-cumstance and varying needs o children by age

and other actors we could double the numbero children reached b the top teachers we alreadhave? Figure shows the results.

Five ears rom now, hal o students morethan 6 million would have teachers rom thetop group at an one time, compared with just million i we continue current patterns. ecause the

nation would need ewer low-perorming teachers ininstructional roles, the proportion o students withbottom-tier instruction would drop as well.

er ears o combining these strategies high-perormer reach extension,

recruiting, and retention, coupled withlow-perormer dismissal nearl 8

percent o the nations classes would betaught b great teachers.

figure 12. Percentage o Classes Taught by Dierent Eectiveness Groups Ater Doubling the Reach o Great Teachers

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Least Eective


Teachers*

percentofclassestaug

ht

Ater 5 years o doubling the reach o great teachers Status quo



22/34


The Payoff of Combining Recruitment,Dismissal, Retention, & Reach Extension

onsider what would happen i we extended thereach o our best teachersandpursued the otherstrategies discussed in this section. That is, werecruited more high perormers in the rst place,

removed more low perormers, retained more topteachers,anddoubled the reach o top teachers. our nation pursues reach extension well, providingnumerous advancement opportunities and ensuringthat a portion o per-pupil unding or additionalchildren reached returns to great instructors, ourboldest recruiting and retention goals will be armore achievable. Figure illustrates what wouldhappen over ears.

er ears o combining these strategies high-

perormer reach extension, recruiting, and retention,coupled with low-perormer dismissal nearl 8

percent o the nations classes would be taught bgreat teachers, up rom percent toda. t an onetime, some 46 million students would be taughtb great teachers, compared with just million icurrent trends hold. Our schools would still havesome middle- and low-perorming teachers, but thenormal, expected experience o a student would be tohave a trul great teacher the kind that toda most

children have onl a ew times in a whole school ca-reer. magine that.

figure 13. Percentage o Classes Taught by Dierent Eectiveness Groups Ater 5 Years o Combined Strategies:High-Perormer Reach Extension, Recruiting, and Retention + Low-Perormer Dismissal

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Least Eective


Teachers*


t

Ater 5 years o combined strategies Status quo

The normal, expected experience o astudent would be to have a trul greatteacher the kind that toda most childhave onl a ew times in a whole schoolcareer. magine that.



23/34


Figure 4 shows the relative impacts o these strat-egies on children.

The potential boosting power o proessional

development. ote that here we do not include apotential boost in the number o great teachers as aresult o improved proessional development. Despitemuch how to research, proessional development inimplementation has not led to widespread, measur-able results.

owever, we suspect that proessional develop-

ment consistentl designed and led b teachers whoare alread perorming well will benet studentsmore than proessional development toda, particu-larl when it is coupled sensibl with accountabilitor student outcomes. For example, some orms oreach extension include enabling top teachers who

have managerial competencies to lead multipleclassrooms. Proessional development that happensin that context when the lead teacher is both ac-countable and highl capable would be muchmore likel to improve outcomes than eorts unteth-ered rom responsibilit or children. The prospecto proessional development led b capable, account-able stars onl increases the astonishing potentialo an education culture dominated b excellentinstructors.7

Implications for the Sector:Building an Opportunity Culture

The projections in the previous section show thatwith the right combination o strategies, we couldcome dramaticall closer to attaining the timeworncall or a great teacher in ever classroom. With-out that combination, even i our most promisingreorms-in-progress bear ruit, we will not come re-motel close to closing our nations achievement gaps

or raising the bar to internationall competitive levelsor our most advanced students.We are making good progress as a nation on some

components o this combined approach. The mostsignicant gap the part scarcel on the policradar screen is the set o strategies that wouldretain and leverage the talent o the best teachers.ven as we improve our recruiting and hiring and re-

figure 14. Proportion o Children Served By GreatTeachers Today and in an Opportunity Culture

Today

With Additional Bold Recruiting Eorts

With Tripled Dismissal o Low Perormers

With Great-Teacher Turnover Rate Cut in Hal

With Great Teachers Reaching Double the Students(Reach Extension)

