Education

Although I'm still reading through the latest report on teacher education programs in the U.S.,so far it's been old news and questionable research. Criticisms of teacher prep are not new; in fact, most of the ones leveled in this new (?) report have been highlighted before, most notably by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships commissioned by the major teacher education accrediting body, NCATE (now CAEP) a few years ago.

From Project Muse : Eight distinguished scholarly presses, including the recently-revived University of Missouri Press and the Chinese University Press, are confirmed to join the University Press Content Consortium (UPCC) and make their books available digitally on the Project MUSE platform in 2014. Cornell University Press, Northern Illinois University Press, Ohio State [...]

I was on a search committee in my department this past fall. I am happy to say that we hired a wonderful candidate who had impressed everyone during the visit. There were several levels of decision before we narrowed the list down to three to interview; many people offered their opinion on everything from the fundability of research projects to pedigree, publication count, etc. After all was said and done, it turns out that nearly all the people who made the first cut (i.e. top 20 or so) had received their PhDs in either 2009 or 2010. The same holds for 100% of the finalists.Which brings me to the topic of today's post. I was recently asked to provide external evaluation of several applicants for an entry level faculty position at another institution. I was provided with information on a small set of finalists, among whom all but one had received a PhD in the past five years. (In my field, a postoc appointment is commonly 2-3 years). The one candidate was the exception had received a PhD over a decade ago, in fact the same year when I started my PhD. Again, this is an entry-level faculty position.This is a question to which I really don't know the answer: how do you compare the records of people who are very far apart in career stage but are applying for the same type of (entry-level) position? Especially if the more senior candidate has been doing science all along, so they have a considerably longer publication list? For instance, what if that candidate has the publication record comparable to an associate or full professor, but you cannot hire them at that level and the candidate is willing to start at the entry level?Let's face it: people unconsciously discriminate based on all sorts or criteria, including age. Being aware of bias, we can try really hard to correct for it. Let us assume we want to give a really objective evaluation of a set of candidates with quite a spread in terms of experience, and we really don't want the judgement to be clouded by potential bias over the candidates' age, or any other bias that could be lurking under the guise of age. So what's the best way to do it?1) If we look at the paper count, the more senior candidate willing to take an entry position would win. But this could potentially hold even for mediocre senior candidates versus excellent junior candidates. A direct comparison of the number of publications in a no-go, just as it is would be for most (successful) assistant professors versus (successful) full professors. The same holds for all cumulative metrics, like the h-index. People who have been in science longer have higher citation indices.2) Do you instead compare average output per unit time? The senior candidate may be at a disadvantage here, especially if it is a woman, who has perhaps had some downtime on account of family. We need to be aware that a year or two of lower productivity does not mean anything in the grand scheme of one's career, and that a junior candidate may have similar dips in productivity down the line anyway, when life catches up with them.3) Do you instead compare output per unit time at a given number of years post PhD? For instance, compare them at 2 years or 5 years post PhD? Even this is not perfect, as I can say we nearly interviewed a candidate who was just getting ready to graduate because his PhD record was absolutely unbelievable (we ended up not interviewing because we realized we simply lacked too many facilities that he would need to be successful). Also, people work on different types of projects, some are shorter-, some longer-term.4) There are letters of recommendation, which you may or may not have when you are making a given evaluation. There are research and teaching statements, which carry a lot of weight. How exciting and potentially transformative someone's future vision is, as communicated through the research statement, is very, very important. Even so, a candidate with more experience is likely (hopefully?) better at communicating

Education Secretary Arne Duncan bowed to (some) reason Tuesday and announced that he was giving states some flexibility in regard to when they had to use student scores from new Common Core-aligned standardized tests to evaluate teachers. Duncan said that … Continue reading →

