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.
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?
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.
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?
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.