I've always thought that improving as a teacher is a lot like improving as a writer, a continuous process of trial and error, learning from error, coming up with a purposeful approach to improvement and trying again. The most important trait I've observed in myself and others around progressing in one's teaching, more than smarts, knowledge of teaching techniques, or anything else is embracing that mindset of learning from "failure" where failure means falling short of some meaningful and (reasonably lofty) goals one sets for oneself. To me, all those metrics you list that don't seem to tell us much simply don't relate to the actual work of teaching.
The people looking for the "cheat code" are either not aware of the "mess" that is inherent in the trial and error of teaching, or would like to engineer that mess away, even though I would argue the mess is essential for both teachers and students.
"It is possible for a competent writer to become a good writer, but impossible for a bad writer to become competent or for a good writer to become great."
I agree, John. The ability to self-reflect on our shortcomings is how good teachers get made. That is not an endorsement for throwing teachers into the deep end with no support and hoping they swim (because they won't; at best, they'll tread water until they exhaust themselves). Instead, schools can normalize procedures around instructional coaches who are experts at asking the right questions that get teachers to reflect rather than deflect. I had three instructional guides my first year of teaching: a behavior management coach, a literacy coach, and my principal (instructional coach). This is not a hack or a cheat code, it's just good structural support. Without their guidance, ability to ask questions, offers of support, willingness to teach model lessons, and resource lists, I would have quit. I grew to be the teacher I am because of the slow process of failure and improvement that you mention. Like any good writer, teachers must listen to feedback... assumign that feedback is coming from someone who genuinely wants you to improve, not be discouraged. Thanks for the comment, John.
"Reflect not deflect" is a helpful way of thinking about it. I learned to teach in higher ed without any formal support, just sort of glomming on to mentors here and there and a lot of trial and error, but I did have the benefit of the freedom to experiment because no one was paying attention to my teaching. Being allowed to do all that experimenting kept me in the work long after it clearly made no sense economically to keep teaching. I had to build a writing career to support my teaching habit. I only teach occasionally now and reading your comment makes me miss it.
I wonder if we need more paths to the teaching profession. I was struck by…
The teachers working under these licenses also helped diversify the state’s classrooms, as they were about twice as likely as other beginning educators to be Black, Hispanic or Asian.
The path through the state towards a credential can be an expensive one. Is the EdTPA costing us some diversity? Should there be a less expensive and arduous path that would allow local districts to develop and certify a teacher? Would this lead to a staff of more home grown teachers with more investment in the community? Would that help?
The authors propose some low risk & lightweight tracks into teaching in lieu of the weight of a credential program. A less expensive and less arduous path, like you suggest.
A long time ago at the Asilomar CMC conference I heard Lola May speak. “Great teachers aren’t born, they’re made by the teacher next door.” Tech, at a relative max, has given me more “teachers next door”, for which I am forever thankful. I’m hopeful AI can help with this too.
I was cheer'reading this whole post, Dan. Once again, thank for taking the time to write and share. As someone who works with about 100 teachers a month - recursively - this work is the hard work. The hard work worth doing.
What has really resonated me here is Dan's point that "you can’t cheat code your way around teachers. If your work doesn’t account for teachers—the way they work, the way they move through a class, the tools they use, the way they think about their students, their aspirations for their work, the outcomes for which they’re accountable, the vastness of their experiences prior to teaching—you will make a meaningful impact on student learning only by accident."
I like what the state of Maryland is doing regarding teacher education and preparation. Through the Blueprint for Maryland's Future (https://blueprint.marylandpublicschools.org/) they've agreed to invest billions in overhauling the public-education system. One of the areas they've targeted is teacher education and retention. Regarding education, they're going to ensure new teachers have more of an apprenticeship their first year, rather than throwing them into the fire feet first.
Just as I passionately believe great mathematicians aren't born great, but rather work hard to be great, I believe great teachers are made. To be fair, "making" a great teacher is a combination of structural support (e.g., instructional coaches, mentors, etc.) as well as cultivating a mindset about teaching itself (e.g., engaging in self reflection, embracing a continuous process of trial and error, etc.).
It's a shame they didn't take into account National Board Certified teachers, who have to demonstrate effectiveness in a variety of ways - including classroom videos. What could we learn from their process to train teachers from the outset? Does National Board actually guarantee a high quality teacher?
The digital divide is quickly becoming a red herring. I'm convinced that soon enough the thing that will distinguish the way the rich and the poor are educated is people. Kids in well-resourced schools will be taught by people. The poor will be largely taught by machines.
I'd be curious to look at TFA's data. How do their teachers stack up against traditionally certified teachers, both veterans and first/second years? I worked in a school where nearly half of the teachers came from TFA and learned a ton from them that I wish I got in my college courses. I owe them and their paradigms a lot. At the same time, many of the best left after two years and didn't grow as educators (too bad). It would be interesting to compare that data to the data you mention. Very informative, thanks for the post!
"One possibility is that great teachers are born but that good teachers can be made."
This is, I think, evidently true and isn't acknowledged nearly enough.
The difficulty arises when society (read teachers, policy makers, ed schools, parents) can't agree on what makes a good teacher. A great teacher can laugh at Barry Garelick and Greg Ashman or bow to their greatness, but teachers wanting to be good might wonder if Desmos or fuck context, teach the procedure is the better approach. Moreover, people who want to push teaching methods in one way or the other to create "good" teachers will disagree and as you know, it all goes round and round.