Today, Secretary Duncan announced that ED is offering states flexibility around high stakes personnel decisions and double testing—a decision greatly influenced by educators’ voices. His decision addresses two areas. First, states will be able to ask for an extra year beyond current plans for teacher evaluation systems before data from new assessments impacts personnel decisions for educators. Second, during next school year (2013-2014), some schools will field test new assessments. ED will work with states to avoid double-testing students. Over-testing is a very real concern, and schools participating in the field test will receive the option to administer only one assessment in 2013-2014 to any given student— either the current statewide assessment or the field test. Dan Brown, a Teaching Ambassador Fellow (TAF), interviewed Secretary Duncan on his decision. Click here for an alternate version of the video with an accessible player. Secretary Duncan’s decision doesn’t come out of the blue. In fact, it was significantly influenced by discussions with teachers around the country. As full-time TAFs, teachers on temporary release from our schools to bring teacher perspective to federal policy-makers, we were literally at the table— and consistently asked to provide educator voice to the high level discussions being held. In the interest of hearing and elevating teachers’ voices, the 12 members of our TAF team (six full-time Fellows and six part-time Classroom Fellows) traveled to 34 states over the past year and held discussions with well over 4,000 teachers. Teachers, who are the actual implementers for these reforms, are uniquely positioned to offer candid, authentic advice about how to make these urgently needed reforms work best for students. As Arne describes in the video, we heard from teachers over and over about the unprecedented level of change and reform going on throughout the country as states transition to new standards, new assessments, and new teacher evaluation systems. Overwhelmingly, we heard support from teachers around the country for raising standards that will ensure students can compete in the global economy. At the same time however, we also heard widespread concern that teachers need time, models, and quality professional development to teach to the new standards effectively. In states where there is a strong commitment to collaboration, teachers feel more empowered, supported, and positive about the current state of reform efforts. From our vantage point, we believe that the Department and Secretary Duncan are committed to learning from educators. This offer of flexibility reflects the Department’s responsiveness to teachers’ voice. Whether they request the flexibility or note, we hope that we all hear the needs expressed by teachers everywhere to make this significant transition sustainably, with room and support for innovation and cycles of professional learning. Cynthia Apalinski, Jennifer Bado-Aleman, Dan Brown, Kareen Borders, Lisa Clarke, and Marciano Gutierrez are the 2012-2013 Full-Time Teaching Ambassador Fellows at the U.S. Department of Education.

Today began with another wonderfully named pak-fap - the acronym creator is either never on the internet or has a very VERY clean mind - at which there was a lot of belligerence and aggression, though I was a Good Junior Member and sat quietly in my corner trying to look like I totally agreed with the person who was mostly the target of the aggression. Then the academic women in the department (post-docs, teaching fellows, TT-types) went out for lunch, which was fun (and included an official Griping Session) and tasty, but also a lot of people.Although it was good to talk about the panel with Senior Woman (the most senior female person at the moment, who isn't actually a prof or doing an admin-job-with-status, which says something about the gender-state of our department. Especially when I'm the next-most senior! scary!) who has done a lot of these. She was able to top some of my 'aargh' moments from this morning - the panel she sat on to help approve a new degree programme, which requires detailed supporting letters from independent experienced academics, where there was ONE supporting letter from a person who WAS TOO an academic, according to the proposers, but who was still working on their PhD and worked for an entirely non-academic organisation (and no, this was not in a field where it's normal for faculty members to have other terminal degrees...). I mean, typos I understand, confusion about regulations I relate to, but proposing a degree programme without understanding what the approvals process means by 'an experienced academic'??So then instead of going back to the office I came home, ostensibly to work, but actually I napped. Again. oops!