All Strategies Above Combined Opportunity Culture

% o children served by great teachers

% o children served by otherteachers

The prospect o proessional developmenb capable, accountable stars onl increasthe astonishing potential o an educationculture dominated b excellent instructor


24/34


move more low perormers,we need a substantiallyheightened ocus on educations top talent.

chieving that ocus requires that we build anopportunit culture in public education (see boxabove). n an opportunit culture, the avenues avail-able to teachers or personal achievement, impact on

children, and pa would be man and wide open, inproportion to each teachers contributions to student

learning. Policies and sstems would be aimed rstand oremost at identiing better teachers and pro-

viding them with more chances to achieve and helpmore children, and to receive commensurate rewards.ore o the best would sta as the experienced

career advancement and rewards on par with alter-native careers. ventuall, the best teachers woulddominate not onl the educational experience oour nations children, but the proessional culture ineducation.

ut .. education toda is solidl built to be a

securit culture and has onl a ew, weak elementso an opportunit culture. eal career advancementopportunities in which better teachers can achievehigher levels o excellence using their ull range otalents, reach more children, and reap the economicand pschic rewards are ver limited. ven the

ver best teachers, the ones who achieve three orour times the learning results o others, have ew op-

portunities and little more recognition and rewardbeond that o the worst teachers.

Proposals addressing the pieces needed to com-plete the opportunit culture puzzle are beginningto circulate.71 These and others must move orwardar aster. Together, we must ensure that no major

polic or sstem acts as a barrier to urther achieve-ment, contribution, or reward opportunities or greatteachers.

n an opportunit culture, the avenuesavailable to teachers or personal achieve-ment, impact on children, and pa would

be man and wide open, in proportionto each teachers contributions.

Opportunity Culture

n organization or eld o endeavor open to all candidates with valid indicators o likelperormance and providing urther opportunities or achievement, impact, and rewards that aresignicant and proportional to each persons actual eectiveness at work. esources mone,

managerial attention, and urther opportunities or achievement and impact are allocateddisproportionatel to people who are more eective at work.

Antonym Security Culture

n organization or eld o endeavor into which almost anone can enter, nearl everone cansta, and opportunities or achievement, impact, and rewards are predetermined, not proportionalto the actual eectiveness o individuals at work. esources mone, managerial attention, andurther opportunities or achievement and impact are allocated b ormula irrespective oindividuals eectiveness at work.


25/34



26/34


Reach Extension: the Golden Key to anOpportunity Culture

When great teachers reach more children than theirless-eective peers, a greater portion o per-pupilunding fows can return to them. This provides a

pre-existing, sustainable means o supporting morepa or better teachers who choose to achieve moreimpact with their talents. ot all would choose

to extend their reach to more children, but manwould ijob roles and enabling technologies werealread organized to allow it in a variet o was thatcould tap each great teachers competencies, withoutdiluting eectiveness with students. ot onl couldthe best teachers reach more children directl, thealso could have a powerul leveraging eect b man-aging, mentoring, and otherwise enabling higher

perormance b their more tpical peers.each extension b itsel is an important means

or meeting the needs o ar more children, but it isalso the rst domino in a virtuous ccle o opportu-nit or great teachers. When large numbers o greatteachers have an all-ou-can-eat menu o achieve-ment opportunities and earn proportionall moremone:

more o the best potential teachers will enter theproession;

more o the proven best will sta; and dismissals will become ar easier, because the re-

placement pool will be stronger and tomorrowsbad hires will be todas average teachers.

each extension is the golden ke to achieving andexceeding our nations boldest goals, both or re-cruiting and retaining great teachers and or dismiss-ing the worst.

First Steps Toward Building an OpportunityCulture: The Will and the Way

ow can public education move toward an oppor-tunit culture? This is the detailed subject o thecompanion report, Seizing Opportunity at the Top.ere we initiate the conversation in hopes o igniting

urther thinking and action b others. Two areas oaction are essential: nding the will and the wa tobuild an opportunit culture.

The Will. Our nations great teachers can ac-complish onl so much within the shackles o cur-rent policies and practices. The are dependent on

political leadership and management determination,rom the White ouse to the schoolhouse, to eectchanges that put great teachers rst.