I've always thought that improving as a teacher is a lot like improving as a writer, a continuous process of trial and error, learning from error, coming up with a purposeful approach to improvement and trying again. The most important trait I've observed in myself and others around progressing in one's teaching, more than smarts, knowledge of teaching techniques, or anything else is embracing that mindset of learning from "failure" where failure means falling short of some meaningful and (reasonably lofty) goals one sets for oneself. To me, all those metrics you list that don't seem to tell us much simply don't relate to the actual work of teaching.
The people looking for the "cheat code" are either not aware of the "mess" that is inherent in the trial and error of teaching, or would like to engineer that mess away, even though I would argue the mess is essential for both teachers and students.
Stephen King "On Writing" feels relevant here -
"It is possible for a competent writer to become a good writer, but impossible for a bad writer to become competent or for a good writer to become great."
I agree, John. The ability to self-reflect on our shortcomings is how good teachers get made. That is not an endorsement for throwing teachers into the deep end with no support and hoping they swim (because they won't; at best, they'll tread water until they exhaust themselves). Instead, schools can normalize procedures around instructional coaches who are experts at asking the right questions that get teachers to reflect rather than deflect. I had three instructional guides my first year of teaching: a behavior management coach, a literacy coach, and my principal (instructional coach). This is not a hack or a cheat code, it's just good structural support. Without their guidance, ability to ask questions, offers of support, willingness to teach model lessons, and resource lists, I would have quit. I grew to be the teacher I am because of the slow process of failure and improvement that you mention. Like any good writer, teachers must listen to feedback... assumign that feedback is coming from someone who genuinely wants you to improve, not be discouraged. Thanks for the comment, John.
"Reflect not deflect" is a helpful way of thinking about it. I learned to teach in higher ed without any formal support, just sort of glomming on to mentors here and there and a lot of trial and error, but I did have the benefit of the freedom to experiment because no one was paying attention to my teaching. Being allowed to do all that experimenting kept me in the work long after it clearly made no sense economically to keep teaching. I had to build a writing career to support my teaching habit. I only teach occasionally now and reading your comment makes me miss it.
I wonder if we need more paths to the teaching profession. I was struck by…
The teachers working under these licenses also helped diversify the state’s classrooms, as they were about twice as likely as other beginning educators to be Black, Hispanic or Asian.
The path through the state towards a credential can be an expensive one. Is the EdTPA costing us some diversity? Should there be a less expensive and arduous path that would allow local districts to develop and certify a teacher? Would this lead to a staff of more home grown teachers with more investment in the community? Would that help?
Very striking, yeah. You might find this linked doc interesting, Paul.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567813.pdf
The authors propose some low risk & lightweight tracks into teaching in lieu of the weight of a credential program. A less expensive and less arduous path, like you suggest.
A long time ago at the Asilomar CMC conference I heard Lola May speak. “Great teachers aren’t born, they’re made by the teacher next door.” Tech, at a relative max, has given me more “teachers next door”, for which I am forever thankful. I’m hopeful AI can help with this too.
I was cheer'reading this whole post, Dan. Once again, thank for taking the time to write and share. As someone who works with about 100 teachers a month - recursively - this work is the hard work. The hard work worth doing.
What has really resonated me here is Dan's point that "you can’t cheat code your way around teachers. If your work doesn’t account for teachers—the way they work, the way they move through a class, the tools they use, the way they think about their students, their aspirations for their work, the outcomes for which they’re accountable, the vastness of their experiences prior to teaching—you will make a meaningful impact on student learning only by accident."
I like what the state of Maryland is doing regarding teacher education and preparation. Through the Blueprint for Maryland's Future (https://blueprint.marylandpublicschools.org/) they've agreed to invest billions in overhauling the public-education system. One of the areas they've targeted is teacher education and retention. Regarding education, they're going to ensure new teachers have more of an apprenticeship their first year, rather than throwing them into the fire feet first.
Just as I passionately believe great mathematicians aren't born great, but rather work hard to be great, I believe great teachers are made. To be fair, "making" a great teacher is a combination of structural support (e.g., instructional coaches, mentors, etc.) as well as cultivating a mindset about teaching itself (e.g., engaging in self reflection, embracing a continuous process of trial and error, etc.).
It's a shame they didn't take into account National Board Certified teachers, who have to demonstrate effectiveness in a variety of ways - including classroom videos. What could we learn from their process to train teachers from the outset? Does National Board actually guarantee a high quality teacher?
The digital divide is quickly becoming a red herring. I'm convinced that soon enough the thing that will distinguish the way the rich and the poor are educated is people. Kids in well-resourced schools will be taught by people. The poor will be largely taught by machines.
I'd be curious to look at TFA's data. How do their teachers stack up against traditionally certified teachers, both veterans and first/second years? I worked in a school where nearly half of the teachers came from TFA and learned a ton from them that I wish I got in my college courses. I owe them and their paradigms a lot. At the same time, many of the best left after two years and didn't grow as educators (too bad). It would be interesting to compare that data to the data you mention. Very informative, thanks for the post!
"One possibility is that great teachers are born but that good teachers can be made."
This is, I think, evidently true and isn't acknowledged nearly enough.
The difficulty arises when society (read teachers, policy makers, ed schools, parents) can't agree on what makes a good teacher. A great teacher can laugh at Barry Garelick and Greg Ashman or bow to their greatness, but teachers wanting to be good might wonder if Desmos or fuck context, teach the procedure is the better approach. Moreover, people who want to push teaching methods in one way or the other to create "good" teachers will disagree and as you know, it all goes round and round.