Toiling away in federal education databases is rarely very exciting, but every once in a while, you are rewarded with a discovery. My latest reward was finding that IPEDS is now collecting data on capital appropriations—defined as “amounts provided by government appropriations intended primarily for acquisition or construction of capital assets for the institution.” When a state legislature gives a college money to build a new science building, this is where we will find it. This may not seem like a big deal, but the capital budget of universities has long been the black hole of college financing. With virtually no reliable and comparable data available, very little is known about the capital budget. One basic question is how much is spent. Among public colleges, total capital appropriations in 2010-11 were around $5.7 billion. By way of comparison, non-capital state appropriations—the money used to pay professors, keep the lights on, etc.—were around $63.3 billion. The chart below shows state appropriations per student and capital appropriations per student to give a better sense of their relative sizes (note some schools fall outside the plotted range). We can see that capital appropriations are relatively small compared to regular appropriations.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy The TODAY show scans the "future" of education, featuring Knewtown, Kahn Academy, and others -- without any apparent skepticism about the costs or limitations.

Debt and educational equity. The already crushing student debt will rise on July 1 as federal interest rates on students loans are set to double. Randy Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, urges Congress to act quickly to pass the Student Loan Affordability Act.   More flexibility on flexibility waivers. The U.S. Department of Education will allow some states that have gotten waivers from pieces of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to postpone using student growth on state tests as a factor in personnel decisions for up to one additional year.  (Education Week) The humanities Ph.D. A leisure pursuit for those with outside means of financial support? Or the key to professional satisfaction, wherever they end up being employed (and it’s probably not in academia)? The debate continues.  (Inside Higher Ed and Pacific Standard) Astronaut education.  NASA has now selected its 2013 astronaut candidate class! Anne Mishkind, ES policy intern, contributed to this report.

The U.S. Department of Education will allow some states that have gotten waivers from pieces of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to postpone using student growth on state tests as a factor in personnel decisions for up to one additional year, EdWeek has learned—until the 2016-17 school year. States would have to make their case to Duncan for the new flexibility, and the Department will approve the plans on a case-by-case basis—so no blanket waivers for everyone. In order to get the flexibility, states would have to show that they have a "robust" plan in place for making sure teachers are well-versed in new standards and assessments. Some background: In order to get flexibility from the Education Department on pieces of the No Child Left Behind Act, including the much-maligned 2013-14 deadline for bringing all students to proficiency on state assessments, states had to agree to adopt rigorous standards in reading and math that prepare students for higher education and the workplace. Most states choose to do this by adopting the Common Core State Standards, which are in place in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Virginia decided to go with its own homegrown standards. As part of the waiver process, states were expected to put in place new assessments aligned to the standards. Two consortia, with a $360 million assist from the federal government, are developing tests aligned to the common core. The assessments are expected to be rolled out in the 2014-15 school year. In the meantime, some states are using their own common-core aligned tests. And according to their waiver plans, states are supposed to start using student growth on those assessments to make personnel decisions about teachers, like whether they get extra pay, a promotion—or get to keep their jobs. Teacher evaluation has been the trickiest piece of waiver implementation so far. Right now, states have a range of timelines for using the assessments to inform personnel decisions. Delaware, Florida, and Rhode Island, for instance, planned to get started in the 2012-13 school year, while Louisiana, Indiana, Washington and Tennessee aimed to get going by 2013-14. Connecticut, D.C., Georgia, and others had agreed to begin in 2014-15. And other states, including Arkansas, and Colorado, were shooting for the 2015-16 school year. The new flexibility would only apply to states whose waiver requests were approved before the summer of 2012—that's Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Who is not eligible? States whose waivers were just approved: Alaska, Hawaii and West Virginia. And that's not all; the department is offering states flexibility to avoid "double-testing" of students, which is going to happen as states begin to test-drive the new common core aligned assessments. Under the new flexibility, any state could make a request to the Department of Education to use just one test in schools—either a field test designed to help work out the kinks in the new assessment system, or the regular state assessment. State officials pointed out that offering both tests would eat up a lot of valuable instructional time and had asked for some additional leeway, as reported in this fantastic (and prescient) story by my colleagues Michele McNeil and Catherine Gewertz. The decision to offer flexibility didn't come out of nowhere. Groups representing educators have expressed concerns that the department may be prodding states to move way too fast on teacher evaluation and that the added pressure on educators could hinder implementation of the common core. The Council of Chief State School O