Our ederal government, state leaders, districtleaders, and school leaders must use the powers thealread have to remove barriers and start buildingopportunities or our best teachers. When the poweris lacking, leaders must indeed lead and take ournations laws, regulations, and other policies in newdirections that enable great teachers to reach morechildren eectivel. When will is wanting at thelocal or state level, leaders with broader powers mustenorce existing laws in new was that refect modern

realities or create new legal means or our nationschildren to gain access to highl eective instruction.The moral imperative is enormous, and the alterna-tive unacceptable.

The Way. an sstems operate together to de-ne our nations existing securit culture in educa-

When great teachers reach more children,a larger portion o per-pupil unding

can return to them.

great teachers can advance their careersb reaching more children and earningmore mone, more will sta, more willenter, and low-perormer dismissal willbecome ar easier.


27/34


tion. O course these include human capital sstems,rom recruitment, hiring, pre-service training, jobdesign, and proessional development to perormanceevaluation, tenure, and pa. ut other sstems pla arole as well: unding ormulas, acilities, technolog,and school design.

These sstems are a tightl wound chain o poli-cies that choke o opportunities or our nationsbest educators at ever turn. For example, educationleaders who want to pa top teachers to reach morechildren cannot in most district public schools, be-cause pa is predetermined b ormula in steps andlanes compensation policies. ikewise, principals

with willing top-notch teachers who want to usetheir work time to instruct ar more children wouldhave to cra these roles rom scratch, without an

existing fow o appropriatel selected support sta,and at the risk o violating state laws on class size.Technolog to import world-class instruction whiletop teachers on site ocus all work time on instruct-ing more children in smaller groups is similarlhampered b unding streams built or a one-teacher-one-classroom model, even though this guaranteeschildren in the vast majorit o classrooms a sub-excellent instructional experience.

n opportunit culture, one that supports great

teachers at ever turn, will include tightl designedand purposeull implemented sstems with clearand specic goals. s a start, education leaders willcommit to the ultimate goal: providing ever child

with instruction that achieves results at least on parwith what top-progress teachers provide toda, ban means necessar in all important topics, ever

ear. n pursuit o that goal, teacher eectivenesswill be rigorousl assessed with measures includingand correlated with student outcomes. These mea-sures will be used to attract, identi, develop, retain,reward, and extend the reach o great teachers. up-

porting peers will pla their part, but top-perormingteachers will be the undisputed leaders o the educa-tion eld, without leaving instruction.

ecause the will be clearl identied and theirreach extended to more children, great teachers will

accrue ar more pa, prestige, and power over educa-tion operations and policies. ore high-potentialcandidates will see education as the place or meand enter, keeping todas top teachers on their toesand beginning a virtuous ccle o perormance,advancement opportunit, rewards, retention, andurther attraction o excellent new teachers. n an op-

portunit culture, the best teachers will never againneed to remind themselves wh the chose educationover other careers. t will be obvious, and the willhave peers with whom the can openl reveal theirambitions o achievement and impact on childrenand our nations course.

Our nations great teachers can accomplisonl so much within the shackles o curre

policies and practices.


28/34


ducation leaders within single schools, districts,and charter management organizations, and acrossentire states can start eecting these changes now in some cases all at once, in others one b one.Onl one guidepost is needed to choose changes

wisel: a commitment that all children have access toinstruction that achieves high-progress results on par

with todas leading teachers. eaders must do an-thing necessar to identi, utilize, and keep the greatteachers among us who can get the job done.

Conclusion

Policmakers and education leaders have ar more

at their ngertips to oer our nations best teachers.Top teachers, in turn, have ar more to oer our na-tions children than current policies enable them todeliver. We must work together to ensure that ournations education sstem is rebuilt around mericasgreat teachers. uilding an opportunit culture ineducation will take creativit, hard work, and deter-mination, three o our nations greatest strengths andones we must rel on now to close our gaps, raise ourbar, and keep our nation great.

ducation leaders within single schools,districts, and charter management organi-

zations, and across entire states can start

eecting these changes now.


29/34

Notes

. xamples o pipeline initiatives include The ewTeacher Projects various Teaching Fellow programs(http://www.tntp.org/teach.html); Teach For mericasannual placement o top college graduates in high-needschools (http://teachoramerica.org/mission/mission_and_

approach.htm); the Woodrow Wilson ndiana TeachingFellowship (http://www.woodrow.org/index.php); andurban teacher residenc programs such as the ostonTeacher esidenc (http://www.bostonteacherresidenc.org/), and hicagos cadem o rban chool eadership(http://www.ausl-chicago.org/).

. The ew Teacher Project, The Widget Eect: OurNational Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Dierences inTeacher Eectiveness (ew ork: The ew Teacher Project,009).

. ore than 0 percent o the points awarded in the$4. billion ace to the Top competition are or measuringteacher and leader eectiveness and using the data to makesuch decisions as pa, tenure, and dismissal. .. Depart-ment o ducation, ace to the Top xecutive ummar,ovember 009.

4. easuring teacher eectiveness and acting on the dataare major ocal points o the ill and elinda Gates Foun-dations multisite mpowering ective Teachers initia-tive. ee mpowering ective Teachers: eadiness oreorm or details. vailable: http://www.gatesoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-eective-teachers-readiness.aspx.

. tatement is based on comparing top-quartile teachersresults with those o bottom-quartile teachers results. om-pared with second- and third-quartile teachers, o course,top-quartile teachers relative advantage is smaller. ee notes and 4 or calculations underling this statement.

6. Teach For merica, Teach For merica dds argestumber o Teachers in istor, ews elease, a 9, 009.vailable: http://www.teachoramerica.org/newsroom/ documents/00908_Teach_For_merica_dds_argest_umber_o_Teachers_in_istor.htm .

. ased on an average class o 0 students. ee ationalenter or ducation tatistics, ighest Degree arned,

ears o Full-Time Teaching xperience, and verage lassize or Teachers in Public lementar and econdarchools, b tate: 0008,Projections o Education Statis-tics to 2018, 009.vailable: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_06.asp.

8. William . anders and Joan . ivers, Cumulativeand Residual Eects o Teachers on Future Student Academic

Achievement(noxville, T: niversit o TennesseeValue-dded esearch and ssessment enter, 996).

9. For example, see ric . anushek, teven G. ivkin,and John F. ain, Teachers, chools, and cademic chieve-ment,Econometrica, , (00), 448; Jonah . ock-o, The mpact o ndividual Teachers on tudentschievement: vidence rom Panel Data,American Eco-

nomic Review 94, (004), 4.0. aroln J. ill, oward . loom, lison ebeck

lack, and ark W. ipse,Empirical Benchmarks or Inter-preting Eect Sizes in Research (D Working Papers onesearch ethodolog) (ew ork: D, 00), p. .vailable: https://www.mdrc.org/publications/49/ull.pd.The stud estimates the average annual gain in 4th-grademath to be equivalent to an eect size o 0., whichmeans that average gain is about one-hal o a standard de-

viation o test scores in that subject and grade.. Thomas ane, Jonah . ocko, and Douglas O.

taiger, What Does Certication Tell Us About Teacher Eec-

tiveness?(006). vailable: http://www.dartmouth.edu/ ~dstaiger/Papers/nc%0ellows%0march%0006.pd.;obert Gordon, Thomas ane, and Douglas O. taiger;

Identiying Teacher Perormance on the Job (Washington,D: The rookings nstitute, 006). vailable: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/00604hamilton_.pd .

. uthors calculations based on comparing results re-ported in the os ngeles () stud (Gordon, ane andtaiger, 006) and the ew ork it () stud (ane,ocko and taiger, 006) with the normal gains reportedin ill et al. (00). n the stud, 4th-grade math stu-

dents with top-quartile teachers gained percentile pointswhile those with bottom-quartile teachers lost points, or adierence o 0 percentile points, approximatel equivalentto an eect size o 0.9. The stud ound the eectsize o having a top-quartile to a bottom-quartile teacher tobe 0.. o 0. is a reasonable estimate o the eect size o atop- vs. bottom-quartile teacher in 4th-grade math. ill etal. (00)s average normal gain in 4th-grade math in eectsize terms is 0.. ombining these gures, we calculatedthat the dierence between top- and bottom-quartile teach-ers is about 60 percent o a normal ears worth o progress,or six months out o a 0-month school ear.

. Dan Goldhaber, Teacher Pay Reorms: The PoliticalImplications o Recent Research (Washington, D: enteror merican Progress, 009 [originall published 006]),

p. 4. mphasis in original. vailable: http://www.american-progress.org/issues/006//pd/teacher_pa_report.pd .

4. uthors calculations based on ill et al. (00) re-ported eect size equivalents or the 4th-grade math test-
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-effective-teachers-readiness.aspxhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-effective-teachers-readiness.aspxhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-effective-teachers-readiness.aspxhttp://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/20090528_Teach_For_America_Adds_Largest_Number_of_Teachers_in_History.htmhttp://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/20090528_Teach_For_America_Adds_Largest_Number_of_Teachers_in_History.htmhttp://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/20090528_Teach_For_America_Adds_Largest_Number_of_Teachers_in_History.htmhttps://www.mdrc.org/publications/459/full.pdfhttp://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/nyc%20fellows%20march%202006.pdfhttp://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/nyc%20fellows%20march%202006.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/teacher_pay_report.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/teacher_pay_report.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/teacher_pay_report.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/teacher_pay_report.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdfhttp://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/nyc%20fellows%20march%202006.pdfhttp://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/nyc%20fellows%20march%202006.pdfhttps://www.mdrc.org/publications/459/full.pdfhttp://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/20090528_Teach_For_America_Adds_Largest_Number_of_Teachers_in_History.htmhttp://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/20090528_Teach_For_America_Adds_Largest_Number_of_Teachers_in_History.htmhttp://www.teachforamerica.org/newsroom/documents/20090528_Teach_For_America_Adds_Largest_Number_of_Teachers_in_History.htmhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-effective-teachers-readiness.aspxhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-effective-teachers-readiness.aspxhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/empowering-effective-teachers-readiness.aspx


30/34

score gap between white and black students (0.99) and non-FP-eligible and FP-eligible students (0.8). Dividingthese gures b their 4th-grade math normal growth esti-mate (0.) ields nearl two ears or the white/black gapand . ears or the non-eligible/eligible gap.

. s explained in note , the dierence between top-and bottom-quartile teachers is about 60 percent o a nor-

mal ears worth o progress in 4th-grade math. With ablack-white test-score gap in 4th-grade math at nearl two

ears, our ears o 60 percent higher growth would morethan eliminate the gap or an rican-merican student. the same analsis, the gap between students eligible or reeor reduced-price lunch and non-eligible students would bemore than eliminated in three ears.

6. The polic directions suggested in this paper wouldinclude increased access to top teachers b all children.Once children achieve todas grade-level standards, teachers

would enable them to make urther progress, as advancedstudents do toda when the have great teachers.

. cinse & ompan, The Economic Impact o theAchievement Gap in Americas Schools (cinse & om-pan, 009). vailable: http://www.mckinse.com/pp_edia/mages/Page_mages/Oces/ocialector/PDF/achievement_gap_report.pd

8. aroline oxb and ndrew eigh, Pulled wa orPushed Out? xplaining the Decline o Teacher ptitude inthe nited tates,AEA Papers and Proceedings, 94, (004), 640.

9. Gordon, ane, and taiger, 006.0. ational enter or ducation tatistics, Table .

ctual and lternative Projected umbers or lementarand econdar Teachers and lementar and econdarew Teacher ires, b ontrol o chool: Fall 99 throughFall 0,Projections o Education Statistics to 2018, 009.vailable: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/pro

jections0/tables/table_.asp?reerrer=list .. The ew Teacher Project, The Widget Eect; The ill

and elinda Gates Foundation,Empowering EectiveTeachers: Strategies or Implementing Reorms (eattle, W:The Foundation, 00), p. ; obin hait and aeganiller, Treating Dierent Teachers Dierently: How State

Policy Should Act on Dierences in Teacher Perormance to

Improve Teacher Eective

how america’s best teachers could close the gaps, raise the bar, and keep our nation great -...

Documents